dailysignal--2020-11-24--Americans Should Be Free to Decide How to Celebrate Thanksgiving

Even in this dreadful year , there is much for which to be thankful .
For example , clinical medicine during the COVID-19 pandemic has continued to advance at a breathtaking pace , with not one , but two different vaccine approvals expected in the coming days , and numerous drugs , both old and new , being found to have a positive effect on the disease course of this virus .
Furthermore , new advances in testing have enabled us as a country routinely to record more than 1.5 million tests each day , with capacity expected only to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s the best way for America to reopen and return to business ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , assembled America ’ s top thinkers to figure that out .
So far , it has made more than 260 recommendations .
Learn more here .
We should give thanks for the hard work and ingenuity of those who are developing these advances .
We should also be thankful for the bravery and determination of every health care worker who has fought on the front line of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have much to be thankful for , and Americans should be free to decide how they give thanks this Thanksgiving—including gathering with friends and family .
Still , we are in the midst of a tremendous spike in infections of this serious disease .
This holiday season—be careful .
Understand the risks , and the fact that COVID-19 is an extremely contagious and potentially deadly disease .
Take responsibility for yourself and for others around you and do not be cavalier about this virus as you celebrate the holidays .
That is , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Several states have decided to impose restrictions on Thanksgiving holiday gatherings that will prohibit families from visiting one another .
California has published a series of recommendations and mandatory requirements for gatherings—for instance , gatherings of more than three households are “ strongly discouraged , ” or even prohibited , depending on where you live .
Vermont and Washington have gone so far as to prohibit any gatherings that include more than one household .
In Philadelphia , even outdoor gatherings are banned .
These mandates are bad policy , and the policymakers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Whether one household or 10 , if no one there has an active infection , there will be exactly zero transmission .
The problem , of course , is asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic spread , the likelihood of which would be proportional to the number of new cases in the community—and we are in the midst of spike .
Does it make sense then to pursue harsh mandated restrictions rather than informed decision-making ?
If we follow the science , as so many policymakers claim we must , the answer to that is “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gatherings is , by nature , untargeted and can not account for unique situations .
For instance , a group of students in college hosting a “ Friendsgiving ” gathering faces very little risk from COVID-19 , even if an attendee has an active infection .
The risk of death , according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , to the typical college-age adult , as compared to someone 85 years or older , is measured in the tenths of a single percentage point .
Consider : This hypothetical gathering of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to celebrate Thanksgiving without returning home specifically to protect their elders to avoidable exposure .
If COVID-19 happens to spread during this feast , the chances of recovery are somewhere between 99.98 % and 99.997 % , according to the best estimates of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
Would it be the right thing to do to prohibit this gathering ?
On the other hand , if a grandparent , or great-grandparent , wishes to enjoy her remaining years , should it not be up to her and her family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ works for them , and take precautions as they deem necessary ?
If a family plans to take mitigation steps—such as , for example , testing everyone and isolating before traveling to visit one another in ways that have them interact with no one else—is it still right to deny this family the visit ?
Despite these considerations , some governors and mayors are choosing a path that substitutes informed decision-making .
And the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are not helping by making it harder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their home and by making it harder to understand who should get tested and what to do with their results .
By now , the science is quite clear on who exactly is at the greatest risk due to COVID-19 .
The goals of public health measures should therefore be to inform Americans on risks and mitigation , and motivate and equip them to consider them as they act—not impose sweeping mandates on Americans .
COVID-19 remains a real danger , and its infectiousness means that even those of us at low risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inadvertently spread it to others who are at high risk .
There are many ways to avoid contagion , such as testing and isolating , having outdoor events where possible , gathering in smaller groups , and connecting virtually to protect elders from exposure , or any number of other creative measures .
This should be up to you and your family , not the government .
So if you ’ ve considered the risks , taken precautions , and have family agreement , go and enjoy your turkey in ways that take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we live in .

Even in this dreadful year, there is much for which to be thankful.
For example, clinical medicine during the COVID-19 pandemic has continued to advance at a breathtaking pace, with not one, but two different vaccine approvals expected in the coming days, and numerous drugs, both old and new, being found to have a positive effect on the disease course of this virus.
Furthermore, new advances in testing have enabled us as a country routinely to record more than 1.5 million tests each day, with capacity expected only to expand.
>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.
We should give thanks for the hard work and ingenuity of those who are developing these advances. We should also be thankful for the bravery and determination of every health care worker who has fought on the front line of this pandemic since the beginning.
We have much to be thankful for, and Americans should be free to decide how they give thanks this Thanksgiving—including gathering with friends and family.
Still, we are in the midst of a tremendous spike in infections of this serious disease. This holiday season—be careful. Understand the risks, and the fact that COVID-19 is an extremely contagious and potentially deadly disease. Take responsibility for yourself and for others around you and do not be cavalier about this virus as you celebrate the holidays.
That is, if the lawmakers will let us.
Several states have decided to impose restrictions on Thanksgiving holiday gatherings that will prohibit families from visiting one another.
California has published a series of recommendations and mandatory requirements for gatherings—for instance, gatherings of more than three households are “strongly discouraged,” or even prohibited, depending on where you live.
Vermont and Washington have gone so far as to prohibit any gatherings that include more than one household. In Philadelphia, even outdoor gatherings are banned.
These mandates are bad policy, and the policymakers need to choose a better path.
Whether one household or 10, if no one there has an active infection, there will be exactly zero transmission. The problem, of course, is asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic spread, the likelihood of which would be proportional to the number of new cases in the community—and we are in the midst of spike. Does it make sense then to pursue harsh mandated restrictions rather than informed decision-making?
If we follow the science, as so many policymakers claim we must, the answer to that is “no.” A blanket restriction on holiday gatherings is, by nature, untargeted and cannot account for unique situations.
For instance, a group of students in college hosting a “Friendsgiving” gathering faces very little risk from COVID-19, even if an attendee has an active infection. The risk of death, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to the typical college-age adult, as compared to someone 85 years or older, is measured in the tenths of a single percentage point.
Consider: This hypothetical gathering of young adults may have occurred so as to celebrate Thanksgiving without returning home specifically to protect their elders to avoidable exposure. If COVID-19 happens to spread during this feast, the chances of recovery are somewhere between 99.98% and 99.997%, according to the best estimates of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Would it be the right thing to do to prohibit this gathering?
On the other hand, if a grandparent, or great-grandparent, wishes to enjoy her remaining years, should it not be up to her and her family to assess the risks, decide what works for them, and take precautions as they deem necessary?
If a family plans to take mitigation steps—such as, for example, testing everyone and isolating before traveling to visit one another in ways that have them interact with no one else—is it still right to deny this family the visit?
Despite these considerations, some governors and mayors are choosing a path that substitutes informed decision-making. And the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are not helping by making it harder for people to test for COVID-19 from their home and by making it harder to understand who should get tested and what to do with their results.
By now, the science is quite clear on who exactly is at the greatest risk due to COVID-19. The goals of public health measures should therefore be to inform Americans on risks and mitigation, and motivate and equip them to consider them as they act—not impose sweeping mandates on Americans.
COVID-19 remains a real danger, and its infectiousness means that even those of us at low risk need to be careful, lest we inadvertently spread it to others who are at high risk.
There are many ways to avoid contagion, such as testing and isolating, having outdoor events where possible, gathering in smaller groups, and connecting virtually to protect elders from exposure, or any number of other creative measures. This should be up to you and your family, not the government.
So if you’ve considered the risks, taken precautions, and have family agreement, go and enjoy your turkey in ways that take into account the realities of the times we live in.


dailysignal--2020-11-26--If Voters Had Known About 8 Stories Media Ignored, Trump Would Have Won, Says Media Watchdog

The head of a media watchdog organization says the media ’ s failure to cover eight stories may be the reason President Donald Trump lost the election .
“ The media can talk all day long about Donald Trump and all day long about things that he ’ s doing wrong , ” Brent Bozell , founder and president of the Media Research Center , said on a call Tuesday unveiling a poll the center commissioned , “ Special Report : The Stealing of the Presidency , 2020.
” “ It is absolutely unequivocal , the evidence that it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and I underscore deliberately , made it a point not to tell the public about these stories that nobody can question , ” Bozell said .
“ And now we ’ re showing the evidence that it cost Donald Trump the election.
” The Media Research Center asked voters about eight news stories the center considered “ important topics that our ongoing analysis had shown the liberal news media had failed to cover properly , ” according to a report by Rich Noyes , the research director at the Media Research Center .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the Biden-Harris ticket , including Sen. Kamala Harris ’ liberal viewpoints and the sexual assault allegation former Vice President Joe Biden faced , and five positive stories about the Trump administration , including 33.1 % economic growth and the Middle East peace deals .
In whole , the survey found that 17 % of people who cast their ballot for Biden “ would have changed their vote if they had been aware of one or more of these important stories , ” according to Noyes .
If the eight stories had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won every single contested race in America , ” Bozell said .
“ Of the six contested races , he would have won every single one , and he would have had at least 311 electoral votes.
” The Media Research Center commissioned the Polling Co. to survey 1,750 people who voted for Biden in seven swing states : Arizona , Georgia , Michigan , Nevada , North Carolina , Pennsylvania , and Wisconsin .
Six of these states appear to have been won by Biden , with North Carolina being the exception @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of people who voted for Biden did not know of at least one of the eight stories .
For example , the survey found that 35.4 % of people who voted for Biden did not know about the allegations from Tara Reade , who said Biden sexually assaulted her in the 1990s .
In a May statement , Biden said the allegations from Reade were false .
“ I want to address allegations by a former staffer that I engaged in misconduct 27 years ago , ” Biden said .
“ They aren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Noyes also noted that the lack of media reporting on the Trump administration ’ s success appears to have had an impact on voters .
“ The five pre-election jobs reports from June 5 to October 2 showed a record 11,161,000 jobs were created in the extraordinary snapback from the pandemic recession , ” Noyes wrote , adding : Adam Brandon , president of FreedomWorks , a grassroots political organization , who joined Bozell on the call , said that the survey ’ s findings illustrate the media ’ s influence .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ media was not objective in following this race , ” Brandon said .
“ This was a complete failure of the fourth state at the national level .
I believe their polling results alone should embarrass and embarrass them enough to start to relook at their model.
” Of people who voted for Biden , 45.1 % said they did not know about the questioned business dealings of Hunter Biden , the son of Joe Biden , where the the New York Post alleged in a Oct. 14 piece that an email on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden ’ s laptop indicated Hunter Biden had introduced a Ukrainian business executive from Burisma to his dad .
Hunter Biden served on the board of the Ukraine-based natural gas company .
One polling question read , “ At the time you cast your vote for president , were you aware that evidence exists , including bank transactions the FBI is currently investigating , that directly links Joe Biden and his family to a corrupt financial arrangement between a Chinese company with connections to the Chinese Communist Party that was secretly intended to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ millions of dollars in profits ?
” Among respondents who voted for Biden , 45.1 % said they were unaware of this .
During the final presidential debate in October , Biden defended his son , saying , “ Nothing was unethical ” about Hunter Biden ’ s position on the board of Burisma .
“ My son has not made money from China .
The only guy who has made money from China was this guy , ” Joe Biden said .
Of Biden voters , 9.4 % said they wouldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ known , “ flipping all six of the swing states he won to Trump , giving the president 311 electoral votes , ” according to the Media Research Center .
“ The scandal , I think , points to perhaps the largest scandal in history where the government is concerned where the allegation was that the vice president of the United States was , in fact , lining his pockets with shady business deals with Chinese communist companies , ” Bozell said .
“ The Biden laptop purportedly confirms all of that .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ same media that were going hog wild [ during ] the Kavanaugh hearings when there was no evidence of it would go crazy over this one .
”

The head of a media watchdog organization says the media’s failure to cover eight stories may be the reason President Donald Trump lost the election.
“The media can talk all day long about Donald Trump and all day long about things that he’s doing wrong,” Brent Bozell, founder and president of the Media Research Center, said on a call Tuesday unveiling a poll the center commissioned, “Special Report: The Stealing of the Presidency, 2020.”
“It is absolutely unequivocal, the evidence that it was the national news movement that deliberately, and I underscore deliberately, made it a point not to tell the public about these stories that nobody can question,” Bozell said. “And now we’re showing the evidence that it cost Donald Trump the election.”
The Media Research Center asked voters about eight news stories the center considered “important topics that our ongoing analysis had shown the liberal news media had failed to cover properly,” according to a report by Rich Noyes, the research director at the Media Research Center.
The eight themes included three negative ones about the Biden-Harris ticket, including Sen. Kamala Harris’ liberal viewpoints and the sexual assault allegation former Vice President Joe Biden faced, and five positive stories about the Trump administration, including 33.1% economic growth and the Middle East peace deals.
In whole, the survey found that 17% of people who cast their ballot for Biden “would have changed their vote if they had been aware of one or more of these important stories,” according to Noyes.
If the eight stories had been reported on, “Trump would have won every single contested race in America,” Bozell said. “Of the six contested races, he would have won every single one, and he would have had at least 311 electoral votes.”
The Media Research Center commissioned the Polling Co. to survey 1,750 people who voted for Biden in seven swing states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Six of these states appear to have been won by Biden, with North Carolina being the exception.
The survey found that 82% of people who voted for Biden did not know of at least one of the eight stories.
For example, the survey found that 35.4% of people who voted for Biden did not know about the allegations from Tara Reade, who said Biden sexually assaulted her in the 1990s.
In a May statement, Biden said the allegations from Reade were false. “I want to address allegations by a former staffer that I engaged in misconduct 27 years ago,” Biden said. “They aren’t true. This never happened.”
Noyes writes:
If they had known about Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegations, 8.9% told us they would have changed their vote—either switching to Trump or a third-party candidate, not voting for any presidential candidate, or not voting at all. By itself, this would have flipped all six of the swing states won by Biden (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), giving the president a win with 311 Electoral College votes.
Noyes also noted that the lack of media reporting on the Trump administration’s success appears to have had an impact on voters.
“The five pre-election jobs reports from June 5 to October 2 showed a record 11,161,000 jobs were created in the extraordinary snapback from the pandemic recession,” Noyes wrote, adding:
Yet a large number of Biden voters (39.4%) said they didn’t know about this achievement. If they had, 5.4% said they would have changed their vote; this would have swung Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin to Trump, who would have won with 295 electoral votes.
Adam Brandon, president of FreedomWorks, a grassroots political organization, who joined Bozell on the call, said that the survey’s findings illustrate the media’s influence.
“It’s very clear the media was not objective in following this race,” Brandon said. “This was a complete failure of the fourth state at the national level. I believe their polling results alone should embarrass and embarrass them enough to start to relook at their model.”
Of people who voted for Biden, 45.1% said they did not know about the questioned business dealings of Hunter Biden, the son of Joe Biden, where the the New York Post alleged in a Oct. 14 piece that an email on what is believed to be the younger Biden’s laptop indicated Hunter Biden had introduced a Ukrainian business executive from Burisma to his dad. Hunter Biden served on the board of the Ukraine-based natural gas company.
One polling question read, “At the time you cast your vote for president, were you aware that evidence exists, including bank transactions the FBI is currently investigating, that directly links Joe Biden and his family to a corrupt financial arrangement between a Chinese company with connections to the Chinese Communist Party that was secretly intended to provide the Biden family with tens of millions of dollars in profits?”
Among respondents who voted for Biden, 45.1% said they were unaware of this.
During the final presidential debate in October, Biden defended his son, saying, “Nothing was unethical” about Hunter Biden’s position on the board of Burisma. “My son has not made money from China. The only guy who has made money from China was this guy,” Joe Biden said.
Of Biden voters, 9.4% said they wouldn’t have voted for Biden had they known, “flipping all six of the swing states he won to Trump, giving the president 311 electoral votes,” according to the Media Research Center.
“The scandal, I think, points to perhaps the largest scandal in history where the government is concerned where the allegation was that the vice president of the United States was, in fact, lining his pockets with shady business deals with Chinese communist companies,” Bozell said.
“The Biden laptop purportedly confirms all of that. So you would have thought that the same media that were going hog wild [during] the Kavanaugh hearings when there was no evidence of it would go crazy over this one.”


dailysignal--2020-11-30--How the Elections Signaled a Breakthrough for Multi-ethnic Conservatism

President Donald Trump ’ s getting a greater share of the black vote than the average Republican candidate and California voters ’ rejection of affirmative action , an effort led by Asian Americans , are being seen as hopeful signs for a multi-ethnic conservatism .
“ So , what you ’ re seeing is people realizing that their lot is with an American way , a seeking of an American system , ” Francisco “ Quico ” Canseco , director of the Election Protection Project at the Texas Public Policy Foundation , said at a recent webinar hosted by The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I think what happened is that an appeal to a lot of these people , that there was a certain sense of machismo , and in the president in getting things done and really serving the people with palpable , tactile facts of what he did on the ground , ” said Canseco , a former congressman from Texas .
The Nov. 17 briefing , “ Multi-ethnic Conservatism : Americans With Diverse Backgrounds Seek to Conserve What ’ s Good About America , ” was hosted by Angela Sailor , vice president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Institute .
Ying Ma , another presenter , was the communications director for the successful “ No on Prop 16 ” campaign , in which California voters this month rejected Proposition 16 , which would have reinstated affirmative action in state law .
The ballot measure would have repealed Proposition 209 , a law enacted by California voters in 1996 that banned affirmative action .
Proposition 16 would have permitted universities , community colleges , and other public institutions to take into account race , gender , and ethnicity when hiring , awarding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Opponents said that the rejection of Proposition 16 by 57 % of the vote was monumental because voters saw the failure of identity politics .
“ In many ways , this was a rejection of a number of long-standing Asian-American groups that have for decades failed so spectacularly at serving the people they claim to represent , ” Ma said , adding : Ma , a Chinese immigrant to America and author of the autobiographical “ Chinese Girl in the Ghetto , ” said that Asian Americans are seeing through rhetoric that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t escape people that some of the people … who were promoting racial preferences were some of the most racist people out there , ” she said .
Lenny McAllister , chief executive officer of the Pennsylvania Coalition of Public Charter Schools and senior fellow at the Commonwealth Foundation , said that voting in 2020 for African Americans became more about policy , and less about personality .
“ African-American voters started making choices on policies , ” McAllister said .
“ They started looking and saying , ‘ Oh , my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ options do my kids have to have continuity of education ?
’ “ They said the same thing about their jobs , the same thing about their society being open , ” he added .
“ You can get the resources that my family needs .
And when they are looking at that , without being forced into a straight-ticket option , they start choosing and splitting their ticket.
” Black voters have long voted overwhelmingly for Democrats , but in the Nov. 3 presidential election , Trump received 8 percent of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ men ) , which is roughly a 2 percentage-point increase over his 2016 figures , according to AP VoteCast .
But McAllister cautioned that conservatives have their work cut out for them if they hope to engage more of the African-American population .
“ At this moment , because of the pandemic , because of the election , because of the blowback , which was not just 2020 , but going as far back as Ferguson [ Missouri ] , even before that , people are looking for new solutions , and we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , adding : Canseco said the result is that minorities are more fully embracing what it means to be American .
“ Going forward , I think that what you ’ ve got is an awakening of a population that was otherwise somewhat controlled—even though , I don ’ t mean to sound insulting—being told that one side is just a lot meaner and not as kind as another .
“ And I see the … idea being that , they are now beginning to embrace more fully of their Americanism , @ @ @ @

President Donald Trump’s getting a greater share of the black vote than the average Republican candidate and California voters’ rejection of affirmative action, an effort led by Asian Americans, are being seen as hopeful signs for a multi-ethnic conservatism.
“So, what you’re seeing is people realizing that their lot is with an American way, a seeking of an American system,” Francisco “Quico” Canseco, director of the Election Protection Project at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, said at a recent webinar hosted by The Heritage Foundation.
“With Donald Trump, I think what happened is that an appeal to a lot of these people, that there was a certain sense of machismo, and in the president in getting things done and really serving the people with palpable, tactile facts of what he did on the ground,” said Canseco, a former congressman from Texas.
The Nov. 17 briefing, “Multi-ethnic Conservatism: Americans With Diverse Backgrounds Seek to Conserve What’s Good About America,” was hosted by Angela Sailor, vice president of The Heritage Foundation’s Feulner Institute.
Ying Ma, another presenter, was the communications director for the successful “No on Prop 16” campaign, in which California voters this month rejected Proposition 16, which would have reinstated affirmative action in state law.
The ballot measure would have repealed Proposition 209, a law enacted by California voters in 1996 that banned affirmative action.
Proposition 16 would have permitted universities, community colleges, and other public institutions to take into account race, gender, and ethnicity when hiring, awarding contracts, and accepting students into schools.
Opponents said that the rejection of Proposition 16 by 57% of the vote was monumental because voters saw the failure of identity politics.
“In many ways, this was a rejection of a number of long-standing Asian-American groups that have for decades failed so spectacularly at serving the people they claim to represent,” Ma said, adding:
These groups didn’t really see the language of the people that they claim to represent … . And they just very much thought that they knew what was best for the people they claim to represent. And this was a resounding rejection of those types of so-called civil rights organizations.
Ma, a Chinese immigrant to America and author of the autobiographical “Chinese Girl in the Ghetto,” said that Asian Americans are seeing through rhetoric that is ultimately racist.
“It didn’t escape people that some of the people … who were promoting racial preferences were some of the most racist people out there,” she said.
Lenny McAllister, chief executive officer of the Pennsylvania Coalition of Public Charter Schools and senior fellow at the Commonwealth Foundation, said that voting in 2020 for African Americans became more about policy, and less about personality.
“African-American voters started making choices on policies,” McAllister said. “They started looking and saying, ‘Oh, my local public schools closed. And what options do my kids have to have continuity of education?’
“They said the same thing about their jobs, the same thing about their society being open,” he added. “You can get the resources that my family needs. And when they are looking at that, without being forced into a straight-ticket option, they start choosing and splitting their ticket.”
Black voters have long voted overwhelmingly for Democrats, but in the Nov. 3 presidential election, Trump received 8 percent of the black vote (12% among black men), which is roughly a 2 percentage-point increase over his 2016 figures, according to AP VoteCast.
But McAllister cautioned that conservatives have their work cut out for them if they hope to engage more of the African-American population.
“At this moment, because of the pandemic, because of the election, because of the blowback, which was not just 2020, but going as far back as Ferguson [Missouri], even before that, people are looking for new solutions, and we have solutions for them,” he said, adding:
This is a time to reinvigorate our efforts in regards to tweaking how we articulate our proposals and making sure that we have the partnerships in place, both the traditional ones and the American constituencies that we’re going to be dealing with to ensure that people get the solutions that they need.
Canseco said the result is that minorities are more fully embracing what it means to be American.
“Going forward, I think that what you’ve got is an awakening of a population that was otherwise somewhat controlled—even though, I don’t mean to sound insulting—being told that one side is just a lot meaner and not as kind as another.
“And I see the … idea being that, they are now beginning to embrace more fully of their Americanism,” he said.


dailysignal--2020-11-30--It Will Be Hard for Biden to Undo Trump’s Gains. But Be Prepared.

Even if President Donald Trump isn ’ t in the White House for the next four years , he ’ s leaving the next president with a whole lot to remember him by .
As the days tick on , more liberals are starting to realize that even if Joe Biden wins , upending all that Trump did will be a much harder climb than many people thought .
The roots of this administration ’ s policy run deep , and pulling them up will be a long , difficult slog—if the Democrat can manage it at all .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” former Obama official Jim Messina said , “ that it ’ s all going to change , and I just don ’ t think that ’ s how things work.
” Not only is wholesale change going to be difficult to come by , he suspects , but it ’ s not what the American people want .
Just look at the GOP ’ s gains in state houses , governors ’ mansions , and Congress .
This election wasn ’ t a repudiation of the conservative message .
If anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far-left to put its extremism in park .
Are there things Biden could do right away ?
Absolutely .
He ’ s already committed to throwing open the doors to taxpayer-funded abortion , reinstating Obama ’ s transgender school mandate , and crushing freedom with a laundry list of health care orders .
But here ’ s the beauty of Trump ’ s legacy : We now have courts at every level dominated by constitutionalists who will be more than happy to respond when the Biden administration oversteps its authority .
“ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to where Trump has acted on executive power , ” Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute warned , “ may be very significantly constrained.
” Even appointing hardcore liberals to key posts will be difficult if the GOP hangs on to the Senate .
Outlets like the Huffington Post are already wringing their hands over the depth of Trump ’ s policies .
Undoing what he ’ s been able to accomplish on issues like life “ won ’ t be easy.
” Especially on things like the Mexico City Policy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the farthest-reaching orders of its kind “ is not like turning a light switch on and off , ” lamented one international abortion activist .
As the Post points out , “ President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence not only reinstated the gag rule on day one of Trump ’ s presidency ( an expected move from a Republican president ) , Trump expanded it twice and is currently looking to expand it once more before his term ends.
” This won ’ t be like past presidential handoffs , Alanna @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” of this president ’ s pro-life stance—not just here , but around the world—will take years to erase .
But don ’ t expect the hard-left to cut Biden ’ s team a break .
They ’ ve waited too long and despise conservative values too much to let a chance like this slip away .
Even now , groups like the Human Rights Campaign are already out with their long lists of demands .
And marginalizing Christians is priority number one .
“ If there is a Biden administration , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it will be , by Joe Biden ’ s own pledge , the most LGBTQ-positive administration in history.
” But , he shakes his head in amazement , “ at least we know what the game plan is.
” “ I ’ m astounded , ” Mohler went on , “ at how clear and candid they are .
It ’ s like discovering the German battle plans for the invasion of France .
We ’ ve been told exactly what they intend in terms of stripping Christian schools of accreditation [ and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” They ’ re coming for Christian schools , colleges , and seminaries , he warns , and it will be an assault like we ’ ve never seen before .
It ’ s right there in black and white , Mohler insisted .
“ They want to force the Biden administration to use the power of executive orders through the Department of Education to deny any school that stands against the LGBTQ revolution [ their ] accreditation.
” And maybe there are Christians who say , “ Well , no big deal.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Mohler argued .
Accreditation has everything to do with “ whether your school can accept students from the GI Bill , whether or not your school can participate in federal student aid programs .
My school does not… but hundreds of Christian schools do .
And whether or not your degrees and credits will be recognized to transfer to another institution or [ whether ] your graduates [ are ] able to apply to a graduation program elsewhere…This is the worldview conflict we ’ re facing.
” The only way a religious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ folds on biblical teaching .
“ You ’ d have to recognize homosexuality [ and transgenderism in housing and student life ] .
You ’ d have to recognize same-sex marriage .
You ’ d have to hire without regard to a Christian understanding of sexuality .
You ’ d have to deny science… in sexual identity and gender identity.
” Honestly , Mohler said , “ the further you look at this document , the more you realize it really is diabolical.
” The problem is , people aren ’ t paying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their eyes glued to the election to look deeper at what Biden is proposing .
Secondly , too many Americans are out there believing , “ Oh , Biden would never do that.
” I ’ m here to tell you he will .
This is not theoretical .
“ I think most American conservative Christians just don ’ t have any idea how all of the things that they ’ ve celebrated for the last four years are [ all endangered ] , ” Mohler agreed .
So what do we do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , “ Knowledge is power.
” If the enemy ’ s given you their war plan , there ’ s no excuse for not dealing with it .
Christians need to come to grips with what ’ s coming .
If the Biden administration has a chance , it ’ s going to move on the church at warp speed .
Men and women of faith need to understand that they might have to pay a price to defend religious freedom , as uncomfortable as that will be .
And , most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden and Kamala Harris fight for every inch .
We may not be able to stop everything , but thanks to the sweeping victories we had in the states , we can at least slow it down .

Even if President Donald Trump isn’t in the White House for the next four years, he’s leaving the next president with a whole lot to remember him by.
As the days tick on, more liberals are starting to realize that even if Joe Biden wins, upending all that Trump did will be a much harder climb than many people thought. The roots of this administration’s policy run deep, and pulling them up will be a long, difficult slog—if the Democrat can manage it at all.
“There’s this assumption in Washington,” former Obama official Jim Messina said, “that it’s all going to change, and I just don’t think that’s how things work.” Not only is wholesale change going to be difficult to come by, he suspects, but it’s not what the American people want.
Just look at the GOP’s gains in state houses, governors’ mansions, and Congress. This election wasn’t a repudiation of the conservative message. If anything, it was a warning to the far left to put its extremism in park.
Are there things Biden could do right away? Absolutely. He’s already committed to throwing open the doors to taxpayer-funded abortion, reinstating former President Barack Obama’s transgender school mandate, and crushing freedom with a laundry list of health care orders.
But here’s the beauty of Trump’s legacy: We now have courts at every level dominated by constitutionalists who will be more than happy to respond when the Biden administration oversteps its authority.
“The ability of Biden to act, compared to where Trump has acted on executive power,” Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute warned, “may be very significantly constrained.” Even appointing hardcore liberals to key posts will be difficult if the GOP hangs on to the Senate.
Outlets like the HuffPost are already wringing their hands over the depth of Trump’s policies. Undoing what he’s been able to accomplish on issues like life “won’t be easy.” Especially on things like the Mexico City Policy, which bans overseas abortion funding, rescinding the farthest-reaching orders of its kind “is not like turning a light switch on and off,” lamented one international abortion activist.
As the HuffPost points out, “President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence not only reinstated the gag rule on day one of Trump’s presidency (an expected move from a Republican president), Trump expanded it twice and is currently looking to expand it once more before his term ends.”
This won’t be like past presidential handoffs, Alanna Vagianos complains. The “lasting effects” of this president’s pro-life stance—not just here, but around the world—will take years to erase.
But don’t expect the hard left to cut Biden’s team a break. It’s waited too long and despises conservative values too much to let a chance like this slip away. Even now, groups like the Human Rights Campaign are already out with their long lists of demands. And marginalizing Christians is priority number one.
“If there is a Biden administration,” Albert Mohler points out, “it will be, by Joe Biden’s own pledge, the most LGBTQ-positive administration in history.” But, he shakes his head in amazement, “at least we know what the game plan is.”
“I’m astounded,” Mohler went on, “at how clear and candid they are. It’s like discovering the German battle plans for the invasion of France. We’ve been told exactly what they intend in terms of stripping Christian schools of accreditation [and the] fundamental assault on religious liberty.”
They’re coming for Christian schools, colleges, and seminaries, he warns, and it will be an assault like we’ve never seen before. It’s right there in black and white, Mohler insisted.
“They want to force the Biden administration to use the power of executive orders through the Department of Education to deny any school that stands against the LGBTQ revolution [their] accreditation.”
And maybe there are Christians who say, “Well, no big deal.” It’s a huge deal, Mohler argued.
Accreditation has everything to do with “whether your school can accept students from the GI Bill, whether or not your school can participate in federal student aid programs. My school does not … but hundreds of Christian schools do. And whether or not your degrees and credits will be recognized to transfer to another institution or [whether] your graduates [are] able to apply to a graduation program elsewhere … This is the worldview conflict we’re facing.”
The only way a religious school will be recognized is if it folds on biblical teaching. “You’d have to recognize homosexuality [and transgenderism in housing and student life]. You’d have to recognize same-sex marriage. You’d have to hire without regard to a Christian understanding of sexuality. You’d have to deny science … in sexual identity and gender identity.”
Honestly, Mohler said, “the further you look at this document, the more you realize it really is diabolical.”
The problem is, people aren’t paying attention. Too many of them have their eyes glued to the election to look deeper at what Biden is proposing. Secondly, too many Americans are out there believing, “Oh, Biden would never do that.” I’m here to tell you he will. This is not theoretical.
“I think most American conservative Christians just don’t have any idea how all of the things that they’ve celebrated for the last four years are [all endangered],” Mohler agreed.
So what do we do about it? Well, as he said, “Knowledge is power.” If the enemy’s given you their war plan, there’s no excuse for not dealing with it. Christians need to come to grips with what’s coming.
If the Biden administration has a chance, it’s going to move on the church at warp speed. Men and women of faith need to understand that they might have to pay a price to defend religious freedom, as uncomfortable as that will be.
And, most importantly, we—as a community—need to make Biden and Kamala Harris fight for every inch. We may not be able to stop everything, but thanks to the sweeping victories we had in the states, we can at least slow it down.
Originally published by Family Research Council


dailysignal--2020-11-30--Biden’s ‘Return to Normalcy’ Is Going to Be Terrible

After spending two years avoiding serious questions about his policy preferences , his team and his prospective presidency , we now know what Joe Biden intends to do should the Electoral College , as expected , vote for him in December : He ’ ll reopen the swamp for business .
The media spent four long years suggesting that President Donald Trump was steeped in corruption , ensconced in partisanship , enmeshed in dangerous foreign policy fiascos .
The media assured us that they would defend democracy from Trump ’ s brutalities , that they would spend every waking moment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ standards as the “ new normal.
” Instead , the media suggested we needed to return to the old “ normal ” —by which they meant a system in which the media and Democrats worked hand-in-glove together to lie to the American public about the content of policy ( “ If you like your doctor , you will be able to keep your doctor !
” — former President Barack Obama ) ; in which conventional wisdom was treated as gospel truth , no matter how wrong it was ( “ There will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Arab world without the Palestinian process ” — John Kerry on Israel ) ; and in which cozy relationships between corporations and government were considered de rigueur .
They meant a system in which all difficult political questions were put off for another day ; in which scandals were brushed off without a second thought ; in which even anti-journalistic efforts by Democrats were dismissed as out of hand .
It was a system in which constitutional boundaries were routinely overridden in the name of left-wing policy priorities ; in which nasty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a natural byproduct of the right ’ s innate evil ; in which alternative news sources were treated as conspiracy outlets .
That ’ s the “ normal ” the media and Democrats wanted .
And it ’ s the normal they ’ ll apparently be pursuing .
Biden is stacking his administration with all the members of the establishment Democratic gang .
Tony Blinken , most famous for embracing the Iran deal and encouraging more American troops in Syria , will be headed to the State Department .
Janet Yellen , fresh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under Obama , will be headed to the Department of the Treasury .
Jake Sullivan , Biden ’ s national security adviser when he was vice president , most famous for the suggestion that the Iran deal was a stellar piece of negotiation ( it wasn ’ t ) , will become the White House national security adviser .
Meanwhile , the media will continue to cover Biden in sycophantic fashion .
This week , The Washington Post ran an entire piece devoted to the wonders of the New Biden Era , titled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden presidency will make schmoozing great again.
” The piece celebrated the old normal as “ respect for experience and expertise , ” as “ civility and bipartisan cooperation , ” as an opportunity to “ bring people back together.
” One wonders what sort of peyote the editorial staff of The Washington Post must be ingesting in order to remember the Obama Era so fondly ; then , one quickly realizes that they ’ re simply high from huffing Democratic flatulence .
The old normal wasn ’ t good .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s why Democrats nearly lost the House , and why they seem poised to not take back the Senate despite Trump ’ s personal unpopularity .
The old normal stank of cronyism and oligarchy , of corrupt relationships between the Democratic infrastructure and the Democrats ’ praetorian guard in the media .
Today , the media celebrate the return of the old normal .
That celebration is likely to again result in a backlash they can ’ t control .
And they ’ ll be just as puzzled as ever about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overjoyed as them about the return of the establishment Democratic swamp .

After spending two years avoiding serious questions about his policy preferences, his team, and his prospective presidency, we now know what Joe Biden intends to do should the Electoral College, as expected, votes for him in December: He’ll reopen the swamp for business.
The media spent four long years suggesting that President Donald Trump was steeped in corruption, ensconced in partisanship, and enmeshed in dangerous foreign policy fiascos.
The media assured us that they would defend democracy from Trump’s brutalities, that they would spend every waking moment fighting to prevent anyone from accepting Trumpian standards as the “new normal.”
Instead, the media suggested we needed to return to the old “normal”—by which they meant a system in which the media and Democrats worked hand-in-glove together to lie to the American public about the content of policy (“If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor!”—former President Barack Obama); in which conventional wisdom was treated as gospel truth, no matter how wrong it was (“There will be no advanced and separate peace with the Arab world without the Palestinian process”—John Kerry on Israel); and in which cozy relationships between corporations and government were considered de rigueur.
They meant a system in which all difficult political questions were put off for another day; in which scandals were brushed off without a second thought; in which even anti-journalistic efforts by Democrats were dismissed as out of hand.
It was a system in which constitutional boundaries were routinely overridden in the name of left-wing policy priorities; in which nasty rhetoric by Democrats was written off as a natural byproduct of the right’s innate evil; in which alternative news sources were treated as conspiracy outlets.
That’s the “normal” the media and Democrats wanted.
And it’s the normal they’ll apparently be pursuing. Biden is stacking his administration with all the members of the establishment Democratic gang.
Tony Blinken, most famous for embracing the Iran deal and encouraging more American troops in Syria, will be headed to the State Department.
Janet Yellen, fresh from her tenure as Federal Reserve chairwoman under Obama, will be headed to the Department of the Treasury.
Jake Sullivan, Biden’s national security adviser when he was vice president, most famous for the suggestion that the Iran deal was a stellar piece of negotiation (it wasn’t), will become the White House national security adviser.
Meanwhile, the media will continue to cover Biden in sycophantic fashion. This week, The Washington Post ran an entire piece devoted to the wonders of the new Biden era, titled “Washington’s establishment hopes a Biden presidency will make schmoozing great again.”
The piece celebrated the old normal as “respect for experience and expertise,” as “civility and bipartisan cooperation,” as an opportunity to “bring people back together.”
One wonders what sort of peyote the editorial staff of The Washington Post must be ingesting in order to remember the Obama era so fondly; then, one quickly realizes that they’re simply high from huffing Democratic flatulence.
The old normal wasn’t good. That’s why Donald Trump was elected. It’s why Democrats nearly lost the House, and why they seem poised to not take back the Senate, despite Trump’s personal unpopularity.
The old normal stank of cronyism and oligarchy, of corrupt relationships between the Democratic infrastructure and the Democrats’ praetorian guard in the media.
Today, the media celebrate the return of the old normal. That celebration is likely to again result in a backlash they can’t control. And they’ll be just as puzzled as ever about why everyone else wasn’t as overjoyed as them about the return of the establishment Democratic swamp.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM


dailysignal--2020-11-30--To Get COVID-19 Under Control, We Must Make This Crucial Change

When COVID-19 first reached America nearly a year ago , we knew very little about it—what it did , whom it affected most , or even whether human-to-human transmission was common .
But one of the few things we knew for certain was that this virus—SARS-CoV-2 , to use its technical name—was particularly dangerous to older Americans .
As early as March 18 , the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was citing figures showing the vast majority of mortality from COVID-19 was among those 65 years and older , so nursing homes and the elderly should have been the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then .
But they weren ’ t .
And with nursing home cases on the rise , we need to change course—now .
According to an Associated Press report , there has been a four-fold rise in nursing home-related cases of COVID-19 since June .
And CDC data shows there has been an increase of nearly 1,000 COVID-related deaths in nursing homes from September to October .
There are three ways for COVID-19 to enter a nursing home : through staff and faculty working at the facility ; through visitors who enter the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to admit patients with active infections .
The disastrous effects of the latter policy is one reason that Gov .
Andrew Cuomo ’ s New York has contributed a disproportionate share of American COVID-related deaths .
Thankfully , his order was finally reversed in May .
The more recent increase in nursing home cases are likely a function of the former two ways that COVID-19 enters a nursing home .
This is where we need to focus our efforts , with refined policies .
Current guidance from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ways that are lacking .
The focus is temperature checks and screening questionnaires , as well as observing for signs or symptoms of illness .
This may have been reasonable early on in the pandemic , when any sort of a screen was better than no screen , but it ’ s insufficient now .
We have had point-of-care testing for months now , and more recently , rapid antigen tests that require no special lab equipment , no specialized storage , not even refrigeration .
No effort should be spared in procuring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into a nursing home , whether visitor or staff .
Key to making this work : the Food and Drug Administration should lift restrictions requiring all tests to be reviewed at a lab , so rapid tests that don ’ t need lab equipment can truly live up to their promise .
It is likely that infected staff are driving the rise in cases , as visitations are relatively restricted .
The Associated Press report shows a proportionate increase in the number of staff cases and resident cases .
This is naturally difficult @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the community and work in the nursing homes .
Their job is vital .
The latest Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services guidance on staff testing frequency are intended to test often enough to detect cases early enough to stop transmissions , from staff to residents .
Clearly that hasn ’ t been enough .
We need more targeted testing to detect early cases , and that has to be done every time someone leaves and reenters the nursing home .
This may be difficult for some facilities , especially rural ones , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but again , no effort should be spared to enable nursing homes to test everyone going to visit or who works with our elders .
> > > What ’ s the best way for America to reopen and return to business ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , assembled America ’ s top thinkers to figure that out .
So far , it has made more than 260 recommendations .
Learn more here .
Ensuring a steady and abundant supply of tests is one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consider providing for housing for staff for several days at a time to obviate the need to go into the community where there may be high levels of COVID-19 .
Such an isolation “ bubble ” was good enough for the National Basketball Association , so it ought to be good enough for older Americans .
If a facility can not manage these steps on their own , they should receive help , post haste .
Every mayor and governor should immediately ask nursing home leaders for their plans , and to identify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they need to arrange for its provision .
The primary focus of our COVID-19 response should center on helping those known to be most at risk from the virus—nursing homes , the elderly , and the vulnerable , and those who work with them .
Anything else , especially now , would be unconscionable .

When COVID-19 first reached America nearly a year ago, we knew very little about it—what it did, whom it affected most, or even whether human-to-human transmission was common. But one of the few things we knew for certain was that this virus—SARS-CoV-2, to use its technical name—was particularly dangerous to older Americans.
As early as March 18, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was citing figures showing the vast majority of mortality from COVID-19 was among those 65 years and older, so nursing homes and the elderly should have been the main focus of our pandemic response since then.
But they weren’t. And with nursing home cases on the rise, we need to change course—now.
According to an Associated Press report, there has been a four-fold rise in nursing home-related cases of COVID-19 since June. And CDC data shows there has been an increase of nearly 1,000 COVID-related deaths in nursing homes from September to October.
There are three ways for COVID-19 to enter a nursing home: through staff and faculty working at the facility; through visitors who enter the premises; and through forcing nursing homes to admit patients with active infections.
The disastrous effects of the latter policy is one reason that Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s New York has contributed a disproportionate share of American COVID-related deaths. Thankfully, his order was finally reversed in May.
The more recent increase in nursing home cases are likely a function of the former two ways that COVID-19 enters a nursing home. This is where we need to focus our efforts, with refined policies.
Test nursing home visitors.
Current guidance from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services restrict the number of visitors in ways that are lacking. The focus is temperature checks and screening questionnaires, as well as observing for signs or symptoms of illness.
This may have been reasonable early on in the pandemic, when any sort of a screen was better than no screen, but it’s insufficient now. We have had point-of-care testing for months now, and more recently, rapid antigen tests that require no special lab equipment, no specialized storage, not even refrigeration.
No effort should be spared in procuring what is needed to test everyone going into a nursing home, whether visitor or staff. Key to making this work: the Food and Drug Administration should lift restrictions requiring all tests to be reviewed at a lab, so rapid tests that don’t need lab equipment can truly live up to their promise.
Stronger mitigation measures for nursing home staff.
It is likely that infected staff are driving the rise in cases, as visitations are relatively restricted. The Associated Press report shows a proportionate increase in the number of staff cases and resident cases. This is naturally difficult to control because the staff live in the community and work in the nursing homes. Their job is vital.
The latest Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services guidance on staff testing frequency are intended to test often enough to detect cases early enough to stop transmissions, from staff to residents.
Clearly that hasn’t been enough. We need more targeted testing to detect early cases, and that has to be done every time someone leaves and reenters the nursing home.
This may be difficult for some facilities, especially rural ones, that lack either financial or human resources, but again, no effort should be spared to enable nursing homes to test everyone going to visit or who works with our elders.
>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.
Ensuring a steady and abundant supply of tests is one solution, but nursing home leadership should consider providing for housing for staff for several days at a time to obviate the need to go into the community where there may be high levels of COVID-19. Such an isolation “bubble” was good enough for the National Basketball Association, so it ought to be good enough for older Americans.
If a facility cannot manage these steps on their own, they should receive help, post haste. Every mayor and governor should immediately ask nursing home leaders for their plans, and to identify any barriers. If help is needed, they need to arrange for its provision.
The primary focus of our COVID-19 response should center on helping those known to be most at risk from the virus—nursing homes, the elderly, and the vulnerable, and those who work with them. Anything else, especially now, would be unconscionable.
Originally published by Newsday


dailysignal--2020-11-30--LA County’s Latest Lockdown Order Exempts Protests, Religious Services

Los Angeles County ’ s Friday coronavirus order exempts protests and religious services as cases rise in the densely populated area .
The temporary order , which is set to last three weeks , bars all public and private gatherings with individuals outside of one ’ s own household , but allows the “ constitutionally protected rights ” to protest and attend religious services , according to KTLA .
The mandate also slashes the allowed occupancy of essential retail , nonessential retail , personal care facilities , libraries , outdoor gyms , museums , aquariums , recreational facilities , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ We know we are asking a lot from so many who have been sacrificing for months on end and we hope that L.A. County residents continue following Public Health safety measures that we know can slow the spread , ” Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer told KTLA .
“ Acting with collective urgency right now is essential if we want to put a stop to this surge , ” she continued .
“ Please remain home as much as possible and do not gather with others not in your household for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day camps are also mandated to close if they have more than three COVID-19 cases , and gatherings at playgrounds , card rooms , and outdoor dining restaurants have been banned altogether , according to KTLA .
Outdoor activity participants are required to be masked and must all be part of the same household .
Thousands of Los Angeles residents gathered en masse to celebrate Joe Biden ’ s projection to win the presidency earlier in November , according to CBSLA .
The rally followed months of nationwide racial equity protests and riots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Friday order comes two days after the Supreme Court ruled that Democratic New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo ’ s statewide restrictions on religious services were “ discriminatory ” and violated the First Amendment .
Los Angeles County is under “ Threat Level Red ” with nearly 388,000 virus cases and approximately 7,600 deaths , according to a local government webpage .
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 for this original @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Los Angeles County’s Friday coronavirus order exempts protests and religious services as cases rise in the densely populated area.
The temporary order, which is set to last three weeks, bars all public and private gatherings with individuals outside of one’s own household, but allows the “constitutionally protected rights” to protest and attend religious services, according to KTLA.
The mandate also slashes the allowed occupancy of essential retail, nonessential retail, personal care facilities, libraries, outdoor gyms, museums, aquariums, recreational facilities, and other businesses, the local outlet reported.
“We know we are asking a lot from so many who have been sacrificing for months on end and we hope that L.A. County residents continue following Public Health safety measures that we know can slow the spread,” Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer told KTLA.
“Acting with collective urgency right now is essential if we want to put a stop to this surge,” she continued. “Please remain home as much as possible and do not gather with others not in your household for the next three weeks.”
Two months ago, it was projected that one in every 880 L.A. County residents were infected with COVID-19. Now, it’s estimated it’s one in every 145.
We have to act now to slow the spread.
Please stay home as much as possible. — MayorOfLA (@MayorOfLA) November 27, 2020
Schools and day camps are also mandated to close if they have more than three COVID-19 cases, and gatherings at playgrounds, card rooms, and outdoor dining restaurants have been banned altogether, according to KTLA. Outdoor activity participants are required to be masked and must all be part of the same household.
Thousands of Los Angeles residents gathered en masse to celebrate Joe Biden’s projection to win the presidency earlier in November, according to CBSLA. The rally followed months of nationwide racial equity protests and riots after George Floyd died in May.
Thousands out in Los Angeles to celebrate the electoral loss of Trump and demand he pack his bags & concede. #YoureFiredTrump #ByeByeTrump pic.twitter.com/jTS9lAlxYH — Refuse Fascism Los Angeles (@RefuseFascismLA) November 7, 2020
The Friday order comes two days after the Supreme Court ruled that Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s statewide restrictions on religious services were “discriminatory” and violated the First Amendment.
Los Angeles County is under “Threat Level Red” with nearly 388,000 virus cases and approximately 7,600 deaths, according to a local government webpage.
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 for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


dailysignal--2020-12-01--4 Takeaways From Arizona’s Election Fraud Hearing

On the same day that Arizona certified former Vice President Joe Biden as the winner of the state ’ s 11 electoral votes , state lawmakers held a fact-finding meeting Monday on allegations of voter fraud that might have tilted the closely contested state .
Biden appears to have won the traditionally Republican-leaning state by just over 10,000 votes .
However , witnesses told state lawmakers that mail-in voting fraud and problems with the Dominion Voting Systems machines could have skewed the results .
Dominion has vigorously defended its machines , stating on its website : The event was not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Legislature is out of session , but Republican members of both the state Senate and the state House of Representatives participated in the panel , asking questions of witnesses .
The event , which began in late morning and ran well into the evening , wasn ’ t held at the state Capitol , but rather off-site at a Hyatt Regency hotel in Phoenix , with a “ Stop the Steal ” rally of supporters of President Donald Trump going on outside .
“ The purpose of this public hearing , an inquiry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just passed , is to provide a forum where no others have been permitted for the president ’ s litigation team to present the evidence and testimony , ” said Arizona state Rep. Mark Finchem , a Republican , who organized the hearing , adding : The following are four highlights from the Arizona legislators ’ hearing .
If the allegations are true , the biggest news to come out of the forum was the possible addition of 35,000 illegal Democratic votes .
Retired Army Col. Phil Waldron , a cybersecurity expert , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pima County tech provider alleged that 35,000 votes were illegitimately given to Democratic candidates in that county .
“ He wanted to remain anonymous , but had enough concern that he wanted to send this to the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice , ” Waldron said .
“ He did not want to be included in the investigation , but the information they recorded is what we would like the opportunity to investigate on your behalf or a forensics team of your choosing .
It doesn ’ t matter to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes is true , the 35,000 votes would be more than three times enough votes to flip Arizona to Trump .
However , the anonymous individual is apparently thus far unwilling to provide a name or sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury .
“ So , this coincides with the data analytics at that spike .
We weren ’ t aware of this email until after the fact .
So , there were approximately 35,000 fraud votes added to each Democratic candidate ’ s vote totals , ” Waldron told the lawmakers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , “ The candidates impacted include county , state , and federal election candidates , ” and talked about the alleged 35,000 votes added for Democrats .
The anonymous person also alleged Democratic Party members invited him or her to a meeting on Sept. 10 and outlined a plan to add those votes .
The message from the anonymous person , displayed on a screen , said : When I asked how in the world will 35,000 votes be kept hidden from being discovered , it was stated that spread distribution will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and will not exceed the registered-vote count , and the 35,000 was determined allowable in Pima County , based on our county registered-vote count .
It was also stated that total voter turnout versus total registered voters determine how many votes we can embed .
Maricopa [ County ] embed totals would be substantially higher than Pima ’ s due to embeds being based upon the total number of registered voters .
When I asked if this has been tested and how do we know it works , the answer was yes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elections since 2014 , even undetectable in post-audits because no candidate will spend the kind of funds needed to audit and contact voters to verify votes in the full potential of total registered voters , which is more than 500,000 registered voters .
Still , Waldron said he would prefer the person identify himself on the record and under oath .
“ We hoped this individual would come forward and issue this as an affidavit , but this is significant , and we also noted that the reporting numbers from Pima and Maricopa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes , with absentee ballots , ” Waldron said .
“ So , there is no way in the publicly available data to parse those votes into the segments.
” Top state officials , including Arizona ’ s Republican governor , Doug Ducey , announced the certification of Biden as the winner of the state ’ s 11 electoral votes .
The governor tweeted , “ Today , we signed the canvass for the 2020 election in Arizona .
I ’ m grateful to the voters , the county election offices , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poll workers across the state for their dedication to the success of our election system.
” Arizona House Democrats mocked the hearing in a tweet as a “ meaningless waste of time at a downtown Phoenix hotel ” and called for state residents to focus on the certification of a Biden victory and other election results .
However , during the hearing , former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani , Trump ’ s personal lawyer , spoke out against efforts to certify the election with so many unanswered questions .
A former federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be illegal to certify the vote .
“ The vote as it presently exists is false .
It ’ s fraudulent .
If they certify it , they are certifying a false statement to the United States of America .
Gosh , when I was a prosecutor , that was a federal crime , ” Giuliani said .
“ It ’ s clear that the numbers are false .
It ’ s clear that you have included ballots that aren ’ t properly inspected .
It is clear that you are including ballots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Giuliani , a former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York , continued , adding : Moreover , Giuliani stressed to the Arizona legislators that what the governor and secretary of state say might be irrelevant .
He said in 1892 , the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that Article 2 , Section 1 of the United States Constitution gives state legislatures the sole authority to select their representatives to the Electoral College as a means of providing a safeguard against voter fraud and election manipulation .
“ It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t say governors .
It doesn ’ t say Congress .
It doesn ’ t say newspapers .
It says state legislatures , ” Giuliani said .
“ The Supreme Court has said you can change that and take that power back anytime you want to , because it ’ s your power .
It ’ s not theirs .
Whatever power the governor or the secretary of state thinks they are exercising isn ’ t theirs ; it ’ s the legislature ’ s .
You can take it back.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the forum began to cheer .
“ Based on evidence , you can make a determination .
What is the right count ?
How can we get as close to the right count as possible ?
If we can , then have the courage to select that person to get the electors , because that person won the honest vote , ” Giuliani said .
He told the assembled state legislators not to fear the media ’ s wrath and that if they determined the real , accurate vote , history would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m going to ask you to fight .
I ’ m going to ask you to implore the other members of your Legislature to stand up to this , ” Giuliani said .
“ Do not be bullied .
Do not be frightened .
Your political career is worth losing if you can save the right to vote in America.
” That also prompted applause from the audience .
Jenna Ellis , another of the president ’ s personal attorneys , stressed they weren ’ t asking lawmakers to reverse the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if the results are legitimate before appointing electors for Biden .
“ We are going to ask you , as legislators , to reclaim that authority and to make sure that the people of Arizona and indeed the people of the United States of America as a whole are not disenfranchised by corruption , ” Ellis told the panel .
She quoted Founding Father Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 68 noting that state legislatures are the safeguard against corruption .
“ You are the last step to make sure that this election is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We are not asking you to step up and overturn an election .
We are asking you to step in to make sure that the corruption that occurred here does not stand.
” However , The Arizona Republic newspaper reported it would be highly unlikely for the Legislature—being out of session—to reconvene to appoint a new set of electors .
That ’ s because it would require a supermajority to call the Legislature back into session .
The GOP governor could also call the Legislature back , but he has already agreed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Trump legal team also presented information from the Voter Integrity Fund , playing audio of several calls to people recorded as having requested an absentee ballot .
Each said they did not do so .
Another witness for the Trump team was Shiva Ayyadurai , a former Senate candidate from Massachusetts and entrepreneur and engineer offering expert testimony on technology and data .
He presented data asserting the only way for Biden to have statistically caught up with Trump after trailing him early on was if the registered Democratic votes were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ negative 30 % for Trump .
He showed a chart on a screen to explain the findings .
“ What ’ s extraordinary about this graph is , again , we went through many , many iterations , it matches perfectly , near perfectly , ” Ayyadurai told the Arizona state legislators .
“ The slopes match , the curves match .
The shapes match .
So , what this tells us is that this demographic distribution of allocation of party affiliations is what can generate this .
“ I find it highly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden got 130 % of Democrat voters , and Mr. Trump got negative 30 % .
” Anna Orth , a Pima County resident and Republican election worker , testified to the committee that she was denied the chance to observe about 2,000 duplicate ballots .
Duplicate ballots are usually ballots that are somehow unclearly marked and require further inspection , typically by observers from both parties .
“ I was specifically taken out of that room , ushered out , and brought into [ another ] room , ” Orth told the @ @ @

On the same day that Arizona certified former Vice President Joe Biden as the winner of the state’s 11 electoral votes, state lawmakers held a fact-finding meeting Monday on allegations of voter fraud that might have tilted the closely contested state.
Biden appears to have won the traditionally Republican-leaning state by just over 10,000 votes. However, witnesses told state lawmakers that mail-in voting fraud and problems with the Dominion Voting Systems machines could have skewed the results.
Dominion has vigorously defended its machines, stating on its website:
According to a Joint Statement by the federal government agency that oversees U.S. election security, the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency: “There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.” The government & private sector councils that support this mission called the 2020 election “the most secure in American history.”
The event was not a formal legislative hearing, since the Legislature is out of session, but Republican members of both the state Senate and the state House of Representatives participated in the panel, asking questions of witnesses.
The event, which began in late morning and ran well into the evening, wasn’t held at the state Capitol, but rather off-site at a Hyatt Regency hotel in Phoenix, with a “Stop the Steal” rally of supporters of President Donald Trump going on outside.
“The purpose of this public hearing, an inquiry into the integrity of the election that just passed, is to provide a forum where no others have been permitted for the president’s litigation team to present the evidence and testimony,” said Arizona state Rep. Mark Finchem, a Republican, who organized the hearing, adding:
We are caught between the desire to trust the process and the suspicion that it has failed the people of Arizona, and potentially the people of our sister states. If there is voter disenfranchisement, we must identify its source and eradicate it, as we would any disease.
The following are four highlights from the Arizona legislators’ hearing.
1) 35,000 Fraudulent Votes?
If the allegations are true, the biggest news to come out of the forum was the possible addition of 35,000 illegal Democratic votes.
Retired Army Col. Phil Waldron, a cybersecurity expert, testified that an anonymous email from a Pima County tech provider alleged that 35,000 votes were illegitimately given to Democratic candidates in that county.
“He wanted to remain anonymous, but had enough concern that he wanted to send this to the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice,” Waldron said. “He did not want to be included in the investigation, but the information they recorded is what we would like the opportunity to investigate on your behalf or a forensics team of your choosing. It doesn’t matter to us.”
If the allegation of illicit votes is true, the 35,000 votes would be more than three times enough votes to flip Arizona to Trump. However, the anonymous individual is apparently thus far unwilling to provide a name or sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury.
“So, this coincides with the data analytics at that spike. We weren’t aware of this email until after the fact. So, there were approximately 35,000 fraud votes added to each Democratic candidate’s vote totals,” Waldron told the lawmakers.
He read from the message that said, “The candidates impacted include county, state, and federal election candidates,” and talked about the alleged 35,000 votes added for Democrats.
The anonymous person also alleged Democratic Party members invited him or her to a meeting on Sept. 10 and outlined a plan to add those votes.
The message from the anonymous person, displayed on a screen, said:
When I asked how in the world will 35,000 votes be kept hidden from being discovered, it was stated that spread distribution will be embedded across the entire registered-voter range and will not exceed the registered-vote count, and the 35,000 was determined allowable in Pima County, based on our county registered-vote count. It was also stated that total voter turnout versus total registered voters determine how many votes we can embed. Maricopa [County] embed totals would be substantially higher than Pima’s due to embeds being based upon the total number of registered voters. When I asked if this has been tested and how do we know it works, the answer was yes, and has shown success in Arizona judicial-retention elections since 2014, even undetectable in post-audits because no candidate will spend the kind of funds needed to audit and contact voters to verify votes in the full potential of total registered voters, which is more than 500,000 registered voters.
Still, Waldron said he would prefer the person identify himself on the record and under oath.
“We hoped this individual would come forward and issue this as an affidavit, but this is significant, and we also noted that the reporting numbers from Pima and Maricopa counties merged Election Day votes with write-in votes, with absentee ballots,” Waldron said. “So, there is no way in the publicly available data to parse those votes into the segments.”
2) Certifying Biden
Top state officials, including Arizona’s Republican governor, Doug Ducey, announced the certification of Biden as the winner of the state’s 11 electoral votes.
The governor tweeted, “Today, we signed the canvass for the 2020 election in Arizona. I’m grateful to the voters, the county election offices, the county recorders’ offices, & the poll workers across the state for their dedication to the success of our election system.”
Today, we signed the canvass for the 2020 election in Arizona. I’m grateful to the voters, the county election offices, the county recorders’ offices, & the poll workers across the state for their dedication to the success of our election system. @SecretaryHobbs @GeneralBrnovich pic.twitter.com/vdjhuQosZd — Doug Ducey (@dougducey) November 30, 2020
Arizona House Democrats mocked the hearing in a tweet as a “meaningless waste of time at a downtown Phoenix hotel” and called for state residents to focus on the certification of a Biden victory and other election results.
Instead of that meaningless waste of time happening at a downtown Phoenix hotel, let's watch AZSOS @katiehobbs, Gov. @dougducey AG @GeneralBrnovich and Chief Justice Brutinel oversee Arizona's official election canvas and certification, shall we?. https://t.co/6bX6nZi0mf — Arizona House Democrats (@AZHouseDems) November 30, 2020
However, during the hearing, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, spoke out against efforts to certify the election with so many unanswered questions. A former federal prosecutor, he even suggested it might be illegal to certify the vote.
“The vote as it presently exists is false. It’s fraudulent. If they certify it, they are certifying a false statement to the United States of America. Gosh, when I was a prosecutor, that was a federal crime,” Giuliani said.
“It’s clear that the numbers are false. It’s clear that you have included ballots that aren’t properly inspected. It is clear that you are including ballots that are voted by other people,” Giuliani, a former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, continued, adding:
It’s clear that you are using machines that have been shown to be totally manipulated in other places, and you won’t give us the opportunity to examine those machines. I think anybody who puts their name on that is getting very close to committing a crime.
3) ‘It’s Your Power’
Moreover, Giuliani stressed to the Arizona legislators that what the governor and secretary of state say might be irrelevant.
He said in 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that Article 2, Section 1 of the United States Constitution gives state legislatures the sole authority to select their representatives to the Electoral College as a means of providing a safeguard against voter fraud and election manipulation.
“It’s your constitutional power solely. That clause doesn’t say governors. It doesn’t say Congress. It doesn’t say newspapers. It says state legislatures,” Giuliani said. “The Supreme Court has said you can change that and take that power back anytime you want to, because it’s your power. It’s not theirs. Whatever power the governor or the secretary of state thinks they are exercising isn’t theirs; it’s the legislature’s. You can take it back.”
At that, those in attendance at the forum began to cheer.
“Based on evidence, you can make a determination. What is the right count? How can we get as close to the right count as possible? If we can, then have the courage to select that person to get the electors, because that person won the honest vote,” Giuliani said.
He told the assembled state legislators not to fear the media’s wrath and that if they determined the real, accurate vote, history would view them as heroes.
“I’m going to ask you to fight. I’m going to ask you to implore the other members of your Legislature to stand up to this,” Giuliani said. “Do not be bullied. Do not be frightened. Your political career is worth losing if you can save the right to vote in America.”
That also prompted applause from the audience.
Jenna Ellis, another of the president’s personal attorneys, stressed they weren’t asking lawmakers to reverse the election, but to investigate fraud and determine if the results are legitimate before appointing electors for Biden.
“We are going to ask you, as legislators, to reclaim that authority and to make sure that the people of Arizona and indeed the people of the United States of America as a whole are not disenfranchised by corruption,” Ellis told the panel.
She quoted Founding Father Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 68 noting that state legislatures are the safeguard against corruption.
“You are the last step to make sure that this election is not corrupted,” Ellis said. “We are not asking you to step up and overturn an election. We are asking you to step in to make sure that the corruption that occurred here does not stand.”
However, The Arizona Republic newspaper reported it would be highly unlikely for the Legislature—being out of session—to reconvene to appoint a new set of electors. That’s because it would require a supermajority to call the Legislature back into session. The GOP governor could also call the Legislature back, but he has already agreed the state should certify Biden as the winner.
4) Absentee Ballots, Duplicate Ballots, and 130%
The Trump legal team also presented information from the Voter Integrity Fund, playing audio of several calls to people recorded as having requested an absentee ballot. Each said they did not do so.
Another witness for the Trump team was Shiva Ayyadurai, a former Senate candidate from Massachusetts and entrepreneur and engineer offering expert testimony on technology and data.
He presented data asserting the only way for Biden to have statistically caught up with Trump after trailing him early on was if the registered Democratic votes were 130% in favor of Biden and negative 30% for Trump. He showed a chart on a screen to explain the findings.
“What’s extraordinary about this graph is, again, we went through many, many iterations, it matches perfectly, near perfectly,” Ayyadurai told the Arizona state legislators. “The slopes match, the curves match. The shapes match. So, what this tells us is that this demographic distribution of allocation of party affiliations is what can generate this.
“I find it highly implausible, because this means that Mr. Biden got 130% of Democrat voters, and Mr. Trump got negative 30%.”
Anna Orth, a Pima County resident and Republican election worker, testified to the committee that she was denied the chance to observe about 2,000 duplicate ballots. Duplicate ballots are usually ballots that are somehow unclearly marked and require further inspection, typically by observers from both parties.
“I was specifically taken out of that room, ushered out, and brought into [another] room,” Orth told the state lawmakers.


dailysignal--2020-12-01--Its Critics Are Wrong. The Electoral College Is a Bulwark Against Power Grabs.

One must read to the end of The Washington Post ’ s recent editorial “ Abolish the electoral college ” before hitting on the real reason the Post ’ s editors want to upend the long-standing constitutional institution .
“ Mr .
Trump ’ s election was a sad event for the nation , ” notes the Post .
“ His reelection would have been a calamity.
” Maybe , maybe not .
That ’ s a matter of partisan perspective .
Those who are genuinely concerned about the future of American governance would be calling to strengthen institutions that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But when your concerns about “ American democracy ” are really just a euphemism for partisan power grabs , you end up making lots of sloppy arguments .
Like this : The fact that the Electoral College doesn ’ t align with the “ popular vote ” isn ’ t alarming .
It is the point .
If the Electoral College synchronized with the outcome of the direct democratic national vote tally every election , it wouldn ’ t need to exist .
It isn ’ t a loophole ; it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to diffuse the very thing the Post claims is most beneficial ; namely , the “ overbearing majority , ” as James Madison put it .
If majoritarianism is truly always the best means of deciding an issue , then the Post would support a mere majority of states being able to overturn the First Amendment or decide abortion policy .
But if states still matter , then the Electoral College ’ s “ virtues ” are far stronger today , in an era when federalism is ignored and Americans are more likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was in the founding generation when Washington was largely powerless .
It is one of the institutions that makes a “ democracy ” tenable in a truly diverse and sprawling nation .
On the most basic level , the Electoral College helps compel presidents to govern nationally , rather than represent a handful of states .
We saw it when former Vice President Joe Biden was forced to temper his positions on fracking and defunding the police because he had to appeal to those outside of urban areas .
If he is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in ways that are popular to diverse cultural and geographical areas—such as North Carolina , Wisconsin , and Arizona , and not just California and New York .
Running up the score in big states gives partisan activists fodder , but it is irrelevant .
If Donald Trump ran for the national vote , he might well have won it by spending all his time in California and New York talking about things that matter to Californians and New Yorkers .
The entire dynamics of elections would be different .
Our election is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It should also be noted that the system The Washington Post wants to nix has been the most stable in the world .
A direct national poll would be a radical change , even by international standards .
Most free nations don ’ t have democratic majority votes for their executives .
Parliamentary systems , for example , are not national polls .
Between 1935 and 2017 , the majority of British voters backed the party that formed a government on only two occasions .
Voters do not even cast a ballot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 , Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau “ lost ” the “ popular vote.
” By eliminating the Electoral College , we are far more likely to spark the creation of smaller parties that would keep presidents from gaining a majority .
Of historical interest : Russia ’ s Vladimir Putin was elected through a direct national poll .
I will spend the rest of my life pointing out that presidents don ’ t “ win ” or “ lose ” the popular vote—because there is no “ popular vote , ” nor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does anyone compete for it .
Reuters informed us , “ Trump ’ s open defiance of Biden ’ s victory in both the popular vote and Electoral College appears to be affecting the public ’ s confidence in American democracy.
” The entire statement , from “ popular vote ” to “ American democracy , ” makes me cringe .
It ’ s that kind of coverage that allows The Washington Post and other critics of traditional constitutional governance to convince their audiences that presidents are winning elections even while really “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for our future .

One must read to the end of The Washington Post’s recent editorial “Abolish the electoral college” before hitting on the real reason the Post’s editors want to upend the long-standing constitutional institution.
“Mr. Trump’s election was a sad event for the nation,” notes the Post. “His reelection would have been a calamity.”
Maybe, maybe not.
That’s a matter of partisan perspective. Those who are genuinely concerned about the future of American governance would be calling to strengthen institutions that provide political stability, not destroy them.
But when your concerns about “American democracy” are really just a euphemism for partisan power grabs, you end up making lots of sloppy arguments. Like this:
It is alarming that a candidate came so close to winning while polling more than 5 million fewer votes than his opponent nationwide. The Electoral College, whatever virtues it may have had for the Founding Fathers, is no longer tenable for American democracy.
The fact that the Electoral College doesn’t align with the “popular vote” isn’t alarming. It is the point.
If the Electoral College synchronized with the outcome of the direct democratic national vote tally every election, it wouldn’t need to exist. It isn’t a loophole; it is a bulwark.
The Electoral College exists to diffuse the very thing the Post claims is most beneficial; namely, the “overbearing majority,” as James Madison put it.
If majoritarianism is truly always the best means of deciding an issue, then the Post would support a mere majority of states being able to overturn the First Amendment or decide abortion policy.
But if states still matter, then the Electoral College’s “virtues” are far stronger today, in an era when federalism is ignored and Americans are more likely to cluster in urban areas, than it was in the founding generation when Washington was largely powerless.
It is one of the institutions that makes a “democracy” tenable in a truly diverse and sprawling nation.
On the most basic level, the Electoral College helps compel presidents to govern nationally, rather than represent a handful of states. We saw it when former Vice President Joe Biden was forced to temper his positions on fracking and defunding the police because he had to appeal to those outside of urban areas.
If he is to be successful, Biden must govern in ways that are popular to diverse cultural and geographical areas—such as North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Arizona, and not just California and New York.
Running up the score in big states gives partisan activists fodder, but it is irrelevant. If Donald Trump ran for the national vote, he might well have won it by spending all his time in California and New York talking about things that matter to Californians and New Yorkers. The entire dynamics of elections would be different. Our election is geared toward winning states, not people.
It should also be noted that the system The Washington Post wants to nix has been the most stable in the world.
A direct national poll would be a radical change, even by international standards. Most free nations don’t have democratic majority votes for their executives. Parliamentary systems, for example, are not national polls. Between 1935 and 2017, the majority of British voters backed the party that formed a government on only two occasions.
Voters do not even cast a ballot directly for the prime minister. In 2019, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau “lost” the “popular vote.” By eliminating the Electoral College, we are far more likely to spark the creation of smaller parties that would keep presidents from gaining a majority.
Of historical interest: Russia’s Vladimir Putin was elected through a direct national poll.
I will spend the rest of my life pointing out that presidents don’t “win” or “lose” the popular vote—because there is no “popular vote,” nor has there ever been one, nor does anyone compete for it.
Reuters informed us, “Trump’s open defiance of Biden’s victory in both the popular vote and Electoral College appears to be affecting the public’s confidence in American democracy.” The entire statement, from “popular vote” to “American democracy,” makes me cringe.
It’s that kind of coverage that allows The Washington Post and other critics of traditional constitutional governance to convince their audiences that presidents are winning elections even while really “losing” them.
It bodes poorly for our future.
Copyright 2020 Creators.com