wnd--2020-12-02--Rand Paul calls on Fauci to apologize to schoolchildren

Sen. Rand Paul , R-Ky. , is calling on Dr. Anthony Fauci to apologize to every school child in America and their parents for not pressing for schools to reopen long before the fall term , when the science already was clear that COVID-19 has little impact on children .
Paul said in an interview Tuesday that the error , leading to many schools across the nation canceling in-person teaching , illustrates the problem with basing public policy on one person or on Washington .
`` When one person is so wrong , as Dr. Fauci has been , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children , '' he told Fox News ' Sandra Smith .
`` The evidence has been clear for six months -- evidence from entire countries in Europe and in Asia -- that schools do not lead to a surge , that kids are poor transmitters of this , '' the senator continued .
TRENDING : 6 reasons I 'm not giving up on Trump '' Country-wide studies were showing this six months ago , and he would n't listen , '' said Paul of the White House coronavirus adviser .
`` I tried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now he sort of flippantly says , Oh , we 're going to let kids go to school , we 're just going to close the bars . ''
Paul said the science behind closing the bars also should be examined .
`` Right now we have more lockdowns and more mandates than we 've ever had , and yet the incidents of COVID is rising exponentially , '' he said .
`` It may argue that none of the things we are doing are are working , and we at least should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Rand Paul : At a Senate hearing in June , Paul chastised Fauci for equivocating on the issue of sending children back to school .
On Sunday , three months into the school year , Fauci essentially admitted that Paul was right .
`` If you look at the data , the spread among children and from children is not very big at all , not like one would have suspected , '' Fauci told ABC 's `` This Week . ''
`` So let 's try to get the kids back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maintain and push the kind of community spread we are trying to avoid . ''
At the June Senate hearing , Paul argued the science indicates it 's safe to return to school , and the consequences otherwise are enormous .
`` If we keep kids out of school for another year , what 's going to happen is the poor and underprivileged kids who don ’ t have a parent that ’ s able to teach them at home are not going to learn for a full year , '' Paul argued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a huge mistake if we don ’ t open the schools in the fall .
`` Dr. Fauci , every day we seem to hear from you things we ca n't do , '' Paul said .
`` But when you 're asked , 'Can we go back to school , ' I do n't hear much certitude at all .
'Well , maybe . '
'It depends . '
Guess what ?
It ’ s rare for kids to transmit this .
I do n't hear that coming from you .
All @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do this , we can ’ t do that , we can ’ t play baseball , ' '' Paul in the June hearing .
President Trump , meanwhile , pushed back on the insistence of Democrats , the media and teacher 's unions to keep schools closed .
`` We have to open our schools .
Open our schools .
Stop this nonsense , '' Trump said Sept. 10 .
`` It 's only political nonsense .
They do n't want to open because they think it will help them on November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them on November 3rd . ''
See Fauci 's remarks Sunday on `` This Week '' :

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is calling on Dr. Anthony Fauci to apologize to every school child in America and their parents for not pressing for schools to reopen long before the fall term, when the science already was clear that COVID-19 has little impact on children.
Paul said in an interview Tuesday that the error, leading to many schools across the nation canceling in-person teaching, illustrates the problem with basing public policy on one person or on Washington.
"When one person is so wrong, as Dr. Fauci has been, it has grave effects for millions of school children," he told Fox News' Sandra Smith.
"The evidence has been clear for six months -- evidence from entire countries in Europe and in Asia -- that schools do not lead to a surge, that kids are poor transmitters of this," the senator continued.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
"Country-wide studies were showing this six months ago, and he wouldn't listen," said Paul of the White House coronavirus adviser. "I tried to convince him of this. And now he sort of flippantly says, Oh, we're going to let kids go to school, we're just going to close the bars."
Paul said the science behind closing the bars also should be examined.
"Right now we have more lockdowns and more mandates than we've ever had, and yet the incidents of COVID is rising exponentially," he said. "It may argue that none of the things we are doing are are working, and we at least should be honest."
See the interview with Rand Paul:
At a Senate hearing in June, Paul chastised Fauci for equivocating on the issue of sending children back to school.
On Sunday, three months into the school year, Fauci essentially admitted that Paul was right.
"If you look at the data, the spread among children and from children is not very big at all, not like one would have suspected," Fauci told ABC's "This Week." "So let's try to get the kids back and try to mitigate the things that maintain and push the kind of community spread we are trying to avoid."
At the June Senate hearing, Paul argued the science indicates it's safe to return to school, and the consequences otherwise are enormous.
"If we keep kids out of school for another year, what's going to happen is the poor and underprivileged kids who don’t have a parent that’s able to teach them at home are not going to learn for a full year," Paul argued. "I think it’s a huge mistake if we don’t open the schools in the fall.
If you have just 2 minutes to spare... watch this right now. Rand Paul takes it to Dr. Fauci. Get kids back to school. #COVID19 pic.twitter.com/enNz4DVoHd — Justin Hart (@justin_hart) June 30, 2020
"Dr. Fauci, every day we seem to hear from you things we can't do," Paul said. "But when you're asked, 'Can we go back to school,' I don't hear much certitude at all. 'Well, maybe.' 'It depends.' Guess what? It’s rare for kids to transmit this. I don't hear that coming from you. All I hear is, 'We can't do this, we can’t do that, we can’t play baseball,'" Paul in the June hearing.
President Trump, meanwhile, pushed back on the insistence of Democrats, the media and teacher's unions to keep schools closed.
"We have to open our schools. Open our schools. Stop this nonsense," Trump said Sept. 10. "It's only political nonsense. They don't want to open because they think it will help them on November 3rd. I think it will hurt them on November 3rd."
See Fauci's remarks Sunday on "This Week":


wnd--2020-12-02--Report: Group recently led by Rafael Warnock under investigation

Georgia officials revealed this week that 250 vote-fraud investigations are underway ahead of the Jan. 5 runoff elections for two U.S. Senate seats .
One probe , the Washington Free Beacon reports , is targeting a group that was led until recently by one of the Democratic Senate candidates .
Raphel Warnock was CEO of the New Georgia Project until February .
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger identified the group as one of four voter sign-up groups `` being probed '' for improper registration activities .
The organization allegedly sent ballot applications to non-residents of the state , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a felony .
TRENDING : 6 reasons I 'm not giving up on Trump Democrats have praised Raffensperger , a Republican , for pushing back against President Trump 's allegations of election fraud in Georgia .
There also were previous allegations of vote fraud against the group , a fact that Warnock described as `` alarmist . ''
Raffensperger has expressed concern about `` third-party groups working to register people in other states to vote here in Georgia . ''
He explained that New Georgia Project `` sent voter registration applications to New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violation of state law .
`` Voting in Georgia when you are not a resident of Georgia is a felony .
These third-party groups have a responsibility to not encourage illegal voting .
If they do so , they will be held responsible , '' he said .
The Free Beacon noted Warnock has been identified as the New Georgia Project 's chairman and spokesman in media reports .
He has said he organized voter mobilization drives for the group , including a push to register 80,000 new minority voters in 2014 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ request for comment about the ongoing investigation .
The group calls itself a `` nonpartisan effort to register and civically engage Georgians . ''
It was founded by failed Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams .
It previously was targeted in a vote fraud investigation by the state in 2014 , when contractors working for the group were accused of forging voter registration applications , the report said .
No charges were brought , however .
Both Senate races have national implications , because Republicans are hanging on to a 50-48 majority .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ becomes president , Kamala Harris , as vice president , would be the tie-breaker

Georgia officials revealed this week that 250 vote-fraud investigations are underway ahead of the Jan. 5 runoff elections for two U.S. Senate seats.
One probe, the Washington Free Beacon reports, is targeting a group that was led until recently by one of the Democratic Senate candidates.
Raphel Warnock was CEO of the New Georgia Project until February.
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger identified the group as one of four voter sign-up groups "being probed" for improper registration activities. The organization allegedly sent ballot applications to non-residents of the state, and if they voted, it could constitute a felony.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Democrats have praised Raffensperger, a Republican, for pushing back against President Trump's allegations of election fraud in Georgia.
There also were previous allegations of vote fraud against the group, a fact that Warnock described as "alarmist."
Raffensperger has expressed concern about "third-party groups working to register people in other states to vote here in Georgia."
He explained that New Georgia Project "sent voter registration applications to New York City," in a potential violation of state law.
"Voting in Georgia when you are not a resident of Georgia is a felony. These third-party groups have a responsibility to not encourage illegal voting. If they do so, they will be held responsible," he said.
The Free Beacon noted Warnock has been identified as the New Georgia Project's chairman and spokesman in media reports. He has said he organized voter mobilization drives for the group, including a push to register 80,000 new minority voters in 2014.
His campaign did not respond to a request for comment about the ongoing investigation.
The group calls itself a "nonpartisan effort to register and civically engage Georgians." It was founded by failed Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams.
It previously was targeted in a vote fraud investigation by the state in 2014, when contractors working for the group were accused of forging voter registration applications, the report said.
No charges were brought, however.
Both Senate races have national implications, because Republicans are hanging on to a 50-48 majority.
If Democrats win both races and Joe Biden becomes president, Kamala Harris, as vice president, would be the tie-breaker


wnd--2020-12-02--Scientists demand retraction of study backing top COVID-19 test

An external peer review concludes a major paper supporting the most common test for COVID-19 has 10 `` serious flaws . ''
The review by researchers from the International Consortium of Scientists in Life Sciences found that the widely used PCR tests -- short for Polymerase chain reaction -- - result in many false positives when used to detect the coronavirus .
The researchers are requesting a retraction letter from the authors of the January study published by Eurosurveillance , including German scientists Dr. Christian Dorsten and Dr. Victor Corman .
`` This paper will show numerous serious flaws in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which has led to worldwide misdiagnosis of infections attributed to SARS-CoV-2 and associated with the disease COVID-19 , '' the researchers write in their peer review .
TRENDING : 6 reasons I 'm not giving up on Trump '' We are confronted with stringent lockdowns which have destroyed many people ’ s lives and livelihoods , limited access to education and these imposed restrictions by governments around the world are a direct attack on people 's basic rights and their personal freedoms , resulting in collateral damage for entire economies on a global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York Times examined PCR testing data in three states and found `` up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus . ''
Experts who spoke to the Times said they could n't understand why such cases were classified as infections .
`` Some of the nation ’ s leading public health experts are raising a new concern in the endless debate over coronavirus testing in the United States : The standard tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spike in cases in recent weeks , coinciding with an increase in testing , has led to new , stringent lockdown orders in California , New York , Oregon , Washington and other states , mostly led by Democratic governors .
Many businesses devastated by the first round of lockdowns in the spring say they wo n't survive the second round .
A briefing published by four British scientists PCR testing is `` distorting policy and creating the illusion that we are in a serious pandemic when in fact we are not .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and technical challenges to PCR mass-testing are growing across Europe , including in the U.K. '' A false positive pseudo-epidemic is a well described phenomenon in the medical literature which results in an exponential rise in diagnosed cases and deaths but no excess deaths , '' the researchers write .

An external peer review concludes a major paper supporting the most common test for COVID-19 has 10 "serious flaws."
The review by researchers from the International Consortium of Scientists in Life Sciences found that the widely used PCR tests -- short for Polymerase chain reaction --- result in many false positives when used to detect the coronavirus.
The researchers are requesting a retraction letter from the authors of the January study published by Eurosurveillance, including German scientists Dr. Christian Dorsten and Dr. Victor Corman.
"This paper will show numerous serious flaws in the Corman-Drosten paper, the significance of which has led to worldwide misdiagnosis of infections attributed to SARS-CoV-2 and associated with the disease COVID-19," the researchers write in their peer review.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
"We are confronted with stringent lockdowns which have destroyed many people’s lives and livelihoods, limited access to education and these imposed restrictions by governments around the world are a direct attack on people's basic rights and their personal freedoms, resulting in collateral damage for entire economies on a global scale."
In August, the New York Times examined PCR testing data in three states and found "up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus."
Experts who spoke to the Times said they couldn't understand why such cases were classified as infections.
"Some of the nation’s leading public health experts are raising a new concern in the endless debate over coronavirus testing in the United States: The standard tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus," the Times said.
The spike in cases in recent weeks, coinciding with an increase in testing, has led to new, stringent lockdown orders in California, New York, Oregon, Washington and other states, mostly led by Democratic governors.
Many businesses devastated by the first round of lockdowns in the spring say they won't survive the second round.
A briefing published by four British scientists PCR testing is "distorting policy and creating the illusion that we are in a serious pandemic when in fact we are not."
The paper notes that legal cases and technical challenges to PCR mass-testing are growing across Europe, including in the U.K.
"A false positive pseudo-epidemic is a well described phenomenon in the medical literature which results in an exponential rise in diagnosed cases and deaths but no excess deaths," the researchers write.


wnd--2020-12-02--Mayor in L.A. County declares not wearing a mask in public an 'act of domestic terrorism': Report

A Los Angeles County public official reportedly believes that not wearing a mask should be considered domestic terrorism , and critics are fuming at the exaggeration .
Lancaster , California , Mayor Rex Parris expressed his anger about rising coronavirus cases in Los Angeles County in recent weeks , and suggested that those who do not comply with the rules should be arrested , according to a Los Angeles Daily News report .
`` If it were up to me , anybody not wearing a mask when they are out in public would be arrested ... That 's an act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like one , '' Parris said .
It is understandable that Parris , who has likely been dealing with pandemic related matters for months is frustrated at those who are not wearing masks , especially being an official in Los Angeles County .
After all , mask-wearing is the latest trend , and not wearing one is now considered a fashion faux-pas and a crime against humanity .
TRENDING : 6 reasons I 'm not giving up on Trump But to equate non-compliance to domestic terrorism is unreasonable , especially when domestic terrorism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Although many people get annoyed at those who do not take precautions and view them as inconsiderate , most would not go as far to say they are in the category of violent political extremists .
Of course , Parris ' attitude should be no surprise to anyone who lives in the area and has noticed the increased restrictions in recent weeks .
In addition to a new `` Safer at Home '' order this week , Los Angeles also became the only county in California so far that has placed a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of California currently allows counties even in the most restrictive purple tier to have outdoor dining , as there is little evidence to show that it increases infection rates .
Los Angeles County Supervisor Kathryn Barger , the only Republican on county 's board of supervisors , slammed the ban on outdoor dining as heavily damaging to small businesses .
`` The County 's orders are significantly more restrictive than the State ’ s .
We asked businesses to invest substantial resources to ensure safety , only to force them to close .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ changes and deserve better , '' Barger tweeted last week .
Barger is one of the few government officials in Los Angeles that has been willing to speak out against the lack of logic behind harming businesses even further , especially when they are not responsible for the spread of the virus .
The LA Public Health Department even admitted at the end of October that gatherings were mainly what positive cases trace back to , with restaurants not even coming close , Reason reported .
Public officials in Los Angeles are probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ citizens with criminal charges fit for terrorists and putting people 's livelihoods in danger are far cries from the answer .
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal .

A Los Angeles County public official reportedly believes that not wearing a mask should be considered domestic terrorism, and critics are fuming at the exaggeration.
Lancaster, California, Mayor Rex Parris expressed his anger about rising coronavirus cases in Los Angeles County in recent weeks, and suggested that those who do not comply with the rules should be arrested, according to a Los Angeles Daily News report.
"If it were up to me, anybody not wearing a mask when they are out in public would be arrested ... That's an act of domestic terrorism and should be treated like one," Parris said.
It is understandable that Parris, who has likely been dealing with pandemic related matters for months is frustrated at those who are not wearing masks, especially being an official in Los Angeles County. After all, mask-wearing is the latest trend, and not wearing one is now considered a fashion faux-pas and a crime against humanity.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
But to equate non-compliance to domestic terrorism is unreasonable, especially when domestic terrorism charges are known for being incredibly harsh.
Although many people get annoyed at those who do not take precautions and view them as inconsiderate, most would not go as far to say they are in the category of violent political extremists.
Of course, Parris' attitude should be no surprise to anyone who lives in the area and has noticed the increased restrictions in recent weeks.
In addition to a new "Safer at Home" order this week, Los Angeles also became the only county in California so far that has placed a ban on outdoor dining.
Public Health to Add Additional Safety Modifications to Health Officer Order - Targeted Safer at Home Order Comes After 5-Day Average of New Cases is 4,751. View https://t.co/CfWbZdkIZH pic.twitter.com/RAZRpJUcxK — LA Public Health (@lapublichealth) November 27, 2020
The state of California currently allows counties even in the most restrictive purple tier to have outdoor dining, as there is little evidence to show that it increases infection rates.
Los Angeles County Supervisor Kathryn Barger, the only Republican on county's board of supervisors, slammed the ban on outdoor dining as heavily damaging to small businesses.
"The County's orders are significantly more restrictive than the State’s. We asked businesses to invest substantial resources to ensure safety, only to force them to close. Small businesses cannot withstand these constant changes and deserve better," Barger tweeted last week.
The County's orders are significantly more restrictive than the State’s. We asked businesses to invest substantial resources to ensure safety, only to force them to close. Small businesses cannot withstand these constant changes and deserve better. (3) — Supervisor Kathryn Barger (@kathrynbarger) November 24, 2020
Barger is one of the few government officials in Los Angeles that has been willing to speak out against the lack of logic behind harming businesses even further, especially when they are not responsible for the spread of the virus.
The LA Public Health Department even admitted at the end of October that gatherings were mainly what positive cases trace back to, with restaurants not even coming close, Reason reported.
Public officials in Los Angeles are probably scrambling to find solutions, but threatening citizens with criminal charges fit for terrorists and putting people's livelihoods in danger are far cries from the answer.
Did you know that The Western Journal now publishes some content in Spanish as well as English, for international audiences? Click here to read this article on The Western Journal en Español!
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.


wnd--2020-12-02--Trump lawsuit presents video evidence of Dems' cash-for-votes scheme

A Trump campaign lawsuit in Nevada provided video evidence that Democrats are running a cash-for-votes scheme on Native American reservations , offering T-shirts , gas cards and raffle tickets in exchange for voting .
The video shows a volunteer for the Nevada Native Vote Project wearing a `` Biden-Harris '' mask and urging voters to cast a ballot for the Democratic ticket , reports the Nevada Independent .
The lawsuit contends Biden got 40,000 more votes in the scheme than did Trump in a state Biden won by about 33,000 votes .
TRENDING : 6 reasons I 'm not giving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coordinator Ethan Doig said the organization is working on a response to the complaint .
But she insisted the group merely encouraged people to vote , not to vote for a specific candidate .
`` It 's a baseless claim .
We engaged with Trump voters and Biden voters across the board , '' Doig said .
However , John Daniel Davidson , political editor for The Federalist , noted last month that Facebook pages of the project 's workers showed some wearing official Biden gear while handing out gift cards , electronics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an exchange of ballots for `` prizes . ''
`` Simply put , this is illegal .
Offering voters anything of value in exchange for their vote is a violation of federal election law , and in some cases punishable by up to two years in prison and as much as $ 10,000 in fines , '' he wrote Nov. 18 .
`` That includes raffles , free food , free T-shirts , and so on . ''
High Country News noted that in Arizona and Wisconsin , Native American turnout — which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Biden 's slim but winning margin . ''
The publication said counties overlapping the reservations of the Blackfeet Nation , Fort Belknap Tribes , the Crow Tribe and Northern Cheyenne Tribe `` went blue . ''
In Wisconsin , which went narrowly for Biden by around 20,500 votes , there are more than 90,000 in the Native American population .
Even in Trump-supporting South Dakota , the report said , tribal lands went for Biden .
The Federalist reported that the Nevada Native Vote Project was just `` one of many supposedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electioneering , all under the thin guise of GOTV campaigns . ''
`` Similar efforts in as many as a half-dozen other states , including every major battleground state , were undertaken by groups that worked hand in hand with the Joe Biden campaign to deliver votes for Democrats . ''
Danielson that while such fraud happens in each election , this time it took place `` on a mass scale , in broad daylight , sometimes with the cooperation of state officials . ''
Whether the election actually was stolen from President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there 's a bigger issue .
`` It does mean something perhaps worse : unless we fix this , Americans will never trust our elections again , '' he wrote .
Another corrupt group , he said , is Radicalize the Vote , a partnership between NCAI-funded Native Vote and an organization called Seeding Sovereignty , which describes itself as `` an Indigenous-led collective . ''
While claiming to be nonpartisan , RTV has been open about opposing President Trump , with online messages such as : `` Every Trump sign is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be seen and validated .
It should remind you how fragile and threatened colonizers feel knowing their beliefs are dying an unremarkable and pitiful death . ''
The group also posted an interview in which Rep. Deb Haaland of New Mexico promotes Joe Biden `` at length . ''
The organizations are evidence , he said , of `` a larger , highly coordinated effort to deliver Native votes for the Democratic Party and the Biden campaign .
In some cases , these efforts received indirect assistance from state lawmakers and election officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , lawmakers cooperated by passing a law allowing nearly unrestricted ballot-harvesting .
In Arizona , Danielson wrote , `` which Trump lost by three-tenths of a percentage point , Secretary of State Kate Hobbs ’ office set up special online voter registration URLs for select nonprofit groups back in May .
The stated goal was to increase voter registration , but the online registrations were heavily promoted by left-wing groups like Native Vote . ''
`` The Biden campaign also worked closely with Native Vote and Radicalize the Vote , promoting the latter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media account and often showing up to distribute campaign swag at polling precincts in cooperation with Native Vote and the Nevada Native Project , '' he said .
`` These efforts were part of a concerted outreach strategy by the Biden camp , which in July hired Clara Pratte , former chief of staff for Navajo Nation President Russell Begaye , as 'tribal engagement director ' for the campaign , '' he wrote .
Consequently , the vote in Native American communities coincided almost exactly with others that voted Democrat in Arizona .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ includes a post from Native Organizers Alliance .
Funding for that group apparently comes from Native Vote , which is part of the National Congress of American Indians .
NCAL , in turn , gets its funding from tribes , charities , corporations and the federal government , whose agencies turned over some $ 3 million to NCAI , the group acknowledged .
Danielson says the get-out-the-vote efforts were far from nonpartisan , since Native Vote and NCAI have been partnered with a group called Four Direction , which directed donations through its @ @ @ @ @ @ @

A Trump campaign lawsuit in Nevada provided video evidence that Democrats are running a cash-for-votes scheme on Native American reservations, offering T-shirts, gas cards and raffle tickets in exchange for voting.
The video shows a volunteer for the Nevada Native Vote Project wearing a "Biden-Harris" mask and urging voters to cast a ballot for the Democratic ticket, reports the Nevada Independent.
The lawsuit contends Biden got 40,000 more votes in the scheme than did Trump in a state Biden won by about 33,000 votes.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Native Vote Project strategy coordinator Ethan Doig said the organization is working on a response to the complaint. But she insisted the group merely encouraged people to vote, not to vote for a specific candidate.
"It's a baseless claim. We engaged with Trump voters and Biden voters across the board," Doig said.
However, John Daniel Davidson, political editor for The Federalist, noted last month that Facebook pages of the project's workers showed some wearing official Biden gear while handing out gift cards, electronics, clothing and other items, documenting an exchange of ballots for "prizes."
"Simply put, this is illegal. Offering voters anything of value in exchange for their vote is a violation of federal election law, and in some cases punishable by up to two years in prison and as much as $10,000 in fines," he wrote Nov. 18. "That includes raffles, free food, free T-shirts, and so on."
High Country News noted that in Arizona and Wisconsin, Native American turnout — which often leans liberal — made the difference in Biden's slim but winning margin."
The publication said counties overlapping the reservations of the Blackfeet Nation, Fort Belknap Tribes, the Crow Tribe and Northern Cheyenne Tribe "went blue."
In Wisconsin, which went narrowly for Biden by around 20,500 votes, there are more than 90,000 in the Native American population.
Even in Trump-supporting South Dakota, the report said, tribal lands went for Biden.
The Federalist reported that the Nevada Native Vote Project was just "one of many supposedly nonpartisan organizations engaged in vote-bribing and illegal electioneering, all under the thin guise of GOTV campaigns."
"Similar efforts in as many as a half-dozen other states, including every major battleground state, were undertaken by groups that worked hand in hand with the Joe Biden campaign to deliver votes for Democrats."
Danielson that while such fraud happens in each election, this time it took place "on a mass scale, in broad daylight, sometimes with the cooperation of state officials."
Whether the election actually was stolen from President Trump or not, he said, there's a bigger issue.
"It does mean something perhaps worse: unless we fix this, Americans will never trust our elections again," he wrote.
Another corrupt group, he said, is Radicalize the Vote, a partnership between NCAI-funded Native Vote and an organization called Seeding Sovereignty, which describes itself as "an Indigenous-led collective."
While claiming to be nonpartisan, RTV has been open about opposing President Trump, with online messages such as: "Every Trump sign is a desperate plea for toxic white supremacy to be seen and validated. It should remind you how fragile and threatened colonizers feel knowing their beliefs are dying an unremarkable and pitiful death."
The group also posted an interview in which Rep. Deb Haaland of New Mexico promotes Joe Biden "at length."
The organizations are evidence, he said, of "a larger, highly coordinated effort to deliver Native votes for the Democratic Party and the Biden campaign. In some cases, these efforts received indirect assistance from state lawmakers and election officials."
In Nevada, he said, lawmakers cooperated by passing a law allowing nearly unrestricted ballot-harvesting. In Arizona, Danielson wrote, "which Trump lost by three-tenths of a percentage point, Secretary of State Kate Hobbs’ office set up special online voter registration URLs for select nonprofit groups back in May. The stated goal was to increase voter registration, but the online registrations were heavily promoted by left-wing groups like Native Vote."
"The Biden campaign also worked closely with Native Vote and Radicalize the Vote, promoting the latter through its 'Natives for Biden' social media account and often showing up to distribute campaign swag at polling precincts in cooperation with Native Vote and the Nevada Native Project," he said.
"These efforts were part of a concerted outreach strategy by the Biden camp, which in July hired Clara Pratte, former chief of staff for Navajo Nation President Russell Begaye, as 'tribal engagement director' for the campaign," he wrote.
Consequently, the vote in Native American communities coincided almost exactly with others that voted Democrat in Arizona.
The Nevada Native Vote Project Facebook page includes a post from Native Organizers Alliance. Funding for that group apparently comes from Native Vote, which is part of the National Congress of American Indians.
NCAL, in turn, gets its funding from tribes, charities, corporations and the federal government, whose agencies turned over some $3 million to NCAI, the group acknowledged.
Danielson says the get-out-the-vote efforts were far from nonpartisan, since Native Vote and NCAI have been partnered with a group called Four Direction, which directed donations through its website to a Democratic fundraising program.


wnd--2020-12-02--Postal Service contractor delivered 144,000 ballots that 'disappeared'

New startling whistleblower claims casting doubt on the 2020 election include the disappearance of up to 288,000 mail-in ballots , the improper backdating of another 100,00 and the dumping of mail promoting President Trump while mail for Joe Biden was delivered .
The Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society , which compiled the testimony , said a U.S .
Postal Service contractor claims his trailer full of from 144,000 to 288,000 completed mail-in ballots disappeared after he delivered them from New York state to a Lancaster , Pennsylvania , depot , reported the Washington Examiner .
In Wisconsin , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two separate postal workers on two separate occasions that the USPS was backdating more than 100,000 ballots received the morning of Nov. 4 so they would be counted .
In Traverse City , Michigan , Trump campaign mail was put in bins labeled `` Undeliverable Bulk Business Mail '' while the same type of mail for Joe Biden was ordered to be delivered on time .
TRENDING : 6 reasons I 'm not giving up on Trump Another whistleblower questioned the integrity of Dominion voting machines .
Gregory Stenstrom of Pennsylvania said he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ local election officials download and update counting machines in violation of election system protocol .
He said machine jump drives were comingled , rendering audits impossible without access to the machines .
The Amistad Project has mounted an independent investigation of voting and voter registration in several key battleground states .
It recently was in the news when it confirmed that the FBI had requested its findings .
`` The project has uncovered potential flaws and fraud in ballots and voter registration of several states that have certified the election counts in favor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Amistad said the `` whistleblower accounts released today , detail the failure of election officials in blue jurisdictions to maintain ballot chain of custody , allowing for the potential infusion of fraudulent ballots . ''
`` These accounts include photographs of individuals improperly accessing voting machines and a detailed eyewitness account of the breaking of sealed boxes of ballot jump drives and commingling of those jump drives with others , '' the organization said .
`` The accounts also reveal multi-state illegal efforts by USPS workers to influence the election in at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Details include potentially hundreds of thousands of completed absentee ballots being transported across three state lines , and a trailer filled with ballots disappearing in Pennsylvania . ''
Phill Kline , the director the Amistad Project , and Matt Braynard , who works with the Thomas More 's Voter Integrity Project , both confirmed that the FBI has asked for the evidence .
Braynard wrote , `` While there has been legit criticism of the actions of leaders of the agency over the last several years , I can personally attest to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fighting on the side of the Constitution and Law and Order . ''
Kline said the data `` has been used to identify hundreds of thousands of potentially fraudulent ballots in the states where we filed litigation . ''
Attorney General Bill Barr on Tuesday said no evidence of `` widespread '' election fraud had been uncovered yet , and President Trump responded immediately by pointing out that there had been no investigation into the matter .
The Amistad Project already has filed lawsuits , based on evidence of fraud , in Pennsylvania @ @ @ @ @ @ @

New startling whistleblower claims casting doubt on the 2020 election include the disappearance of up to 288,000 mail-in ballots, the improper backdating of another 100,00 and the dumping of mail promoting President Trump while mail for Joe Biden was delivered.
The Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society, which compiled the testimony, said a U.S. Postal Service contractor claims his trailer full of from 144,000 to 288,000 completed mail-in ballots disappeared after he delivered them from New York state to a Lancaster, Pennsylvania, depot, reported the Washington Examiner.
In Wisconsin, Nathan Pease said he was told by two separate postal workers on two separate occasions that the USPS was backdating more than 100,000 ballots received the morning of Nov. 4 so they would be counted.
In Traverse City, Michigan, Trump campaign mail was put in bins labeled "Undeliverable Bulk Business Mail" while the same type of mail for Joe Biden was ordered to be delivered on time.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Another whistleblower questioned the integrity of Dominion voting machines. Gregory Stenstrom of Pennsylvania said he witnessed a vendor of Dominion machines and local election officials download and update counting machines in violation of election system protocol. He said machine jump drives were comingled, rendering audits impossible without access to the machines.
The Amistad Project has mounted an independent investigation of voting and voter registration in several key battleground states.
Will exposing the voter fraud in 2020 result in Trump remaining in office? 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. 86% (164 Votes) 14% (27 Votes)
It recently was in the news when it confirmed that the FBI had requested its findings.
"The project has uncovered potential flaws and fraud in ballots and voter registration of several states that have certified the election counts in favor of Biden," the organization said.
Amistad said the "whistleblower accounts released today, detail the failure of election officials in blue jurisdictions to maintain ballot chain of custody, allowing for the potential infusion of fraudulent ballots."
"These accounts include photographs of individuals improperly accessing voting machines and a detailed eyewitness account of the breaking of sealed boxes of ballot jump drives and commingling of those jump drives with others," the organization said.
"The accounts also reveal multi-state illegal efforts by USPS workers to influence the election in at least three of six swing states. Details include potentially hundreds of thousands of completed absentee ballots being transported across three state lines, and a trailer filled with ballots disappearing in Pennsylvania."
Phill Kline, the director the Amistad Project, and Matt Braynard, who works with the Thomas More's Voter Integrity Project, both confirmed that the FBI has asked for the evidence.
After learning that hundreds of thousands of ballots are potentially fraudulent- The FBI has now requested to look at our data. See statement below: pic.twitter.com/4CZKITK5cz — Phillip Kline (@PhillDKline) November 29, 2020
Update: - The @FBI has proactively and directly requested from me the VIP findings that indicates illegal ballots. - By Tuesday, we will have delivered to the agency all of our data, including names, addresses, phone numbers, etc. — Matt Braynard (@MattBraynard) November 29, 2020
Braynard wrote, "While there has been legit criticism of the actions of leaders of the agency over the last several years, I can personally attest to the many patriots within the rank-and-file who are fighting on the side of the Constitution and Law and Order."
Kline said the data "has been used to identify hundreds of thousands of potentially fraudulent ballots in the states where we filed litigation."
Attorney General Bill Barr on Tuesday said no evidence of "widespread" election fraud had been uncovered yet, and President Trump responded immediately by pointing out that there had been no investigation into the matter.
The Amistad Project already has filed lawsuits, based on evidence of fraud, in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and Georgia.


wnd--2020-12-03--Now a bar pretends to be a church to beat COVID rules

( THE GUARDIAN ) -- Name : The Church of 400 Rabbits .
“ The Church of 400 Rabbits ” @ @ @ @ @ fu movie than a place of worship .
Wait , it gets better : this @ @ @ @ @ menu .

(THE GUARDIAN) -- Name: The Church of 400 Rabbits.
Age: Pending approval from the Nottingham’s registrar general.
Appearance: A colourful, dimly lit, Aztec-themed bar.
“The Church of 400 Rabbits” sounds more like a kung fu movie than a place of worship. Wait, it gets better: this church has a six-page tequila menu.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-12-03--'Excessive focus' on schools actually 'hurts' children

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Education . ]
As thousands of schools across the country continue operating only virtually , at best , experts warn that children who were already struggling are falling further and further behind .
A growing number of reports predict a devastating impact on disadvantaged children ’ s achievement , urging a range of ways schools can help them catch up .
The problem is even worse than it might seem , though .
Pre-COVID schools have long failed low-income children .
It ’ s unlikely post-COVID schools @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ ve long been expecting public schooling to accomplish what it can not .
As I show in a new report — “ Still left behind : How America ’ s schools keep failing our children ” — chronically low achievement and persistently wide gaps have characterized the nation ’ s public schools for decades , despite a half century of reform and dramatically increased spending .
TRENDING : Democrat New York mayor and ex-police chief arrested with cocaine after pursuit It was just 55 years ago that President Lyndon B. Johnson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proposing they serve as the means for breaking the cycle of poverty and bettering poor children ’ s lives .
“ Education is the only valid passport from poverty , ” he maintained .
“ Universal , free , public education is the very foundation upon which our entire society rests today.
” In 1965 , he signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act ( ESEA ) into law as a cornerstone of his War on Poverty legislation , describing it as “ the core of all our hopes for a Great Society.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for K–12 schooling , accompanied by an unprecedented federal role in its funding and delivery .
For the first time in US history , it called for schools to close gaps between advantaged and disadvantaged children giving every child an equal start regardless of family income and ZIP code .
Since the passage of the ESEA over a half century ago , public schools have assumed an increasingly prominent role in US domestic policy .
K–12 schooling now constitutes the nation ’ s core strategy for promoting social and economic mobility across generations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human capital development spending , especially at state and local levels .
“ The most striking aspect of educational expenditure , ” Daniel P. Moynihan observed in 1972 , “ is how large it has become.
” But per-student spending only continued to rise after 1972 — more than doubling in 31 states and more than tripling in 14 states and the District of Columbia by 2017 , in inflation-adjusted dollars .
K–12 schools are now states ’ single-largest general-fund expenditure , consuming an average of more than one-third of state general funds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more of their general funds on the public schools .
Total annual public spending on elementary and secondary education has reached over $ 700 billion nationally .
Throughout these decades of rising investment , big concerns about disadvantaged children ’ s low achievement and wide achievement gaps have persisted .
Multiple reform efforts , led by multiple US presidents , finally culminated in No Child Left Behind Act ( NCLB ) , described as “ the most sweeping education-reform legislation ” since the ESEA .
In 2002 , President George W. Bush signed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a new era ” he declared , “ As of this hour , America ’ s schools will be on a new path of reform and a new path of results.
” Yet 15 years later , those results remained terrible for the very children so long targeted by reform .
In 2017 , my report documents , large proportions of lower-income eighth graders across all states failed to demonstrate even minimum levels of competence in reading and math , after years spent in school .
In reading , the percentage of lower-income @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Basic on the widely respected National Assessment of Education Progress ( NAEP ) ranged from 27 percent in Indiana to over one half in the District of Columbia .
In math , that percentage ranged from 32 percent in Wyoming to 58 percent in Alabama and the District of Columbia .
Income-based achievement gaps also remained huge .
Gaps in the percentage of lower- and higher-income children scoring below NAEP Basic in reading ranged from a 14-point gap in Delaware , Idaho , and Montana to a 30-point gap in Alabama , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 36-point gap in the District of Columbia .
In math , that gap ranged from 17 points in Hawaii to 35 points in Ohio to 41 points in the District of Columbia .
States ’ per-student spending did not correlate closely with either achievement outcomes or gaps .
Fifty-five years after President Johnson signed the ESEA into law and almost two decades since President Bush launched the nation ’ s most far-reaching school reform initiative , the net outcomes of schools remain disturbingly poor for substantial proportions of children — falling far short @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have hoped for .
Despite decades of heavy investment aimed to improve the achievement of disadvantaged children , large percentages of lower-income children are still poorly educated and unprepared for college or the workplace .
It ’ s become increasingly clear that K–12 schooling has largely failed as our nation 's primary engine of opportunity and human capital development .
Good schools do matter to children ’ s success : They ’ re a “ vital and essential piece of the continuum of you trying to become who you should be , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But a growing body of science has established that the crucial foundation for achievement , in school and beyond , is laid in children ’ s earliest years , long before they enter kindergarten .
Families are by far the most potent influence in children ’ s lives .
And , as Terry Moe argues , powerful , vested interests in public schooling have gradually emerged , now forcefully preserving the system ’ s status quo .
As a result , the effects of even major reform — like the “ watershed event @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weak and incremental , with “ little impact on the system ’ s basic structure.
” Over a half century of history tells us the public schools can not fulfill the role we ’ ve long been wishing they would .
They couldn ’ t before COVID .
They won ’ t be able to after COVID , either .
And our excessive focus on schooling — rather than the non-school environments that most powerfully shape children ’ s lives — continues to hurt the very children we are trying so hard to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This story originally was published by Real Clear Education . ]

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Education.]
By Katharine B. Stevens
Real Clear Education
As thousands of schools across the country continue operating only virtually, at best, experts warn that children who were already struggling are falling further and further behind. A growing number of reports predict a devastating impact on disadvantaged children’s achievement, urging a range of ways schools can help them catch up.
The problem is even worse than it might seem, though. Pre-COVID schools have long failed low-income children. It’s unlikely post-COVID schools will do any better.
Indeed, we’ve long been expecting public schooling to accomplish what it cannot. As I show in a new report — “Still left behind: How America’s schools keep failing our children” — chronically low achievement and persistently wide gaps have characterized the nation’s public schools for decades, despite a half century of reform and dramatically increased spending.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
It was just 55 years ago that President Lyndon B. Johnson advocated a then-unprecedented function for schools, proposing they serve as the means for breaking the cycle of poverty and bettering poor children’s lives. “Education is the only valid passport from poverty,” he maintained. “Universal, free, public education is the very foundation upon which our entire society rests today.” In 1965, he signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) into law as a cornerstone of his War on Poverty legislation, describing it as “the core of all our hopes for a Great Society.”
The ESEA established a new purpose for K–12 schooling, accompanied by an unprecedented federal role in its funding and delivery. For the first time in US history, it called for schools to close gaps between advantaged and disadvantaged children giving every child an equal start regardless of family income and ZIP code.
Since the passage of the ESEA over a half century ago, public schools have assumed an increasingly prominent role in US domestic policy. K–12 schooling now constitutes the nation’s core strategy for promoting social and economic mobility across generations and accounts for a major proportion of human capital development spending, especially at state and local levels. “The most striking aspect of educational expenditure,” Daniel P. Moynihan observed in 1972, “is how large it has become.” But per-student spending only continued to rise after 1972 — more than doubling in 31 states and more than tripling in 14 states and the District of Columbia by 2017, in inflation-adjusted dollars. K–12 schools are now states’ single-largest general-fund expenditure, consuming an average of more than one-third of state general funds. Sixteen states spend 40 percent or more of their general funds on the public schools. Total annual public spending on elementary and secondary education has reached over $700 billion nationally.
Throughout these decades of rising investment, big concerns about disadvantaged children’s low achievement and wide achievement gaps have persisted. Multiple reform efforts, led by multiple US presidents, finally culminated in No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), described as “the most sweeping education-reform legislation” since the ESEA. In 2002, President George W. Bush signed NCLB into law. “Today begins a new era” he declared, “As of this hour, America’s schools will be on a new path of reform and a new path of results.”
Yet 15 years later, those results remained terrible for the very children so long targeted by reform. In 2017, my report documents, large proportions of lower-income eighth graders across all states failed to demonstrate even minimum levels of competence in reading and math, after years spent in school. In reading, the percentage of lower-income eighth graders scoring below the lowest level of Basic on the widely respected National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) ranged from 27 percent in Indiana to over one half in the District of Columbia. In math, that percentage ranged from 32 percent in Wyoming to 58 percent in Alabama and the District of Columbia.
Income-based achievement gaps also remained huge. Gaps in the percentage of lower- and higher-income children scoring below NAEP Basic in reading ranged from a 14-point gap in Delaware, Idaho, and Montana to a 30-point gap in Alabama, Mississippi, and Rhode Island to a 36-point gap in the District of Columbia. In math, that gap ranged from 17 points in Hawaii to 35 points in Ohio to 41 points in the District of Columbia. States’ per-student spending did not correlate closely with either achievement outcomes or gaps.
Fifty-five years after President Johnson signed the ESEA into law and almost two decades since President Bush launched the nation’s most far-reaching school reform initiative, the net outcomes of schools remain disturbingly poor for substantial proportions of children — falling far short of what a half century of reformers have hoped for. Despite decades of heavy investment aimed to improve the achievement of disadvantaged children, large percentages of lower-income children are still poorly educated and unprepared for college or the workplace. It’s become increasingly clear that K–12 schooling has largely failed as our nation's primary engine of opportunity and human capital development.
Good schools do matter to children’s success: They’re a “vital and essential piece of the continuum of you trying to become who you should be,” as Derrell Bradford put it recently. But a growing body of science has established that the crucial foundation for achievement, in school and beyond, is laid in children’s earliest years, long before they enter kindergarten. Families are by far the most potent influence in children’s lives. And, as Terry Moe argues, powerful, vested interests in public schooling have gradually emerged, now forcefully preserving the system’s status quo. As a result, the effects of even major reform — like the “watershed event” of NCLB — will inevitably be weak and incremental, with “little impact on the system’s basic structure.”
Over a half century of history tells us the public schools cannot fulfill the role we’ve long been wishing they would. They couldn’t before COVID. They won’t be able to after COVID, either. And our excessive focus on schooling — rather than the non-school environments that most powerfully shape children’s lives — continues to hurt the very children we are trying so hard to help.
[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Education.]


wnd--2020-12-03--Georgia runoffs suddenly important to 'wise architecture' of Constitution

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics . ]
If Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff win Georgia ’ s Jan. 5 Senate runoffs , Democrats will control both houses of Congress as well as the presidency .
The Republican Party , which won nearly half the national vote , will have no check on the Democrats , aside from the Senate ’ s filibuster rule .
Although that rule requires a supermajority to pass some legislation and appointments , it can be abolished by a simple majority when the new Senate convenes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ strongest arguments advanced by Republican incumbent Sens .
Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue .
They are reminding voters of the threat posed by Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer , who proudly announced : “ Now we take Georgia , then we change the world.
” That might be a winning line for national fundraising , but it ’ s more problematic for the Georgia electorate .
Not many voters there want to “ change the world , ” so Warnock and Ossoff are downplaying it .
Don ’ t expect to seek to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Augusta , or Macon .
TRENDING : Democrat New York mayor and ex-police chief arrested with cocaine after pursuit It ’ s understandable that the national debate should focus on which party will control the Senate and just how radical the Democrats ’ program will be if they do .
But just beneath the surface lurk potential constitutional issues , which have received almost no attention .
The basic problem is this : although America ’ s Founders were deeply concerned about tyranny , centralized power , and the suppression of individual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those abuses , they never envisioned the mechanisms that pose serious threats today .
One of those threats is one-party rule .
It ’ s understandable the Founders missed that since they worked before the age of entrenched and nationalized political parties .
The closest analogues were England ’ s Whigs and Tories , but they were a far cry from modern parties .
The political world envisioned by America ’ s Founders was populated not by parties but by cross-cutting “ factions , ” much like today ’ s interest groups .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ No .
10 , written by James Madison as “ Publius ” ) argued that , in a large republic like America , multiple factions would emerge , push against each other , and usually block any one from dominating .
To prevent government authority from becoming too centralized and oppressive , the Constitutional Convention divided that authority among the three branches .
Each one , they figured , would have strong institutional interests in preventing the others from encroaching .
It was a profound insight , and a remarkably successful one .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ parties , it faced a challenge that no 18th century politician could imagine .
Strong political parties unify their members across the legislative and executive branches .
The stronger their common interests as Democrats or Republicans , the weaker their institutional interests as members of House or Senate , if those interests diverge from fellow partisans in the other house or branch .
Put differently , the rise of political parties undermines the separation of powers and , with it , one of the Founders ’ barriers against consolidated , oppressive power .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevent tyranny was first proposed by the French jurist , Charles-Louis de Secondat , Baron de Montesquieu .
His 1748 book , “ De l'Esprit des Lois , ” was translated immediately into English and read attentively by the Founders .
They adopted Montesquieu ’ s idea because it helped them solve some knotty problems of constructing a new constitution .
Actually , they faced two problems that pulled them in different directions .
Those problems and their solutions bear directly on America ’ s political divide today .
The first was to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government .
The second was to prevent that government from expanding its powers and encroaching on Americans ’ liberties .
Solving the first problem is why the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia in 1787 .
The country ’ s initial constitution , the Articles of Confederation , had proved too weak to cope with foreign enemies or local rebellions .
It was little more than a loose amalgam of states , without the power to tax or organize an army or navy .
But if Madison , Benjamin Franklin , John Adams , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a more energetic central government , they also feared one that might gradually expand its powers and trample individual freedom .
Likewise , they feared “ the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority , ” which could threaten personal liberties ( Federalist No .
10 ) .
They were determined to prevent that , too .
Limiting these dangers is where the Bill of Rights , federalism , and Montesquieu ’ s separation of powers doctrine came in .
The Bill of Rights , which some states demanded before ratifying the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of individual liberties .
Neither Congress nor the president could abolish the rights it specified .
( Later , the courts ruled that state legislatures could not abrogate those rights , either . )
Besides specifying these inviolable liberties , the Bill of Rights had a second purpose , which is often overlooked .
It sought to protect citizens and states against an overly powerful central government .
That protection was codified in the 10th Amendment : “ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution , nor prohibited by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the States respectively , or to the people.
” Modern commentators ( and most federal judges ) simply ignore that amendment .
But that “ absence of delegation ” is the constitutional core of America ’ s federal structure , intended to protect against overweening central power .
The new Constitution not only sought to ensure individual rights and preserve some measure of decentralized authority , it offered yet another safeguard against tyranny .
It required the central government to distribute its sovereign powers among the legislative , executive , and judicial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those powers are partly separated , partly shared ; they are not consolidated .
The Constitution assigns a distinctive role to each branch in the first three articles .
That ’ s why Congress , for instance , is called the “ Article I branch.
” This wise architecture has survived for over two centuries , but , like a battered shoreline , it has eroded in several ways .
One is why the Georgia runoffs are so important .
Perhaps the clearest indication of how partisan interest undermines each branch ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Majority Leader Harry Reid abolished the filibuster rule for federal judges at the trial and appellate levels .
Reid ’ s stated goal , shared by fellow Senate Democrats , was to confirm President Barack Obama ’ s judicial nominations and maintain liberal control of the courts .
To achieve those short-term , partisan goals , Reid deliberately weakened the Senate ’ s long-term institutional power .
Republicans warned Reid this was a grave mistake and yet still pursued the same strategy when they retook the Senate .
Their leader , Mitch McConnell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ include Supreme Court nominations .
In both cases , the Senate ’ s veto power was diluted so the majority party could govern when it controlled both the Senate and White House .
The point here is not whether these rule changes are good or bad .
The point is that the changes reflect a partisan political environment that undermines their separation-of-powers architecture .
Nor did our nation ’ s Founders anticipate a world in which the 10th Amendment would be treated like an outdated relic , where Albany , Hartford , Austin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little sway in their own affairs compared to Washington ’ s ever-growing authority .
Part of this change occurred when the Constitution was amended so voters , not state legislatures , chose senators ( the 17th Amendment , ratified in 1913 ) .
That amendment robbed statehouses of their most powerful tool to limit Washington ’ s growing authority .
Another , equally important change occurred when the Supreme Court gave the federal government nearly unlimited authority to regulate economic activity .
Until 1937 , when Franklin Delano Roosevelt threatened to pack the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ several major New Deal programs as unconstitutional .
After FDR ’ s threat , the justices caved .
They believed Roosevelt ’ s threat was credible because his party dominated Congress and because the Constitution did not formally limit the court to its traditional nine justices .
It didn ’ t take long to see how the Supreme Court ’ s refusal to check Washington ’ s expansive regulatory power manifested itself in the lives of everyday Americans .
The most far-reaching jurisprudence was a 1942 decision , Wickard v. Filburn .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some wheat to feed his cows .
The federal government wanted to regulate all the nation ’ s agriculture , including the wheat grown and consumed entirely on Roscoe Filburn ’ s small farm .
The problem , at least for FDR , was that the Constitution ’ s “ Commerce Clause ” gave the central government the power to regulate only interstate commerce .
( The goal had been to create a unified national market by preventing states from erecting tariff barriers against each other . )
No matter .
The now-cowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give Roosevelt his victory .
Filburn ’ s wheat counted as interstate commerce because , believe it or not , his self-sufficient farming meant he wouldn ’ t be buying or selling that grain on interstate markets .
This bizarre reasoning , which has stood for eight decades , gives the federal government almost unlimited regulatory power .
The court-packing threat , the Filburn decision , and a string of like-minded rulings highlights another crucial point : the encroachment of partisan politics into the judicial branch , where it is now firmly ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well aware that a more conservative Supreme Court could limit , or even roll back , the administrative state ’ s expansive rulemaking authority .
That ’ s one reason the nomination fights have been so brutal .
The stakes are high .
These constitutional issues cast a long shadow over Georgia ’ s runoff elections .
Control of the Senate would matter far less if the Founders ’ vision still applied .
They had hoped Congress ’ s institutional interests , an independent judiciary , and the separation of powers would protect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is no such protection in today ’ s thoroughly partisan world .
Although Republican victories in Georgia would offer some balance to a Democratic White House and House of Representatives , they would offer far less than the Founders expected .
President-elect Biden , like his predecessors , has already said he will launch his presidency with a flurry of executive orders .
Many will overturn earlier orders from President Trump .
These “ fiat laws , ” like presidential signing statements , show that the executive branch is misnamed .
Its main @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laws or even propose them to Congress .
Its main jobs now are to ( 1 ) create the web of rules , regulations , and administrative decisions that govern the country and ( 2 ) attempt to control the vast bureaucracy , which seeks to govern on its own , independent of any elected authority , including the president ’ s .
That bureaucracy may be called the “ executive branch , ” but it is , in many ways , an autonomous fourth branch of government .
Its powers derive from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the power to set the detailed rules that actually govern citizens , firms , non-profits , states , and local authorities .
Congress , instead of passing the laws that govern the country , is now reduced to an “ oversight role , ” trying ( and mostly failing ) to oversee the agencies that actually do the governing .
Controlling this bloated , undemocratic blob is no easy task , and shrinking it seems nearly impossible .
The Founders envisioned the core dilemma : creating a central state energetic enough to act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bounds .
The path to restoring more “ ordered liberty ” begins with limiting a government run by executive orders and bureaucratic regulations , preventing unfettered , one-party control , and clawing back the Supreme Court precedents that give the president and federal bureaucracies such vast authority .
Voters get a voice in these big choices .
Their next opportunity is Jan. 5 in Georgia .

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics.]
By Charles Lipson
Real Clear Politics
If Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff win Georgia’s Jan. 5 Senate runoffs, Democrats will control both houses of Congress as well as the presidency. The Republican Party, which won nearly half the national vote, will have no check on the Democrats, aside from the Senate’s filibuster rule. Although that rule requires a supermajority to pass some legislation and appointments, it can be abolished by a simple majority when the new Senate convenes.
Preventing one-party rule is one of the strongest arguments advanced by Republican incumbent Sens. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue. They are reminding voters of the threat posed by Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, who proudly announced: “Now we take Georgia, then we change the world.” That might be a winning line for national fundraising, but it’s more problematic for the Georgia electorate. Not many voters there want to “change the world,” so Warnock and Ossoff are downplaying it. Don’t expect to seek to see Schumer on the stump in Atlanta, Augusta, or Macon.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
It’s understandable that the national debate should focus on which party will control the Senate and just how radical the Democrats’ program will be if they do. But just beneath the surface lurk potential constitutional issues, which have received almost no attention. The basic problem is this: although America’s Founders were deeply concerned about tyranny, centralized power, and the suppression of individual rights and constructed institutional barriers to prevent those abuses, they never envisioned the mechanisms that pose serious threats today.
One of those threats is one-party rule. It’s understandable the Founders missed that since they worked before the age of entrenched and nationalized political parties. The closest analogues were England’s Whigs and Tories, but they were a far cry from modern parties. The political world envisioned by America’s Founders was populated not by parties but by cross-cutting “factions,” much like today’s interest groups. The Federalist Papers (especially the famous No. 10, written by James Madison as “Publius”) argued that, in a large republic like America, multiple factions would emerge, push against each other, and usually block any one from dominating.
To prevent government authority from becoming too centralized and oppressive, the Constitutional Convention divided that authority among the three branches. Each one, they figured, would have strong institutional interests in preventing the others from encroaching. It was a profound insight, and a remarkably successful one. But with the rise of modern political parties, it faced a challenge that no 18th century politician could imagine. Strong political parties unify their members across the legislative and executive branches. The stronger their common interests as Democrats or Republicans, the weaker their institutional interests as members of House or Senate, if those interests diverge from fellow partisans in the other house or branch. Put differently, the rise of political parties undermines the separation of powers and, with it, one of the Founders’ barriers against consolidated, oppressive power.
The idea of separating governmental powers to prevent tyranny was first proposed by the French jurist, Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu. His 1748 book, “De l'Esprit des Lois,” was translated immediately into English and read attentively by the Founders. They adopted Montesquieu’s idea because it helped them solve some knotty problems of constructing a new constitution.
Actually, they faced two problems that pulled them in different directions. Those problems and their solutions bear directly on America’s political divide today. The first was to create a more capable, energetic central government. The second was to prevent that government from expanding its powers and encroaching on Americans’ liberties.
Solving the first problem is why the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia in 1787. The country’s initial constitution, the Articles of Confederation, had proved too weak to cope with foreign enemies or local rebellions. It was little more than a loose amalgam of states, without the power to tax or organize an army or navy. But if Madison, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, George Washington, and their colleagues wanted a more energetic central government, they also feared one that might gradually expand its powers and trample individual freedom. Likewise, they feared “the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority,” which could threaten personal liberties (Federalist No. 10). They were determined to prevent that, too.
Limiting these dangers is where the Bill of Rights, federalism, and Montesquieu’s separation of powers doctrine came in. The Bill of Rights, which some states demanded before ratifying the new Constitution, stood as a bulwark of individual liberties. Neither Congress nor the president could abolish the rights it specified. (Later, the courts ruled that state legislatures could not abrogate those rights, either.)
Besides specifying these inviolable liberties, the Bill of Rights had a second purpose, which is often overlooked. It sought to protect citizens and states against an overly powerful central government. That protection was codified in the 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Modern commentators (and most federal judges) simply ignore that amendment. But that “absence of delegation” is the constitutional core of America’s federal structure, intended to protect against overweening central power.
The new Constitution not only sought to ensure individual rights and preserve some measure of decentralized authority, it offered yet another safeguard against tyranny. It required the central government to distribute its sovereign powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. The crucial point is that those powers are partly separated, partly shared; they are not consolidated. The Constitution assigns a distinctive role to each branch in the first three articles. That’s why Congress, for instance, is called the “Article I branch.”
This wise architecture has survived for over two centuries, but, like a battered shoreline, it has eroded in several ways. One is why the Georgia runoffs are so important.
Perhaps the clearest indication of how partisan interest undermines each branch’s institutional interests came in 2013 when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid abolished the filibuster rule for federal judges at the trial and appellate levels. Reid’s stated goal, shared by fellow Senate Democrats, was to confirm President Barack Obama’s judicial nominations and maintain liberal control of the courts. To achieve those short-term, partisan goals, Reid deliberately weakened the Senate’s long-term institutional power. Republicans warned Reid this was a grave mistake and yet still pursued the same strategy when they retook the Senate. Their leader, Mitch McConnell, extended Reid’s rule to include Supreme Court nominations. In both cases, the Senate’s veto power was diluted so the majority party could govern when it controlled both the Senate and White House.
The point here is not whether these rule changes are good or bad. The point is that the changes reflect a partisan political environment that undermines their separation-of-powers architecture.
Nor did our nation’s Founders anticipate a world in which the 10th Amendment would be treated like an outdated relic, where Albany, Hartford, Austin, and Salt Lake City would have little sway in their own affairs compared to Washington’s ever-growing authority. Part of this change occurred when the Constitution was amended so voters, not state legislatures, chose senators (the 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913). That amendment robbed statehouses of their most powerful tool to limit Washington’s growing authority. Another, equally important change occurred when the Supreme Court gave the federal government nearly unlimited authority to regulate economic activity. Until 1937, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt threatened to pack the high court, the justices had overturned several major New Deal programs as unconstitutional. After FDR’s threat, the justices caved. They believed Roosevelt’s threat was credible because his party dominated Congress and because the Constitution did not formally limit the court to its traditional nine justices.
It didn’t take long to see how the Supreme Court’s refusal to check Washington’s expansive regulatory power manifested itself in the lives of everyday Americans. The most far-reaching jurisprudence was a 1942 decision, Wickard v. Filburn. The case dealt with a farmer who grew some wheat to feed his cows. The federal government wanted to regulate all the nation’s agriculture, including the wheat grown and consumed entirely on Roscoe Filburn’s small farm. The problem, at least for FDR, was that the Constitution’s “Commerce Clause” gave the central government the power to regulate only interstate commerce. (The goal had been to create a unified national market by preventing states from erecting tariff barriers against each other.) No matter. The now-cowed Supreme Court concocted a contorted rationale to give Roosevelt his victory. Filburn’s wheat counted as interstate commerce because, believe it or not, his self-sufficient farming meant he wouldn’t be buying or selling that grain on interstate markets.
This bizarre reasoning, which has stood for eight decades, gives the federal government almost unlimited regulatory power. The court-packing threat, the Filburn decision, and a string of like-minded rulings highlights another crucial point: the encroachment of partisan politics into the judicial branch, where it is now firmly (if uneasily) embedded. Democrats are well aware that a more conservative Supreme Court could limit, or even roll back, the administrative state’s expansive rulemaking authority. That’s one reason the nomination fights have been so brutal. The stakes are high.
These constitutional issues cast a long shadow over Georgia’s runoff elections. Control of the Senate would matter far less if the Founders’ vision still applied. They had hoped Congress’s institutional interests, an independent judiciary, and the separation of powers would protect citizens against overly centralized power. There is no such protection in today’s thoroughly partisan world.
Although Republican victories in Georgia would offer some balance to a Democratic White House and House of Representatives, they would offer far less than the Founders expected. President-elect Biden, like his predecessors, has already said he will launch his presidency with a flurry of executive orders. Many will overturn earlier orders from President Trump. These “fiat laws,” like presidential signing statements, show that the executive branch is misnamed. Its main job is no longer to execute the laws or even propose them to Congress. Its main jobs now are to (1) create the web of rules, regulations, and administrative decisions that govern the country and (2) attempt to control the vast bureaucracy, which seeks to govern on its own, independent of any elected authority, including the president’s.
That bureaucracy may be called the “executive branch,” but it is, in many ways, an autonomous fourth branch of government. Its powers derive from vague laws, which give administrative agencies the power to set the detailed rules that actually govern citizens, firms, non-profits, states, and local authorities. Congress, instead of passing the laws that govern the country, is now reduced to an “oversight role,” trying (and mostly failing) to oversee the agencies that actually do the governing.
Controlling this bloated, undemocratic blob is no easy task, and shrinking it seems nearly impossible. The Founders envisioned the core dilemma: creating a central state energetic enough to act but constrained enough to stay within constitutional bounds. The path to restoring more “ordered liberty” begins with limiting a government run by executive orders and bureaucratic regulations, preventing unfettered, one-party control, and clawing back the Supreme Court precedents that give the president and federal bureaucracies such vast authority.
Voters get a voice in these big choices. Their next opportunity is Jan. 5 in Georgia.


wnd--2020-12-03--The massive coronavirus redistribution of wealth

The coronavirus has made the fortunes of some billionaires soar .
Elon Musk is now the richest man in the world , second only to Jeff Bezos , whose fortune also has rocketed during corona .
Bill Gates , whom Musk recently called a `` knucklehead , '' has been surpassed .
The same goes for Facebook 's cheeky-face boy Mark Zuckerberg , who a few years ago sat in a student dorm and thought up a plan that turned totalitarian .
Musk 's wealth now stands at $ 127.9 billion after adding $ 100.3 billion to his net worth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that according to Bloomberg 's Billionaire Index , the wealth of the worlds ' richest men has spiked 23 % , or $ 1.3 trillion , during the pandemic .
We live in a world where big tech and young boys become the world 's richest , with power to sway opinion in a highly questionable manner .
The lack of state regulations for the high tech monopolies is dramatic .
George Soros pointed out in an interview with `` 60 Minutes '' that the market is in desperate need of better regulations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are not registered in the United States .
In the interview , he confirms that this is done to avoid regulation .
So , as governments lose power , does private capital takes over the government 's former role ?
Many have noted that the coronavirus has proved to be a massive opportunity to speed up the wished-for transfer of wealth from the middle class to the philanthropic upper classes .
TRENDING : Democrat New York mayor and ex-police chief arrested with cocaine after pursuit Almost all the billionaires now are labelled `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of the merging of economy and politics .
Are they prepared to take the philanthropic responsibility of caring for us all .
If we understand Klaus Schwab , founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum , correctly , he hopes for the end of neoliberalism and points out rightfully : `` Free-market fundamentalism has eroded worker rights and economic security , triggered a deregulatory race to the bottom and ruinous tax competition , and enabled the emergence of massive new global monopolies . ''
He says that trade , taxation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of neoliberal influence will now have to be revised.
`` `` Otherwise , the ideological pendulum – already in motion – could swing back toward full-scale protectionism and other lose-lose economic strategies . ''
Who would think the feudal system of overlords would return to dominate the West in the 21st century ?
Yet here we are with heavy global monopolies .
The question becomes : If the richest businessmen alive are philanthropically preoccupied with the welfare of the human race , would that mean that they have the population 's best interest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than democratically elected politicians ?
The narrowing gap between economics and politics presents the need to further acquire knowledge about the motivation of leading investors .
The stake for the ultra-rich has never been higher .
As banker Jacob Rothschild said in a interview a few years ago , no one knows how the current story will end , as debt is currently cured with more debt .
As we seem to sway from a democratic system in which governments are more independent from capitalist owners , the merging of private capital and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The key in the close collaboration between governments and private billionaires may be the billionaire takeover of government funds .
Or , at least , the lavish access to it .
In that case , Schwab 's vision of ending global monopolies may fail .
As politicians tend to originate from humble beginnings , once in higher positions , some are thrilled to make the acquaintance of the rich and mighty ; it may be easy to sway the will to donate government money into private projects owned by billionaires .
Especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politics , which seems to be the trend .
The merging of private capital and government funds may produce a new wave of the old British East India Company system , which merged taxpayer money with private capital and became the world 's most profitable company .
London was very happy and with good reason .
The brilliance of the British is hard to deny .
They know a thing or two about how to win a war or steer a country in the desired direction .
Consequently , the moral standard of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even more important .
Whose interest do they have at heart ?
The progress of human kind or capitalist gains ?
Hanne Herland 's latest book , `` Trump : The Battle for America , '' cuts through the media fog and explains why the globalists are so intent to get rid of the president .

The coronavirus has made the fortunes of some billionaires soar. Elon Musk is now the richest man in the world, second only to Jeff Bezos, whose fortune also has rocketed during corona. Bill Gates, whom Musk recently called a "knucklehead," has been surpassed. The same goes for Facebook's cheeky-face boy Mark Zuckerberg, who a few years ago sat in a student dorm and thought up a plan that turned totalitarian.
Musk's wealth now stands at $127.9 billion after adding $100.3 billion to his net worth just this year alone. ZeroHedge writes that according to Bloomberg's Billionaire Index, the wealth of the worlds' richest men has spiked 23%, or $1.3 trillion, during the pandemic.
We live in a world where big tech and young boys become the world's richest, with power to sway opinion in a highly questionable manner.
The lack of state regulations for the high tech monopolies is dramatic. George Soros pointed out in an interview with "60 Minutes" that the market is in desperate need of better regulations. Yet, the companies he manages are not registered in the United States. In the interview, he confirms that this is done to avoid regulation.
So, as governments lose power, does private capital takes over the government's former role? Many have noted that the coronavirus has proved to be a massive opportunity to speed up the wished-for transfer of wealth from the middle class to the philanthropic upper classes.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Almost all the billionaires now are labelled "philanthropic," which seems to be part of the merging of economy and politics. Are they prepared to take the philanthropic responsibility of caring for us all.
If we understand Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, correctly, he hopes for the end of neoliberalism and points out rightfully: "Free-market fundamentalism has eroded worker rights and economic security, triggered a deregulatory race to the bottom and ruinous tax competition, and enabled the emergence of massive new global monopolies."
He says that trade, taxation and competition rules "that reflect decades of neoliberal influence will now have to be revised. "
"Otherwise, the ideological pendulum – already in motion – could swing back toward full-scale protectionism and other lose-lose economic strategies."
Who would think the feudal system of overlords would return to dominate the West in the 21st century? Yet here we are with heavy global monopolies.
The question becomes: If the richest businessmen alive are philanthropically preoccupied with the welfare of the human race, would that mean that they have the population's best interest at heart? Are they better leaders than democratically elected politicians?
The narrowing gap between economics and politics presents the need to further acquire knowledge about the motivation of leading investors.
The stake for the ultra-rich has never been higher. As banker Jacob Rothschild said in a interview a few years ago, no one knows how the current story will end, as debt is currently cured with more debt. As we seem to sway from a democratic system in which governments are more independent from capitalist owners, the merging of private capital and government funds may now be the solution.
The key in the close collaboration between governments and private billionaires may be the billionaire takeover of government funds. Or, at least, the lavish access to it. In that case, Schwab's vision of ending global monopolies may fail.
As politicians tend to originate from humble beginnings, once in higher positions, some are thrilled to make the acquaintance of the rich and mighty; it may be easy to sway the will to donate government money into private projects owned by billionaires. Especially if one is promised high-paying jobs after politics, which seems to be the trend.
The merging of private capital and government funds may produce a new wave of the old British East India Company system, which merged taxpayer money with private capital and became the world's most profitable company. London was very happy and with good reason.
The brilliance of the British is hard to deny. They know a thing or two about how to win a war or steer a country in the desired direction.
Consequently, the moral standard of billionaire business owners and investor systems become even more important. Whose interest do they have at heart? The progress of human kind or capitalist gains?
Hanne Herland's latest book, "Trump: The Battle for America," cuts through the media fog and explains why the globalists are so intent to get rid of the president.