wnd--2020-09-30--Dems are firing blanks at Judge Barrett – and it's pathetic

Former Army Under Secretary Norman Augustine cynically captured the essence of the need for clarity in speaking .
He noted , `` Simply stated , it is sagacious to eschew obfuscation . ''
One unable to grasp the meaning of Augustine 's words understands the message .
As we find our political leadership divided on the critical issue of filling a vacant seat on the Supreme Court of the United States ( SCOTUS ) – an issue demanding clarity – Democrats engage in the obfuscation game , aimed at currying public support to question the president 's right to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg with President Donald Trump 's nominee , constitutionalist Judge Amy Coney Barrett ( ACB ) , on the SCOTUS has involved obfuscation accompanied with issue avoidance .
The former mirrors Democrats successful efforts to malign Trump with the false narrative of Russian collusion by ignoring truth ; the latter is their fallback position .
It took most of Trump 's presidency to prove there was no collusion .
It was simply the work of anti-Trumpers seeking to derail his candidacy and , after he won the election , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unable to formulate an illegitimacy argument against moving forward with the SCOTUS process , Democrats resort to making voters believe , despite the law , it somehow is .
Accordingly , they taint the process with a similar false narrative .
Because the law supporting the Republican position is readily available , with no investigative committee needed to do exhaustive research to explore it , and because Democrats have yet to formulate an illegitimacy or illegality explanation , they seek to muddy the waters surrounding their claim .
As far as having any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unarmed .
Promoting party talking points but lacking defensive ammo , they take to the anti-ACB front lines , firing blanks .
For example , minutes after Trump made his nomination , Sen. Richard Blumenthal , D-Conn. , was first to launch an attack .
He set the tone declaring the process an `` illegitimate sham '' before blasting ACB 's credentials .
How one who lied about having a Vietnam war record becomes first to blast ACB 's credentials is somewhat telling of his character .
But so eager was Blumenthal to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats to make the attack , their talking points still lacked an answer as to why the process was illegitimate .
Pressed for one , Blumenthal was unable to provide it .
Interestingly too , almost four years earlier to the day , Blumenthal sang quite a different tune as President Barack Obama sought to seat his SCOTUS nominee .
Then , Blumenthal accurately claimed the Senate had a `` constitutional obligation '' to fill such a vacancy .
TRENDING : The Bidens avoided paying more than $ 500,000 in payroll taxes by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nominee contender Sen. Elizabeth Warren , D-Mass.
, blasted the confirmation process as well .
Armed with as little knowledge about the U.S. Constitution as she had about her Native American ancestry , she beat her war drum claiming the fight to seat a high-court nominee `` has just begun . ''
She demands Republicans respect the integrity of our legal institutions but offers nothing of substance explaining why it disrespects them .
Other Democratic Party leaders have also been left struggling to provide an answer .
The party 's vice presidential candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alluded to suggesting a Harris administration ) , Kamala Harris , delivered a speech criticizing Trump and Republican lawmakers for triggering the SCOTUS process but refused to take questions afterward .
The `` Appointment Clause '' of the Constitution ( Article II , Section 2 , Clause 2 ) leaves no doubt when it comes to a Supreme Court vacancy ; it is a president 's responsibility to nominate and the Senate 's responsibility to provide its `` advice and consent '' on the nomination .
A president 's remaining time in office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obviously , when one party controls both the Oval Office and the Senate , such a nomination and confirmation process goes quickly .
This was the case when Democrats controlled both , leading to the confirmations of liberal jurists Ginsburg , Stephen Breyer , Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan .
The 1993 confirmation process for Ginsburg took only 42 days , and , because Republicans accepted her as a qualified jurist despite her leftist ideology , she was confirmed by a vote of 96-3 .
The courtesy extended Ginsburg by Republican senators was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Trump nominee Brett Kavanaugh was subjected to a contentious confirmation process that denied him due process .
However , he did win confirmation by a 50-48 vote .
When Ginsburg was confirmed , Democrats were well within their rights to initiate the SCOTUS process , performing their responsibility to those they represented .
They would have been foolish not to take advantage of their control of both the presidency and Senate to do so .
Democrats have criticized Republicans for the failed 2016 effort by Obama to put Judge Merrick Garland on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outcome was the fact , while Democrats controlled the Oval Office , they did not control the Senate .
For Republicans , just like Democrats had used their control of the White House and Senate to confirm Ginsburg earlier , turn around was fair play .
Because a Republican majority was seated in the Senate after a dismal 2014 election showing for Democrats , it was able to keep Garland off the court by refusing to call for confirmation hearings .
This failure haunted Obama who had taunted Republican leaders soon after his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have consequences . ''
As an additional element of the obfuscation effort , liberals have lowered themselves to conduct personal attacks against a legal scholar having a most distinguished record .
The attacks have been pathetic , calling Barrett 's adoption of two children from Haiti an act of white colonialism only done to shield herself from criticism of racism , questioning whether the adoptions were legal , condemning her Catholic faith , accusing her of not being a good mother to her seven children due to the demands of her professional career @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brazenly reveal as to where their leftist ideology will take us in the years ahead should Joe Biden win November 's election , Republicans would be committing political malpractice by failing to do everything in their power to seat ACB on the Supreme Court .

Former Army Under Secretary Norman Augustine cynically captured the essence of the need for clarity in speaking. He noted, "Simply stated, it is sagacious to eschew obfuscation." One unable to grasp the meaning of Augustine's words understands the message. As we find our political leadership divided on the critical issue of filling a vacant seat on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) – an issue demanding clarity – Democrats engage in the obfuscation game, aimed at currying public support to question the president's right to do so.
The fight over replacing liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg with President Donald Trump's nominee, constitutionalist Judge Amy Coney Barrett (ACB), on the SCOTUS has involved obfuscation accompanied with issue avoidance. The former mirrors Democrats successful efforts to malign Trump with the false narrative of Russian collusion by ignoring truth; the latter is their fallback position.
It took most of Trump's presidency to prove there was no collusion. It was simply the work of anti-Trumpers seeking to derail his candidacy and, after he won the election, to remove him from office. Now, unable to formulate an illegitimacy argument against moving forward with the SCOTUS process, Democrats resort to making voters believe, despite the law, it somehow is. Accordingly, they taint the process with a similar false narrative.
Because the law supporting the Republican position is readily available, with no investigative committee needed to do exhaustive research to explore it, and because Democrats have yet to formulate an illegitimacy or illegality explanation, they seek to muddy the waters surrounding their claim. As far as having any viable argument, Democratic senators are left unarmed. Promoting party talking points but lacking defensive ammo, they take to the anti-ACB front lines, firing blanks.
For example, minutes after Trump made his nomination, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., was first to launch an attack. He set the tone declaring the process an "illegitimate sham" before blasting ACB's credentials. How one who lied about having a Vietnam war record becomes first to blast ACB's credentials is somewhat telling of his character. But so eager was Blumenthal to lead the pack and so eager were Democrats to make the attack, their talking points still lacked an answer as to why the process was illegitimate. Pressed for one, Blumenthal was unable to provide it. Interestingly too, almost four years earlier to the day, Blumenthal sang quite a different tune as President Barack Obama sought to seat his SCOTUS nominee. Then, Blumenthal accurately claimed the Senate had a "constitutional obligation" to fill such a vacancy.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Meanwhile, failed presidential nominee contender Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., blasted the confirmation process as well. Armed with as little knowledge about the U.S. Constitution as she had about her Native American ancestry, she beat her war drum claiming the fight to seat a high-court nominee "has just begun." She demands Republicans respect the integrity of our legal institutions but offers nothing of substance explaining why it disrespects them.
Other Democratic Party leaders have also been left struggling to provide an answer. The party's vice presidential candidate (or presidential candidate as she has alluded to suggesting a Harris administration), Kamala Harris, delivered a speech criticizing Trump and Republican lawmakers for triggering the SCOTUS process but refused to take questions afterward.
The "Appointment Clause" of the Constitution (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2) leaves no doubt when it comes to a Supreme Court vacancy; it is a president's responsibility to nominate and the Senate's responsibility to provide its "advice and consent" on the nomination. A president's remaining time in office has no bearing on the matter.
Obviously, when one party controls both the Oval Office and the Senate, such a nomination and confirmation process goes quickly. This was the case when Democrats controlled both, leading to the confirmations of liberal jurists Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. The 1993 confirmation process for Ginsburg took only 42 days, and, because Republicans accepted her as a qualified jurist despite her leftist ideology, she was confirmed by a vote of 96-3.
Will Amy Coney Barrett be confirmed by the U.S. Senate? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 100% (26 Votes) 0% (0 Votes)
The courtesy extended Ginsburg by Republican senators was not returned by Democratic senators in 2018 as Trump nominee Brett Kavanaugh was subjected to a contentious confirmation process that denied him due process. However, he did win confirmation by a 50-48 vote.
When Ginsburg was confirmed, Democrats were well within their rights to initiate the SCOTUS process, performing their responsibility to those they represented. They would have been foolish not to take advantage of their control of both the presidency and Senate to do so.
Democrats have criticized Republicans for the failed 2016 effort by Obama to put Judge Merrick Garland on the SCOTUS. But bearing on that outcome was the fact, while Democrats controlled the Oval Office, they did not control the Senate. For Republicans, just like Democrats had used their control of the White House and Senate to confirm Ginsburg earlier, turn around was fair play. Because a Republican majority was seated in the Senate after a dismal 2014 election showing for Democrats, it was able to keep Garland off the court by refusing to call for confirmation hearings. This failure haunted Obama who had taunted Republican leaders soon after his 2009 inauguration by proclaiming, "Elections have consequences."
As an additional element of the obfuscation effort, liberals have lowered themselves to conduct personal attacks against a legal scholar having a most distinguished record. The attacks have been pathetic, calling Barrett's adoption of two children from Haiti an act of white colonialism only done to shield herself from criticism of racism, questioning whether the adoptions were legal, condemning her Catholic faith, accusing her of not being a good mother to her seven children due to the demands of her professional career, etc.
With the insights Democrats brazenly reveal as to where their leftist ideology will take us in the years ahead should Joe Biden win November's election, Republicans would be committing political malpractice by failing to do everything in their power to seat ACB on the Supreme Court.


wnd--2020-10-02--2 of 3 at presidential debate agreed on mail-in voting

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics . ]
Neither Joe Biden nor debate moderator Chris Wallace seems to believe that vote fraud with mail-in ballots is a real issue .
They both made that clear in Tuesday night ’ s presidential debate .
“ Nobody has established at all there is a fraud related to the mail-in ballot , ” Biden claimed .
Chris Wallace asserted : “ The biggest problem with mail-in voting is not fraud , historically.
” President Trump tried to explain that absentee ballots , which people have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballots that are mailed out to everyone on the voter rolls .
Many people on these lists have moved or passed away , and the mail-in ballot may fall into the wrong hands .
But even absentee ballots are far from secure .
Just this year , Texas convicted a U.S .
Postal Service employee for selling a list of absentee voters to vote harvesters .
In another absentee ballot harvesting scheme , an affidavit by a retired police captain alleges that a witness heard a Harris County precinct employee bragging that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ could harvest 700,000 illegal ballots ” this November .
As Trump mentioned in the debate , some military ballots cast in his favor ended up in the trash in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin .
In Paterson , N.J. , 20 % of the votes in this year ’ s City Council election were deemed fraudulent because of absentee ballot fraud .
A Los Angeles television station found that hundreds of absentee ballots had been cast year after year in the names of deceased individuals .
Also in L.A. , four men pled guilty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cigarettes for their votes .
The list of similar cases from this year alone is long .
But these are hard cases to catch , since both the vote buyer and seller have an incentive to hide the transaction .
Liberals and progressives often argue that we should model the United States on Western European countries , but you never hear them claiming that we should adopt their voting rules .
There is a reason for that — most European countries either ban mail-in voting or require people to use photo IDs to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this subject , the Crime Prevention Research Center , of which I am president , created a database on voting rules around the world .
Here is what we found : Besides the United States , there are 36 member states in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ( OECD ) – essentially a club for industrialized countries .
About half of them ( 47 % ) do not allow absentee voting unless the citizen is living abroad , and another 30 % require a photo ID to obtain an absentee ballot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , absentee voting is banned even for those living abroad .
Strict requirements are found around the globe , as well .
Many democracies only allow for mail-in voting under extraordinary circumstances .
Japan and Poland limit absentee voting to those who possess disability certificates .
Only for this year , during the coronavirus pandemic , France has allowed citizens who are sick or at particular risk to vote by mail .
Poland will allow mail-in ballots for everyone for this year only .
Brazil and Russia satisfy the economic standards of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political reasons .
Both nations completely ban mail-in voting and require photo IDs for in-person voting .
Among all 43 European countries , 72 % ban absentee ballots unless living abroad and another 22 % require a photo ID to obtain a mail-in ballot ; 19 % ban the practice even for those who live abroad .
Are all of these countries , socialist and non-socialist alike , Western and Eastern European , developed and undeveloped , acting “ without evidence ” ?
It is not as if officials serving in these governments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the importance of ease of voting .
Or about how photo ID requirements will supposedly , as one professor in the UK explained , “ lead to people not being able to vote.
” These countries have learned the hard way about what happens when mail-in ballots aren ’ t secured .
They have also discovered how difficult it is to detect vote buying .
France banned mail-in voting in 1975 because of massive fraud in the island region of Corsica , where postal ballots were stolen or bought and cast in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United Kingdom , which allows postal voting , has had some notable mail-in ballot fraud cases .
Prior to recent photo ID requirements , six Labour Party councilors in Birmingham won office after what the judge described as a “ massive , systematic and organised '' postal voting fraud campaign .
The fraud was apparently carried out with the full knowledge and cooperation of the local Labour party , and involved `` widespread theft '' of postal votes ( possibly around 40,000 ballots ) in areas with large Muslim populations .
Labour members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spur these voters to oppose the incumbent government .
In 1991 , Mexico mandated voter photo IDs and banned absentee ballots .
The then-governing Institutional Revolutionary Party ( PRI ) had long used fraud and intimidation with mail-in ballots to win elections .
Only in 2006 were absentee ballots again allowed , and then only for those living abroad who requested them at least six months in advance .
If Trump is delusional for worrying about vote fraud with mail-in ballots , it is a delusion shared by most of the world .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have protections , such as government-issued photo IDs .
But Americans are constantly assured that even this step is completely unnecessary .
The president is right that without basic precautions , our election is on course to become a nightmare that could last for months .

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics.]
By John R. Lott Jr.
Real Clear Politics
Neither Joe Biden nor debate moderator Chris Wallace seems to believe that vote fraud with mail-in ballots is a real issue. They both made that clear in Tuesday night’s presidential debate. “Nobody has established at all there is a fraud related to the mail-in ballot,” Biden claimed. Chris Wallace asserted: “The biggest problem with mail-in voting is not fraud, historically.”
President Trump tried to explain that absentee ballots, which people have to request, are more secure than ballots that are mailed out to everyone on the voter rolls. Many people on these lists have moved or passed away, and the mail-in ballot may fall into the wrong hands.
But even absentee ballots are far from secure. Just this year, Texas convicted a U.S. Postal Service employee for selling a list of absentee voters to vote harvesters. In another absentee ballot harvesting scheme, an affidavit by a retired police captain alleges that a witness heard a Harris County precinct employee bragging that the ballot operation he was a part of “could harvest 700,000 illegal ballots” this November.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
As Trump mentioned in the debate, some military ballots cast in his favor ended up in the trash in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. In Paterson, N.J., 20% of the votes in this year’s City Council election were deemed fraudulent because of absentee ballot fraud.
A Los Angeles television station found that hundreds of absentee ballots had been cast year after year in the names of deceased individuals. Also in L.A., four men pled guilty to paying homeless people with cash and cigarettes for their votes. The list of similar cases from this year alone is long. But these are hard cases to catch, since both the vote buyer and seller have an incentive to hide the transaction.
Liberals and progressives often argue that we should model the United States on Western European countries, but you never hear them claiming that we should adopt their voting rules. There is a reason for that — most European countries either ban mail-in voting or require people to use photo IDs to obtain a mail-in ballot.
To study this subject, the Crime Prevention Research Center, of which I am president, created a database on voting rules around the world. Here is what we found: Besides the United States, there are 36 member states in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) – essentially a club for industrialized countries. About half of them (47%) do not allow absentee voting unless the citizen is living abroad, and another 30% require a photo ID to obtain an absentee ballot. In 14% of the countries, absentee voting is banned even for those living abroad.
Do mail-in ballots pose a risk of voter fraud? 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. 95% (21 Votes) 5% (1 Votes)
Strict requirements are found around the globe, as well. Many democracies only allow for mail-in voting under extraordinary circumstances. Japan and Poland limit absentee voting to those who possess disability certificates. Only for this year, during the coronavirus pandemic, France has allowed citizens who are sick or at particular risk to vote by mail. Poland will allow mail-in ballots for everyone for this year only. Brazil and Russia satisfy the economic standards of the OECD, but are excluded for various political reasons. Both nations completely ban mail-in voting and require photo IDs for in-person voting.
Among all 43 European countries, 72% ban absentee ballots unless living abroad and another 22% require a photo ID to obtain a mail-in ballot; 19% ban the practice even for those who live abroad. Are all of these countries, socialist and non-socialist alike, Western and Eastern European, developed and undeveloped, acting “without evidence”?
It is not as if officials serving in these governments haven’t heard the same arguments about the importance of ease of voting. Or about how photo ID requirements will supposedly, as one professor in the UK explained, “lead to people not being able to vote.”
These countries have learned the hard way about what happens when mail-in ballots aren’t secured. They have also discovered how difficult it is to detect vote buying. France banned mail-in voting in 1975 because of massive fraud in the island region of Corsica, where postal ballots were stolen or bought and cast in the names of dead people.
The United Kingdom, which allows postal voting, has had some notable mail-in ballot fraud cases. Prior to recent photo ID requirements, six Labour Party councilors in Birmingham won office after what the judge described as a “massive, systematic and organised" postal voting fraud campaign. The fraud was apparently carried out with the full knowledge and cooperation of the local Labour party, and involved "widespread theft" of postal votes (possibly around 40,000 ballots) in areas with large Muslim populations. Labour members were worried that the Iraq War would spur these voters to oppose the incumbent government.
In 1991, Mexico mandated voter photo IDs and banned absentee ballots. The then-governing Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) had long used fraud and intimidation with mail-in ballots to win elections. Only in 2006 were absentee ballots again allowed, and then only for those living abroad who requested them at least six months in advance.
If Trump is delusional for worrying about vote fraud with mail-in ballots, it is a delusion shared by most of the world. Even the countries that allow mail-in ballots have protections, such as government-issued photo IDs. But Americans are constantly assured that even this step is completely unnecessary. The president is right that without basic precautions, our election is on course to become a nightmare that could last for months.


wnd--2020-10-02--The threat that could linger long after COVID

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Investigations . ]
Colleges across the country are using new surveillance tools and following movements of students to blunt the spread of COVID-19 .
But while school administrators say the actions are necessary , civil libertarians fear the measures may last far beyond the pandemic .
At Albion College in Michigan , students are tracked by an app they are required to download and must ask permission to leave town .
Oklahoma State University is using its wireless network to track students , promising to delete all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Students at Oakland University in suburban Detroit are asked to wear the BioButton , a quarter-sized disk that attaches to the body and provides real-time health status to the developer , which will report to the administration anyone showing “ early signs ” of a coronavirus infection .
The school initially made the BioButton mandatory , but backed down after resistance from students , many of whom felt the device was an unnecessary tracking mechanism .
“ This is something straight out of Fahrenheit 451 or 1984 , ” one student commented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the requirement .
Universities and colleges have millions of dollars at stake in keeping students on campus as they grapple with the financial losses that followed their decision to shut down last spring when the coronavirus was first detected .
Most have now opened dorms – whose fees are crucial to school budgets -- and many teach a hybrid of in-person and online instruction .
More than 50 COVID-19 tracing apps and programs have been released since the pandemic began , according to a report from Public Citizen .
Some of the technology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remarketed as an answer to quelling coronavirus transmission .
Other tech options have been quickly developed and sold , with purveyors making pitches to schools eager to keep a lid on what they perceive as a threat to the lives of their students .
This tracking is separate from the demand by many schools that students quarantine themselves during their first two or three weeks on campus .
While the quarantines have received little pushback so far , the surveillance efforts roil some privacy and technology watchdogs , who claim a number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Following students with an implied threat for leaving campus without authorization or attending a party or event that the administration deems risky , critics say , is closer to surveillance than contact tracing .
And the tech adoption policies typically don ’ t give students a choice with regard to being tracked .
Gennie Gebhart and her colleagues at the Electronic Frontier Foundation have researched technology being used by dozens of universities after hearing from students , who felt they were being forcefully surveilled .
“ Students at schools where these apps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ code of conduct before starting the fall semester , ” said Gebhart , who is the acting activism director at the EFF .
“ Along with ‘ I will not cheat , ’ or ‘ I will not plagiarize , ’ they also agreed to opt into an app .
It ’ s not something you can say ‘ no ’ to if you want to go to school.
” She points to the University of Massachusetts system , where students agree to “ download and activate any required UMass approved public health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ platforms through web browsers.
” UMass spokesman Edward Blaguszewski did not respond to a phone message or email .
The tracking may be needed , given the health emergency , said Fred Cate , senior fellow at Indiana University ’ s Center for Applied Cybersecurity Research .
And if the tech worked , it would likely see widespread adoption .
“ The biggest issue so far is skepticism that the [ apps ] work , ” Cate said .
“ If there were one that worked , and did so consistently , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Federal coronavirues money is helping driving the effort .
The state of Alabama spent $ 30 million of its CARES Act funding to develop its own health monitoring/tracing app .
GuideSafe is used by the state university system and , once downloaded , it tracks a student ’ s movements .
It is “ voluntary , but strongly suggested and encouraged , ” according to a university system directive .
“ We call this exposure notification , ” said Sue Feldman , a professor in the School of Health Professions at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is not tracking or tracing location or movement , we try to make that very clear .
It is a notification app.
” GuideSafe includes a portal called Healthcheck , which requires students to report each day whether they have symptoms and if they have been in contact with anyone with the virus .
Students who fail to fill out and submit the Healthcheck form for three days receive daily emails and texts from the school .
Log-in information and email addresses are also cross-referenced every time someone signs on to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ helps to identify scofflaws .
“ When you log in to the system on campus , they know where you log in from , and if you log in and have not completed Healthcheck , that ’ s not a good thing , ” said Feldman , who asserted that despite the personal messages via email or text .
“ GuideSafe never knows your name.
” Universities have tracked students for years , using key cards ( which students use to access campus buildings ) , the university wireless service and through social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
At the corporate level , where employees are paid to show up , mandatory tracking is hard to argue with .
College students , in contrast , are paying tens of thousands of dollars to attend school .
Threatened with the loss of scholarships or even readmission if they decide to take a semester off , they could face a choice between surrendering to the school mandates , including tracking , or starting their college career over again , possibly elsewhere .
“ The power imbalance … for students , is in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” said Burcu Kilic , director of Public Citizen ’ s Digital Rights Program .
One of the schools that demand students download a tracking app this fall is Albion College , where 1,900 students and parents have signed a petition to make the use of Aura optional .
Four other colleges have signed deals to use the app , with 20 more considering it , said Brian O'Neill , a Philadelphia entrepreneur who funded Aura .
“ If you are serious about managing the COVID-19 virus for your population , then our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told RealClearInvestigations .
“ If you aren ’ t , then we are not for you.
” He declined to name the potential customers .
The Aura app provides regular access to students ’ location , which the college contends is needed to track the spread of any exposure .
Students , who must sign a release ceding some privacy rights under the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act ( FERPA ) are alerted if they come in contact with someone who has tested positive for the virus .
“ There was acrimony @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into this strict protocol , ” O ’ Neill said .
” We just wanted to give people the opportunity to experience college life.
” The coronavirus threat is expected to subside in the U.S. as vaccines hit the market .
The tracking apps , though , have no expiration date .
“ You would hope they would stop , but usually , once you cede power to the state , the state doesn ’ t give up that power , ” said Josh Blackman , a constitutional law professor at the South @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looming is the possibility that the data collected now will be “ repurposed , ” added Kilic of the Digital Rights Program .
“ This [ information ] is going to be used for the future , ” she said .
“ They will not stop using this technology .
People make money on this and we are creating an extreme surveillance system.
” [ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Investigations . ]

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Investigations.]
By Steve Miller
Real Clear Investigations
Colleges across the country are using new surveillance tools and following movements of students to blunt the spread of COVID-19. But while school administrators say the actions are necessary, civil libertarians fear the measures may last far beyond the pandemic.
At Albion College in Michigan, students are tracked by an app they are required to download and must ask permission to leave town.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Oklahoma State University is using its wireless network to track students, promising to delete all information from the system after seven days.
Students at Oakland University in suburban Detroit are asked to wear the BioButton, a quarter-sized disk that attaches to the body and provides real-time health status to the developer, which will report to the administration anyone showing “early signs” of a coronavirus infection.
The school initially made the BioButton mandatory, but backed down after resistance from students, many of whom felt the device was an unnecessary tracking mechanism.
“This is something straight out of Fahrenheit 451 or 1984,” one student commented on the Change.org petition that successfully opposed the requirement.
Should colleges be using surveillance tools to follow the movements of students? 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. 2% (1 Votes) 98% (44 Votes)
Universities and colleges have millions of dollars at stake in keeping students on campus as they grapple with the financial losses that followed their decision to shut down last spring when the coronavirus was first detected. Most have now opened dorms – whose fees are crucial to school budgets -- and many teach a hybrid of in-person and online instruction.
More than 50 COVID-19 tracing apps and programs have been released since the pandemic began, according to a report from Public Citizen. Some of the technology has been rebranded from other uses and remarketed as an answer to quelling coronavirus transmission. Other tech options have been quickly developed and sold, with purveyors making pitches to schools eager to keep a lid on what they perceive as a threat to the lives of their students.
This tracking is separate from the demand by many schools that students quarantine themselves during their first two or three weeks on campus.
While the quarantines have received little pushback so far, the surveillance efforts roil some privacy and technology watchdogs, who claim a number of potential problems with government collection of data.
Following students with an implied threat for leaving campus without authorization or attending a party or event that the administration deems risky, critics say, is closer to surveillance than contact tracing.
And the tech adoption policies typically don’t give students a choice with regard to being tracked.
Gennie Gebhart and her colleagues at the Electronic Frontier Foundation have researched technology being used by dozens of universities after hearing from students, who felt they were being forcefully surveilled.
“Students at schools where these apps are required were asked to sign a code of conduct before starting the fall semester,” said Gebhart, who is the acting activism director at the EFF. “Along with ‘I will not cheat,’ or ‘I will not plagiarize,’ they also agreed to opt into an app. It’s not something you can say ‘no’ to if you want to go to school.”
She points to the University of Massachusetts system, where students agree to “download and activate any required UMass approved public health applications, or access required digital health platforms through web browsers.”
UMass spokesman Edward Blaguszewski did not respond to a phone message or email.
The tracking may be needed, given the health emergency, said Fred Cate, senior fellow at Indiana University’s Center for Applied Cybersecurity Research. And if the tech worked, it would likely see widespread adoption.
“The biggest issue so far is skepticism that the [apps] work,” Cate said. “If there were one that worked, and did so consistently, we and many other universities would use it.”
Federal coronavirues money is helping driving the effort. The state of Alabama spent $30 million of its CARES Act funding to develop its own health monitoring/tracing app. GuideSafe is used by the state university system and, once downloaded, it tracks a student’s movements. It is “voluntary, but strongly suggested and encouraged,” according to a university system directive.
“We call this exposure notification,” said Sue Feldman, a professor in the School of Health Professions at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “It is not tracking or tracing location or movement, we try to make that very clear. It is a notification app.”
GuideSafe includes a portal called Healthcheck, which requires students to report each day whether they have symptoms and if they have been in contact with anyone with the virus. Students who fail to fill out and submit the Healthcheck form for three days receive daily emails and texts from the school. Log-in information and email addresses are also cross-referenced every time someone signs on to the university’s Wi-Fi network, which helps to identify scofflaws.
“When you log in to the system on campus, they know where you log in from, and if you log in and have not completed Healthcheck, that’s not a good thing,” said Feldman, who asserted that despite the personal messages via email or text. “GuideSafe never knows your name.”
Universities have tracked students for years, using key cards (which students use to access campus buildings), the university wireless service and through social media monitoring algorithms, among other things.
At the corporate level, where employees are paid to show up, mandatory tracking is hard to argue with. College students, in contrast, are paying tens of thousands of dollars to attend school. Threatened with the loss of scholarships or even readmission if they decide to take a semester off, they could face a choice between surrendering to the school mandates, including tracking, or starting their college career over again, possibly elsewhere.
“The power imbalance … for students, is in favor of the [college],” said Burcu Kilic, director of Public Citizen’s Digital Rights Program.
One of the schools that demand students download a tracking app this fall is Albion College, where 1,900 students and parents have signed a petition to make the use of Aura optional.
Four other colleges have signed deals to use the app, with 20 more considering it, said Brian O'Neill, a Philadelphia entrepreneur who funded Aura.
“If you are serious about managing the COVID-19 virus for your population, then our software is for you,” O'Neill told RealClearInvestigations. “If you aren’t, then we are not for you.”
He declined to name the potential customers.
The Aura app provides regular access to students’ location, which the college contends is needed to track the spread of any exposure. Students, who must sign a release ceding some privacy rights under the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) are alerted if they come in contact with someone who has tested positive for the virus.
“There was acrimony in the beginning because students were getting into this strict protocol,” O’Neill said. ” We just wanted to give people the opportunity to experience college life.”
Albion spokesman Chuck Carlson declined to comment.
The coronavirus threat is expected to subside in the U.S. as vaccines hit the market.
The tracking apps, though, have no expiration date.
“You would hope they would stop, but usually, once you cede power to the state, the state doesn’t give up that power,” said Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston.
Also looming is the possibility that the data collected now will be “repurposed,” added Kilic of the Digital Rights Program.
“This [information] is going to be used for the future,” she said. “They will not stop using this technology. People make money on this and we are creating an extreme surveillance system.”
[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Investigations.]


wnd--2020-10-02--House conservatives call for probe of China's ties to Black Lives Matter co-founder

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by the Daily Signal . ]
The FBI should investigate evidence of ties between a pro-China group and a co-founder of Black Lives Matter that may have contributed to unrest in U.S. cities , seven House conservatives told The Daily Signal .
“ The Black Lives Matter organization ’ s leaders are open about their devotion to Marxism , so there ’ s little wonder they ’ re teaming up with the Chinese Communist Party ’ s United Front Work Department to advocate destabilizing and destructive violence and rioting in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , R-Ind.
, said .
Banks , a member of the Republican Study Committee ’ s China Task Force , said he will call on the Justice Department to investigate “ this relationship ” and determine any violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act .
“ We need to protect ourselves from foreign interference with additional legislation , ” Banks said .
“ I urge my colleagues in Congress to pass my bill [ the Countering Chinese Propaganda Act ] that would authorize sanctions against the United Front Work Department of the Chinese @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senior fellow in The Heritage Foundation ’ s Allison Center for Foreign Policy , has written three articles for The Daily Signal ( here , here , and here ) exploring the financial connection between Black Futures Lab , a project of Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza , and the Chinese Progressive Association in San Francisco , a pro-China group founded by Marxists nearly 50 years ago .
The Chinese Progressive Association is the “ fiscal sponsor ” of the Black Futures Lab , according to the latter ’ s website .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ took issue with Gonzalez ’ s conclusions , saying that the former journalist had “ conflated two nonprofits with the same name.
” But Gonzalez fact-checked the Times ’ article and wrote that the facts point to links among three Chinese Progressive Association entities in San Francisco , Boston , and New York .
The CPA organization in San Francisco , Gonzalez wrote , “ is a left-wing group that from the beginning has been a supporter of China ’ s communist revolution and whose members want revolution here in America.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Work Department is “ the agency responsible for coordinating these kinds of influence operations , ” according to the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission .
Rep. Jody Hice , R-Ga. , told The Daily Signal that he agrees with Banks : The Justice Department should investigate .
“ The riots that have rocked America involve funding , organization , and planning—yet , even after nearly four months , we still don ’ t have a clear picture of who is pulling the strings behind the scenes , ” Hice said in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s research : The Heritage Foundation has uncovered more evidence of foreign involvement in the riots than was ever produced by the left ’ s bogus ‘ Russia collusion ’ conspiracy theory .
These developments should be a tremendous concern for us all , regardless of our politics .
Americans have the constitutional right to protest and demand change , but we also deserve to know who is orchestrating the nightly violence and terror unfolding in our cities .
We already know that many of the Black Lives Matter leaders—including co-founder [ Patrisse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ connection with communist China merits an investigation by Congress .
I have formally requested that Attorney General Bill Barr and the Justice Department brief the House Oversight Committee on the ‘ anti-fascist ’ groups spearheading this unrest , and I am committed to exposing all actors—both foreign and domestic—who are responsible for this lawlessness .
It ’ s time we demand the truth .
Rep. Andy Biggs , R-Ariz. , chairman of the House Freedom Caucus , told The Daily Signal in a podcast interview Monday that the FBI should get involved .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ we see the Federal Bureau of Investigation ?
” Biggs said , adding : “ That ’ s what they ’ re supposed to be doing , investigating these people and bringing [ their resources ] to bear .
” The Daily Signal requested comment on the need for an investigation from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer , D-N.Y. , and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , but did not receive a response by publication deadline .
The Daily Signal also sought comment from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Relations Committee , but did not receive any responses by publication time .
Rep. Paul Gosar , R-Ariz. , said he is concerned about the apparent ties between pro-China groups and an organization led by Garza , a major Black Lives Matter founder .
He said officials should investigate under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act , known as RICO .
“ If it turns out the Progressive Chinese Association is linked to the CCP [ Chinese Communist Party ] and that funding for rioters and arsonists is coming from China , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ banking trail and institute RICO actions against BLM [ Black Lives Matter ] and others.
” The revelations reported by Gonzalez , said Rep. Ted Budd , R-N.C. , should be a wake-up call to Americans .
“ China is not America ’ s friend , and they are not a force for good in the world , ” Budd said .
“ So it would make sense that they would sow division in the U.S. to distract from their authoritarian actions.
” Rep. Mark Green , R-Tenn. , said Congress also should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black Lives Matter-affiliated organizations and China .
“ This country has endured months of senseless violence , ” Green said in a written statement provided to The Daily Signal .
“ Now , it has been reported that an organization closely affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party is funding Black Lives Matter activists.
” Green said that “ enough is enough , ” adding : Rep. Russ Fulcher , R-Idaho , told The Daily Signal that America needs to know the details of who is behind the ongoing rioting and unrest in American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these violent riots are extremely important to examine and make available to the public , ” Fulcher said .
“ Earlier this month , I joined a group of my Republican colleagues to sign a letter to Attorney General Barr , asking him to begin an investigation into these funding avenues and the groups responsible.
” The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation .
Republican members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who didn ’ t respond to The Daily Signal ’ s inquiries include James Risch of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ron Johnson of Wisconsin ; Cory Gardner of Colorado ; Mitt Romney of Utah ; Lindsey Graham of South Carolina ; John Barrasso of Wyoming ; Rob Portman of Ohio ; Rand Paul of Kentucky ; Todd Young of Indiana ; and David Perdue of Georgia .
Committee Democrats who didn ’ t respond include Robert Menendez and Cory Booker of New Jersey ; Benjamin Cardin of Maryland ; Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire ; Christopher Coons of Delaware ; Tom Udall of New Mexico ; Christopher Murphy of Connecticut ; Tim Kaine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; and Jeff Merkley of Oregon .
[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by the Daily Signal . ]

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by the Daily Signal.]
By Rachel del Guidice
Daily Signal
The FBI should investigate evidence of ties between a pro-China group and a co-founder of Black Lives Matter that may have contributed to unrest in U.S. cities, seven House conservatives told The Daily Signal.
“The Black Lives Matter organization’s leaders are open about their devotion to Marxism, so there’s little wonder they’re teaming up with the Chinese Communist Party’s United Front Work Department to advocate destabilizing and destructive violence and rioting in American cities,” Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind., said.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Banks, a member of the Republican Study Committee’s China Task Force, said he will call on the Justice Department to investigate “this relationship” and determine any violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
“We need to protect ourselves from foreign interference with additional legislation,” Banks said. “I urge my colleagues in Congress to pass my bill [the Countering Chinese Propaganda Act] that would authorize sanctions against the United Front Work Department of the Chinese Communist Party.”
Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Allison Center for Foreign Policy, has written three articles for The Daily Signal (here, here, and here) exploring the financial connection between Black Futures Lab, a project of Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza, and the Chinese Progressive Association in San Francisco, a pro-China group founded by Marxists nearly 50 years ago.
The Chinese Progressive Association is the “fiscal sponsor” of the Black Futures Lab, according to the latter’s website.
Should Black Lives Matter be probed for possible ties to China? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 100% (31 Votes) 0% (0 Votes)
A columnist for The New York Times took issue with Gonzalez’s conclusions, saying that the former journalist had “conflated two nonprofits with the same name.” But Gonzalez fact-checked the Times’ article and wrote that the facts point to links among three Chinese Progressive Association entities in San Francisco, Boston, and New York.
The CPA organization in San Francisco, Gonzalez wrote, “is a left-wing group that from the beginning has been a supporter of China’s communist revolution and whose members want revolution here in America.”
The Chinese Communist Party’s United Front Work Department is “the agency responsible for coordinating these kinds of influence operations,” according to the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
Rep. Jody Hice, R-Ga., told The Daily Signal that he agrees with Banks: The Justice Department should investigate.
“The riots that have rocked America involve funding, organization, and planning—yet, even after nearly four months, we still don’t have a clear picture of who is pulling the strings behind the scenes,” Hice said in a written statement, adding of Gonzalez’s research:
The Heritage Foundation has uncovered more evidence of foreign involvement in the riots than was ever produced by the left’s bogus ‘Russia collusion’ conspiracy theory. These developments should be a tremendous concern for us all, regardless of our politics. Americans have the constitutional right to protest and demand change, but we also deserve to know who is orchestrating the nightly violence and terror unfolding in our cities. We already know that many of the Black Lives Matter leaders—including co-founder [Patrisse] Cullors—are openly Marxist, and their connection with communist China merits an investigation by Congress. I have formally requested that Attorney General Bill Barr and the Justice Department brief the House Oversight Committee on the ‘anti-fascist’ groups spearheading this unrest, and I am committed to exposing all actors—both foreign and domestic—who are responsible for this lawlessness. It’s time we demand the truth.
Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, told The Daily Signal in a podcast interview Monday that the FBI should get involved.
“The point is … when will we see the Federal Bureau of Investigation?” Biggs said, adding: “That’s what they’re supposed to be doing, investigating these people and bringing [their resources] to bear. ”
The Daily Signal requested comment on the need for an investigation from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., but did not receive a response by publication deadline.
The Daily Signal also sought comment from Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but did not receive any responses by publication time.
Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., said he is concerned about the apparent ties between pro-China groups and an organization led by Garza, a major Black Lives Matter founder. He said officials should investigate under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, known as RICO.
“If it turns out the Progressive Chinese Association is linked to the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] and that funding for rioters and arsonists is coming from China, the DOJ needs to immediately track the banking trail and institute RICO actions against BLM [Black Lives Matter] and others.”
The revelations reported by Gonzalez, said Rep. Ted Budd, R-N.C., should be a wake-up call to Americans.
“China is not America’s friend, and they are not a force for good in the world,” Budd said. “So it would make sense that they would sow division in the U.S. to distract from their authoritarian actions.”
He added:
Remember, this is a regime that covered up the coronavirus, operates Uighur concentration camps, and is eliminating the autonomy of Hong Kong. I would support an investigation into any and all attempts by the Chinese Communist Party to interfere in our country’s domestic affairs. Moving into the 2020s, we should treat the CCP like the adversaries that they are.
Rep. Mark Green, R-Tenn., said Congress also should get involved in figuring out ties between Black Lives Matter-affiliated organizations and China.
“This country has endured months of senseless violence,” Green said in a written statement provided to The Daily Signal. “Now, it has been reported that an organization closely affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party is funding Black Lives Matter activists.”
Green said that “enough is enough,” adding:
The American people deserve to know who is responsible for the violence that has destroyed lives and livelihoods and caused upheaval in our cities—and whether China has played a role in fueling that unrest. Congress should immediately open an investigation into the extent of the CCP’s subversive activities in America.
Rep. Russ Fulcher, R-Idaho, told The Daily Signal that America needs to know the details of who is behind the ongoing rioting and unrest in American cities.
“The funding specifics of these violent riots are extremely important to examine and make available to the public,” Fulcher said. “Earlier this month, I joined a group of my Republican colleagues to sign a letter to Attorney General Barr, asking him to begin an investigation into these funding avenues and the groups responsible.”
The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation.
Republican members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who didn’t respond to The Daily Signal’s inquiries include James Risch of Idaho; Marco Rubio of Florida; Ron Johnson of Wisconsin; Cory Gardner of Colorado; Mitt Romney of Utah; Lindsey Graham of South Carolina; John Barrasso of Wyoming; Rob Portman of Ohio; Rand Paul of Kentucky; Todd Young of Indiana; and David Perdue of Georgia.
Committee Democrats who didn’t respond include Robert Menendez and Cory Booker of New Jersey; Benjamin Cardin of Maryland; Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire; Christopher Coons of Delaware; Tom Udall of New Mexico; Christopher Murphy of Connecticut; Tim Kaine of Virginia; Edward Markey of Massachusetts; and Jeff Merkley of Oregon.
[Editor's note: This story originally was published by the Daily Signal.]


wnd--2020-10-02--Is 'October Surprise' still looming for 'Crazy 2020'?

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics . ]
Welcome to October of a presidential election year – time to be on the lookout for an “ October surprise.
” However , in 2020 one could argue that this traditionally anticipated and often feared cliché of a concept – a “ surprise ” powerful enough to change the outcome of a presidential election – is now outdated and incapable of changing hearts , minds , and votes .
But first , some definitions behind that theory , which posits that shortly before Election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a catastrophic , history-changing , national or international event not intentionally perpetrated by either campaign .
Such events could include a debilitating cyberattack ; a natural disaster of biblical portions ( even more than the current California wildfires , i.e.
, “ the big one ” ) ; a nuclear bomb detonation or an attack on the scale of 9/11 or Pearl Harbor ; the death of Donald Trump or Joe Biden , or a major health crisis that forces one of them to drop out of the race ; a 2008-type financial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something unimaginable .
Yet , even then , would there be a voting shift ?
What follows are the reasons why an October surprise is as outdated as direct-mail solicitations .
We live in a nonstop , 24/7 , breaking news environment where surprises are common , everyday occurrences .
Thus , Americans are increasingly incapable of being surprised by political shenanigans .
Moreover , behaviors that voters are willing to accept ( if grudgingly ) from leaders has significantly widened .
Voters are exhausted by all the 2020 calamities .
Given that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our economy , society , culture , and well-being , voters are battle weary .
Therefore , an October surprise could be viewed as just one more thing piled on .
After all , only 29.3 % of Americans believe that our nation is heading in the right direction .
In September , eight states began early in-person voting .
Moreover , an NBC News-sponsored poll found : “ Fifty-two percent of adults say they will vote early — with 19 percent saying they will vote early in person and 33 percent more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ About a third of adults , 33 percent , say they will vote in person on Election Day , and 11 percent say they might not vote at all.
” Increased early voting is a phenomenon that radically changes the concept of Election Day and the prospects of an influential October surprise .
September was the new October .
The events of September could resonate like one big October surprise .
The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the naming of her replacement launched an epic culture-war battle that was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting had begun .
Talk about a “ surprise ” factor with vast potential : President Trump ’ s nominee , Judge Amy Coney Barrett , galvanizes both sides at the most critical time when all voters had started paying attention to the election and making plans to vote .
The same galvanization applies to the leaking of Trump ’ s 2016 and 2017 federal tax returns with the revelation that he only paid $ 750 in each of those years .
This is a classic “ October surprise ” that Team Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ message of “ Scranton vs. Park Avenue.
” For Democrats in general , Trump ’ s “ $ 750 ” is the perfect wedge issue that fits on a campaign button and crystallizes what they believe is his character as a corrupt businessman and failed president .
The question remains whether either of these September events will move the needle , given that 86 % of voters had already made up their mind ( and that was before Tuesday night ’ s debate ) And yes , that debate… What could qualify as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decides to skip the next two debates .
Watch RealClearPolitics upcoming poll averages for that answer .
Biden may bow out if he thinks he is far enough ahead and does not need to participate in what was widely considered a national disgrace .
But October still is October .
Saying that the nation is a tinderbox is an understatement , with many unanswered questions hanging in the air .
Could there be legal maneuvering somewhere that could impact the election ?
( Akin to James Comey ’ s announcement in late October @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , suggesting to some that he threw the election to Trump ? )
Will former Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale be accused of money laundering $ 170 million of campaign funds ( possibly impacting late fundraising for Team Trump ) ?
Could the post office melt down from an avalanche of ballots ?
Will Trump continue to denigrate the election process , causing further uncertainty among voters ?
Will there be evidence of massive mail-in ballot fraud ?
What percentage of mail-in ballots will be rejected in key battleground states ?
Will our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action that requires a military response ?
Will the Senate confirm Amy Comey Barrett just days before the election ?
With October surprises always expected -- but not always what people expect -- can our nation survive through November without imploding ?
The concept of a “ traditional ” October surprise could be outdated due to overall news numbing , early voting , and entrenched extreme polarization .
For example , a devastating surprise came in 2000 when , just days before the election , a decades-old DUI charge against George W. Bush @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , “ [ Karl ] Rove believes that without the DUI news , Bush would have won the popular vote , and the mess in Florida would have been avoided.
” But now , would a DUI charge or its equivalent even matter ?
Still , there exists the potential for upheaval because , after all , it is 2020 and unfortunately , our nation is emotionally and financially depressed , locked and loaded , and expecting to fight for what is “ right ” and our “ rights.
” Welcome to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics.]
By Myra Adams
Real Clear Politics
Welcome to October of a presidential election year – time to be on the lookout for an “October surprise.” However, in 2020 one could argue that this traditionally anticipated and often feared cliché of a concept – a “surprise” powerful enough to change the outcome of a presidential election – is now outdated and incapable of changing hearts, minds, and votes.
But first, some definitions behind that theory, which posits that shortly before Election Day, God forbid, there is a catastrophic, history-changing, national or international event not intentionally perpetrated by either campaign. Such events could include a debilitating cyberattack; a natural disaster of biblical portions (even more than the current California wildfires, i.e., “the big one”); a nuclear bomb detonation or an attack on the scale of 9/11 or Pearl Harbor; the death of Donald Trump or Joe Biden, or a major health crisis that forces one of them to drop out of the race; a 2008-type financial meltdown; a zombie apocalypse; or something unimaginable.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Yet, even then, would there be a voting shift?
What follows are the reasons why an October surprise is as outdated as direct-mail solicitations.
Voters are numb to “surprises.”
We live in a nonstop, 24/7, breaking news environment where surprises are common, everyday occurrences. Thus, Americans are increasingly incapable of being surprised by political shenanigans. Moreover, behaviors that voters are willing to accept (if grudgingly) from leaders has significantly widened.
Is an 'October Surprise' still looming for 'Crazy 2020'? 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. 70% (32 Votes) 30% (14 Votes)
Voters are exhausted by all the 2020 calamities.
Given that a pandemic has unraveled every aspect of our economy, society, culture, and well-being, voters are battle weary. Therefore, an October surprise could be viewed as just one more thing piled on. After all, only 29.3% of Americans believe that our nation is heading in the right direction.
Increased early voting diminishes an October surprise.
In September, eight states began early in-person voting. Moreover, an NBC News-sponsored poll found:
“Fifty-two percent of adults say they will vote early — with 19 percent saying they will vote early in person and 33 percent more saying they will vote by mail. About a third of adults, 33 percent, say they will vote in person on Election Day, and 11 percent say they might not vote at all.”
Increased early voting is a phenomenon that radically changes the concept of Election Day and the prospects of an influential October surprise.
September was the new October.
The events of September could resonate like one big October surprise.
The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the naming of her replacement launched an epic culture-war battle that was long anticipated -- though NOT after early voting had begun. Talk about a “surprise” factor with vast potential: President Trump’s nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, galvanizes both sides at the most critical time when all voters had started paying attention to the election and making plans to vote.
The same galvanization applies to the leaking of Trump’s 2016 and 2017 federal tax returns with the revelation that he only paid $750 in each of those years. This is a classic “October surprise” that Team Biden is using to amplify its ongoing strategic message of “Scranton vs. Park Avenue.” For Democrats in general, Trump’s “$750” is the perfect wedge issue that fits on a campaign button and crystallizes what they believe is his character as a corrupt businessman and failed president.
The question remains whether either of these September events will move the needle, given that 86% of voters had already made up their mind (and that was before Tuesday night’s debate)
And yes, that debate…
What could qualify as an October surprise is if Joe Biden decides to skip the next two debates. Watch RealClearPolitics upcoming poll averages for that answer. Biden may bow out if he thinks he is far enough ahead and does not need to participate in what was widely considered a national disgrace.
(What is clear is that with the advent of widespread early voting, the 2024 presidential debates should occur before that process commences.)
But October still is October.
Saying that the nation is a tinderbox is an understatement, with many unanswered questions hanging in the air.
Could there be legal maneuvering somewhere that could impact the election? (Akin to James Comey’s announcement in late October 2016 of a reopened Clinton email investigation, suggesting to some that he threw the election to Trump?)
Will former Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale be accused of money laundering $170 million of campaign funds (possibly impacting late fundraising for Team Trump)?
Could the post office melt down from an avalanche of ballots?
Will Trump continue to denigrate the election process, causing further uncertainty among voters?
Will there be evidence of massive mail-in ballot fraud?
What percentage of mail-in ballots will be rejected in key battleground states?
Will our enemies perceive weakness and launch some aggressive action that requires a military response?
Will the Senate confirm Amy Comey Barrett just days before the election?
With October surprises always expected -- but not always what people expect -- can our nation survive through November without imploding?
The concept of a “traditional” October surprise could be outdated due to overall news numbing, early voting, and entrenched extreme polarization. For example, a devastating surprise came in 2000 when, just days before the election, a decades-old DUI charge against George W. Bush came to light. As Politico put it, “[Karl] Rove believes that without the DUI news, Bush would have won the popular vote, and the mess in Florida would have been avoided.”
But now, would a DUI charge or its equivalent even matter?
Still, there exists the potential for upheaval because, after all, it is 2020 and unfortunately, our nation is emotionally and financially depressed, locked and loaded, and expecting to fight for what is “right” and our “rights.”
Welcome to October, and God help our nation!


wnd--2020-10-01--Biden flubs Constitution: Contends president can't nominate justice during election

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden contended in an interview Wednesday that Republicans are `` violating the Constitution '' by moving to nominate and confirm a Supreme Court justice before the election .
Biden was asked to explain his statement during an interview with WTAE-TV in Pittsburgh .
`` The Constitution says that the American people – I taught constitutional law for over 20 years – says the American people get an opportunity to choose who they want on the Supreme Court by who they pick as their senator and their president , '' he said .
He said a president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` except once an election has started . ''
The nomination to fill the vacancy created with the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg should await the results of the election , he said , and `` I should get to pick that nominee . ''
Just the News said Biden `` might want to take a refresher course [ on the Constitution ] himself . ''
`` In Article II , Section 2 , the Constitution states that the president , with the 'advice and consent of the Senate , ' shall pick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News pointed out .
`` In fact , until the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1917 , Americans did n't even pick their own senators , each state 's legislatures did that . ''
Ginsburg herself , in 2016 , confirmed that the president is elected for four years , not three , meaning a sitting president could nominate a justice even to the point of his departure from office .
Trump explained his position in nominating Amy Coney Barrett , a judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals : `` We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We have the Senate , we have the White House , and we have a phenomenal nominee respected by all .
We won the election and therefore we have the right to choose her , and very few people knowingly would say otherwise .
And by the way , the Democrats , they wouldn ’ t even think about not doing it .
The only difference is they ’ d try and do it faster . ''
Biden made the claim Wednesday that Republicans were violating the Constitution when he once again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favors `` packing '' the Supreme Court if his party gains control of the Senate and White House , adding additional justices to the bench .
`` That 's exactly what they want me to talk about so we do n't talk about how they 're violating the Constitution now , '' he told the Pittsburgh station .
`` And I 'm not gon na play Trump 's game . ''
Biden refused to answer the question during the debate Tuesday .
When Trump pressed him on the issue , Biden said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ? ''

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden contended in an interview Wednesday that Republicans are "violating the Constitution" by moving to nominate and confirm a Supreme Court justice before the election.
Biden was asked to explain his statement during an interview with WTAE-TV in Pittsburgh.
"The Constitution says that the American people – I taught constitutional law for over 20 years – says the American people get an opportunity to choose who they want on the Supreme Court by who they pick as their senator and their president," he said.
He said a president is allowed to make a nomination, "except once an election has started."
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
The nomination to fill the vacancy created with the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg should await the results of the election, he said, and "I should get to pick that nominee."
Just the News said Biden "might want to take a refresher course [on the Constitution] himself."
"In Article II, Section 2, the Constitution states that the president, with the 'advice and consent of the Senate,' shall pick Supreme Court justices," Just the News pointed out. "In fact, until the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1917, Americans didn't even pick their own senators, each state's legislatures did that."
Ginsburg herself, in 2016, confirmed that the president is elected for four years, not three, meaning a sitting president could nominate a justice even to the point of his departure from office.
Should Joe Biden go back and re-read the Constitution? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 100% (48 Votes) 0% (0 Votes)
Trump explained his position in nominating Amy Coney Barrett, a judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals: "We won the election. Elections have consequences. We have the Senate, we have the White House, and we have a phenomenal nominee respected by all. We won the election and therefore we have the right to choose her, and very few people knowingly would say otherwise. And by the way, the Democrats, they wouldn’t even think about not doing it. The only difference is they’d try and do it faster."
Biden made the claim Wednesday that Republicans were violating the Constitution when he once again refused to answer whether or not he favors "packing" the Supreme Court if his party gains control of the Senate and White House, adding additional justices to the bench.
"That's exactly what they want me to talk about so we don't talk about how they're violating the Constitution now," he told the Pittsburgh station. "And I'm not gonna play Trump's game."
Biden refused to answer the question during the debate Tuesday.
When Trump pressed him on the issue, Biden said, "Will you shut up, man?"


wnd--2020-10-01--Joe Biden is just an idea

Joe Biden is just an idea

Lost in the blinding gaslighting over Donald Trump 's remarks about white supremacists during the first presidential debate was the fact that Joe Biden proved again that he 's little more than a stand-in propped up by a compliant political press .
Biden was unable to answer even the most rudimentary queries about his beliefs , never mind specifics about policy .
Apologies to the Twitter expert class , but opposing Donald Trump is neither a moral doctrine nor a policy agenda .
There is plenty to dislike about the president , but you rarely have to guess where he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hand , says `` I am the Democratic Party , '' and yet , after a half-century in American politics , we have virtually no idea what his presidency would look like .
Biden 's already put a lid on his past , and the press has obliged .
The same reporters who will comb over 15 years of Trump 's tax returns have shown zero curiosity in nearly 40 years of Senate papers Biden has buried somewhere in a University of Delaware basement .
Then again , there 's not a single @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his 36 years in Senate that he still supports , so maybe it does n't matter .
Thanks to the media , though , I know more about some flaky QAnon candidate in Georgia than I do about the presidential front-runner 's foreign policy positions .
Or much else .
If Republicans were threatening to destroy the constitutional order by packing the courts and throwing out the legislative filibuster – one that Biden 's mentor Barack Obama once argued was an indispensable tool of a representative democracy – there would be massive pressure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stake out a public position .
This , incidentally , is n't a case of forcing Biden to answer for the ravings of some fringe activists – as the media is constantly demanding Republicans do .
No , Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer continues to tell us that `` everything is on the table '' if Republicans confirm Amy Coney Barrett using the prescribed method provided by the Constitution .
Voters do n't even know if one of the candidates will blow up the integrity of the American court system in retaliation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ been a comparable situation in post-war American politics .
Instead , we hear how Biden 's feckless opportunism is moderation .
Biden himself likes to drop a prefabricated line contending he was the one who beat Bernie Sanders , signaling to moderates that his candidacy prevailed over extremism .
Why would someone whose campaign stemmed the scourge of collectivism co-sign a 110-page Menshevik-Bolshevik Unity Pact ?
( I exaggerate only slightly . )
Maybe when Chris Wallace is done digging into the vital right-wing militia matter , he will investigate .
In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to their base during the primary , they would move back to the center .
There is no center anymore .
There is only Trump .
And because of the press ' abdication of basic professionalism , Biden , the empty vessel , can concurrently hold any position that suits you .
It was Trump , for example , who brought up the Green New Deal during the first debate – the massive multitrillion-dollar attack on , yes , cars , airplanes , your food , your house and modernity in general .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ not my plan , '' though it says , quite unmistakably , in his `` Plan for Climate Change and Environmental Justice '' that the Green New Deal is the `` crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face . ''
Instead of fact-checking Biden , the same Washington Post that once ran a headline that read , `` Joe Biden embraces Green New Deal as he releases climate plan , '' corrected Trump , asserting that , `` Biden has never supported the Green New Deal . ''
Rinse and repeat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
The media 's greatest coup in 2020 was turning months of widespread leftist violence into a debate over a few hundred far right-wing Proud Boys .
Trump 's messy answer on the matter – in which , yes , he denounced `` white supremacists '' for the umpteenth time – made all the front pages .
Biden can label Antifa , the leftist movement responsible for the majority of violence , looting , and arson over past few months , nothing more than an `` idea , '' and see no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because Joe Biden in 2020 is just an idea – a suggestion imbued with an infinite number of possibilities .
Joe can be anything you want .
What will the reality look like ?
I do n't know .
You do n't know .
He does n't know , either .

Lost in the blinding gaslighting over Donald Trump's remarks about white supremacists during the first presidential debate was the fact that Joe Biden proved again that he's little more than a stand-in propped up by a compliant political press.
Biden was unable to answer even the most rudimentary queries about his beliefs, never mind specifics about policy. Apologies to the Twitter expert class, but opposing Donald Trump is neither a moral doctrine nor a policy agenda.
There is plenty to dislike about the president, but you rarely have to guess where he stands. Biden, on the other hand, says "I am the Democratic Party," and yet, after a half-century in American politics, we have virtually no idea what his presidency would look like.
Biden's already put a lid on his past, and the press has obliged. The same reporters who will comb over 15 years of Trump's tax returns have shown zero curiosity in nearly 40 years of Senate papers Biden has buried somewhere in a University of Delaware basement. Then again, there's not a single significant piece of legislation Biden sponsored in his 36 years in Senate that he still supports, so maybe it doesn't matter.
Thanks to the media, though, I know more about some flaky QAnon candidate in Georgia than I do about the presidential front-runner's foreign policy positions. Or much else. If Republicans were threatening to destroy the constitutional order by packing the courts and throwing out the legislative filibuster – one that Biden's mentor Barack Obama once argued was an indispensable tool of a representative democracy – there would be massive pressure on the head of the party to stake out a public position.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
This, incidentally, isn't a case of forcing Biden to answer for the ravings of some fringe activists – as the media is constantly demanding Republicans do. No, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer continues to tell us that "everything is on the table" if Republicans confirm Amy Coney Barrett using the prescribed method provided by the Constitution. Voters don't even know if one of the candidates will blow up the integrity of the American court system in retaliation. I'm not sure there has ever been a comparable situation in post-war American politics.
Instead, we hear how Biden's feckless opportunism is moderation. Biden himself likes to drop a prefabricated line contending he was the one who beat Bernie Sanders, signaling to moderates that his candidacy prevailed over extremism. Why would someone whose campaign stemmed the scourge of collectivism co-sign a 110-page Menshevik-Bolshevik Unity Pact? (I exaggerate only slightly.) Maybe when Chris Wallace is done digging into the vital right-wing militia matter, he will investigate.
In the past, when candidates made outlandish promises to their base during the primary, they would move back to the center. There is no center anymore. There is only Trump. And because of the press' abdication of basic professionalism, Biden, the empty vessel, can concurrently hold any position that suits you.
It was Trump, for example, who brought up the Green New Deal during the first debate – the massive multitrillion-dollar attack on, yes, cars, airplanes, your food, your house and modernity in general. Biden casually claimed that it is "not my plan," though it says, quite unmistakably, in his "Plan for Climate Change and Environmental Justice" that the Green New Deal is the "crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face." Instead of fact-checking Biden, the same Washington Post that once ran a headline that read, "Joe Biden embraces Green New Deal as he releases climate plan," corrected Trump, asserting that, "Biden has never supported the Green New Deal."
Rinse and repeat on fracking and "defunding the police."
The media's greatest coup in 2020 was turning months of widespread leftist violence into a debate over a few hundred far right-wing Proud Boys. Trump's messy answer on the matter – in which, yes, he denounced "white supremacists" for the umpteenth time – made all the front pages. Biden can label Antifa, the leftist movement responsible for the majority of violence, looting, and arson over past few months, nothing more than an "idea," and see no blowback.
It was an interesting metaphor, because Joe Biden in 2020 is just an idea – a suggestion imbued with an infinite number of possibilities. Joe can be anything you want. What will the reality look like? I don't know. You don't know. He doesn't know, either.


wnd--2020-10-01--Court awards Edward Snowden's $5.2 million profits to government

The U.S. government now owns the $ 5.2 million Edward Snowden was paid for his book `` Permanent Record '' and dozens of speeches after his leak of highly classified information .
The Justice Department said Thursday it obtained a final judgment and permanent injunction against the former CIA employee and former contractor for the National Security Agency .
`` Edward Snowden violated his legal obligations to the United States , and therefore , his unlawful financial gains must be relinquished to the government , '' said Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen .
`` As this case demonstrates , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wrongful actions of those who seek to betray the trust reposed in them and to personally profit from their access to classified national security information . ''
Snowden copied and leaked highly classified information from the NSA in 2013 when he was a CIA employee and subcontractor .
He revealed global surveillance programs run by the NSA , igniting a cultural debate over issues of national security and individual privacy .
The government imposed a constructive trust for the benefit of the U.S. government over his profits and any further payments he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia , said intelligence information `` should protect our nation , not provide personal profit . ''
`` This judgment will ensure that Edward Snowden receives no monetary benefits from breaching the trust placed in him , '' he said .
This lawsuit is on top of criminal charges brought against Snowden for his alleged disclosures of classified information .
The suit is focused on his failure to follow pre-publication procedures attached to his signed non-disclosure agreements .
The judgment was entered in the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Virginia .
Last year , the U.S. brought the civil action against Snowden , alleging he published his book without submitting it to the security agencies for pre-publication review in violation of his express obligations under the agreements he signed .
The DOJ also charged Snowden with giving public speeches on intelligence-related matters in violation of his non-disclosure agreements .
Last winter , the court ruled in favor of the U.S. but reserved judgment on the scope of the violations or the remedies available to the government .

The U.S. government now owns the $5.2 million Edward Snowden was paid for his book "Permanent Record" and dozens of speeches after his leak of highly classified information.
The Justice Department said Thursday it obtained a final judgment and permanent injunction against the former CIA employee and former contractor for the National Security Agency.
"Edward Snowden violated his legal obligations to the United States, and therefore, his unlawful financial gains must be relinquished to the government," said Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen. "As this case demonstrates, the Department of Justice will not overlook the wrongful actions of those who seek to betray the trust reposed in them and to personally profit from their access to classified national security information."
Snowden copied and leaked highly classified information from the NSA in 2013 when he was a CIA employee and subcontractor. He revealed global surveillance programs run by the NSA, igniting a cultural debate over issues of national security and individual privacy.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
The government imposed a constructive trust for the benefit of the U.S. government over his profits and any further payments he may have arranged.
G. Zachary Terwilliger, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, said intelligence information "should protect our nation, not provide personal profit."
"This judgment will ensure that Edward Snowden receives no monetary benefits from breaching the trust placed in him," he said.
This lawsuit is on top of criminal charges brought against Snowden for his alleged disclosures of classified information. The suit is focused on his failure to follow pre-publication procedures attached to his signed non-disclosure agreements.
Should Snowden's $5.2 million book profits have been awarded to the government? 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. 41% (46 Votes) 59% (67 Votes)
The judgment was entered in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Last year, the U.S. brought the civil action against Snowden, alleging he published his book without submitting it to the security agencies for pre-publication review in violation of his express obligations under the agreements he signed.
The DOJ also charged Snowden with giving public speeches on intelligence-related matters in violation of his non-disclosure agreements.
Last winter, the court ruled in favor of the U.S. but reserved judgment on the scope of the violations or the remedies available to the government.


wnd--2020-10-01--Moderator for next debate interned for Biden

The moderator of the first presidential debate , Fox News ' Chris Wallace , has been accused by President Trump and many Republicans of favoring Joe Biden .
Now , the moderator of the second debate , Steve Scully of C-SPAN , us under scrutiny for apparent bias against Trump in his tweets over the years .
And the Gateway Pundit noted that while in college , Scully was an intern for Joe Biden 's Senate office and worked in Sen. Ted Kennedy 's media affairs office .
In a tweet in 2016 , Scully posted a photo of him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ta love the @ VP at the Biden Beach Bash '16 . ''
In a Cable Center interview in 2011 , Scully said his internship with Biden was his `` first chance to really see politics up close in Washington , D.C. '' He spoke of campaigning for Democrats , beginning with Jimmy Carter , with whom he had his picture taken at the time .
In 2016 , Scully tweeted a link to a column by New York Times columnist David Brooks against Trump 's candidacy titled `` No , Not Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michelle Malkin came to Scully 's defense regarding his internship : '' I was a mailroom intern for Dem Sen Bill Bradley 29 yrs ago .
… Many good reasons to challenge biased debates .
This is NOT one of them , '' she wrote .

The moderator of the first presidential debate, Fox News' Chris Wallace, has been accused by President Trump and many Republicans of favoring Joe Biden.
Now, the moderator of the second debate, Steve Scully of C-SPAN, us under scrutiny for apparent bias against Trump in his tweets over the years.
And the Gateway Pundit noted that while in college, Scully was an intern for Joe Biden's Senate office and worked in Sen. Ted Kennedy's media affairs office.
In a tweet in 2016, Scully posted a photo of him with Biden, saying, "Gotta love the @VP at the Biden Beach Bash '16."
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Gotta love the @VP at the Biden Beach Bash '16 pic.twitter.com/Z9gdC6Cmi1 — Steve Scully (@SteveScully) June 4, 2016
In a Cable Center interview in 2011, Scully said his internship with Biden was his "first chance to really see politics up close in Washington, D.C."
He spoke of campaigning for Democrats, beginning with Jimmy Carter, with whom he had his picture taken at the time.
Is it fair for a never-Trumper to moderate a presidential debate? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 4% (7 Votes) 96% (160 Votes)
In 2016, Scully tweeted a link to a column by New York Times columnist David Brooks against Trump's candidacy titled "No, Not Trump, Not Ever."
Conservative commentator Michelle Malkin came to Scully's defense regarding his internship:
Quit the lame attacks on @SteveScully of @cspan, who's scheduled to moderate next debate. He was a mailroom intern for Biden 42 yrs ago. So? I was a mailroom intern for Dem Sen Bill Bradley 29 yrs ago. Many good reasons to challenge biased debates. This is NOT one of them. — Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) October 1, 2020
"I was a mailroom intern for Dem Sen Bill Bradley 29 yrs ago. … Many good reasons to challenge biased debates. This is NOT one of them," she wrote.


wnd--2020-10-01--Report on rising far-left extremism warns about 'mass-casualty event'

A new academic paper studying the rise of violent , far-left extremist networks warns of the possibility of “ attacks on vital infrastructure ” and even a potential “ mass-casualty event.
” The Network Contagion Research Institute ’ s report warns that militant anarcho-socialist networks are instigating violence in ways that parallel Islamist terrorists and white supremacist groups .
The NCRI ’ s alerts have proved prescient in the past : the institute released a report warning of spikes in anti-Semitic extremism shortly before the October 2018 Tree of Life Synagogue mass shooting that left 11 people dead .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sept. 14 has received little media attention but sounds alarms about an “ online structure supporting anarcho-socialist extremism ” that “ appears to be rapidly growing ” and supporting real-world violence .
“ Anarcho-Socialist militias which explicitly glorify Martyr narratives , classic authoritarian narratives , and revolutionary narratives are now formally organizing—and are growing , ” the report adds .
The report also cites “ evidence that both militia and anarchist networks play key roles in the recent social justice protests from controlling perimeters at CHAZ [ CHOP ] to coordinating nation-wide anarchist-inspired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence that violent anarcho-socialist networks played an active online role in preparing for and coordinating real world riots nation-wide and in real time , ” the report goes on to note .
The NCRI report also points to coordinated demonstrations across the country on July 25 , which devolved into riots in four cities .
“ We found that distributed anarchist networks prepared , executed , and propagandized simultaneous rallies on July 25th across the United States in a coordinated campaign with the hashtag/code ‘ # J25 ’ resulting in riots being declared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ OR , Richmond , VA , Eugene , OR , and Seattle , WA , ” the report states .
The NCRI report says that left-wingers have martyrized Willem Van Spronsen , a self-identified Antifa member who died in a shootout with police in July 2019 after attempting to burn down an immigration detention center in Washington .
“ While this report is suggestive rather than conclusive , these data hint that insurgent behavior , stochastic terror and even attacks on vital infrastructure may be fomenting , and even indicate the possibility of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ later concludes .
This story originally was published by the Daily Caller News Foundation .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original content , please contact [ email protected ]

By Peter Hasson
Daily Caller News Foundation
A new academic paper studying the rise of violent, far-left extremist networks warns of the possibility of “attacks on vital infrastructure” and even a potential “mass-casualty event.”
The Network Contagion Research Institute’s report warns that militant anarcho-socialist networks are instigating violence in ways that parallel Islamist terrorists and white supremacist groups.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
The NCRI’s alerts have proved prescient in the past: the institute released a report warning of spikes in anti-Semitic extremism shortly before the October 2018 Tree of Life Synagogue mass shooting that left 11 people dead.
The new report, which was released on Sept. 14 has received little media attention but sounds alarms about an “online structure supporting anarcho-socialist extremism” that “appears to be rapidly growing” and supporting real-world violence.
“Anarcho-Socialist militias which explicitly glorify Martyr narratives, classic authoritarian narratives, and revolutionary narratives are now formally organizing—and are growing,” the report adds.
The report also cites “evidence that both militia and anarchist networks play key roles in the recent social justice protests from controlling perimeters at CHAZ [CHOP] to coordinating nation-wide anarchist-inspired violent protests online.”
Are far-left extremists planning a horrific "mass casualty" event? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 99% (126 Votes) 1% (1 Votes)
“We find evidence that violent anarcho-socialist networks played an active online role in preparing for and coordinating real world riots nation-wide and in real time,” the report goes on to note.
The NCRI report also points to coordinated demonstrations across the country on July 25, which devolved into riots in four cities.
“We found that distributed anarchist networks prepared, executed, and propagandized simultaneous rallies on July 25th across the United States in a coordinated campaign with the hashtag/code ‘#J25’ resulting in riots being declared simultaneously in four cities: Portland, OR, Richmond, VA, Eugene, OR, and Seattle, WA,” the report states.
The NCRI report says that left-wingers have martyrized Willem Van Spronsen, a self-identified Antifa member who died in a shootout with police in July 2019 after attempting to burn down an immigration detention center in Washington.
“While this report is suggestive rather than conclusive, these data hint that insurgent behavior, stochastic terror and even attacks on vital infrastructure may be fomenting, and even indicate the possibility of a mass-casualty event,” the report later concludes.
This story originally was published by the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].