Authored by J. Peder Zane via RealClear Politics,

The relentless attacks on Elon Musk since he purchased Twitter should be familiar to most Americans. It’s exactly what Democrats and their media and corporate allies did to demonize Donald Trump.

The McCarthyite formula is simple: Claim you are defending high-minded principles (Democracy! The rule of law! Civil discourse!) to justify efforts to delegitimize someone you’ve identified as a political opponent.

Democrats denied Trump’s presidency from day one; Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden themselves declared for years that he had stolen the 2016 election. In the name of election integrity, Democrats turned a bogus conspiracy theory cooked up by Clinton’s campaign about Russian collusion into years of official investigations that undermined and tainted Trump. When Special Counsel Robert Mueller proved that a lie, Democrats immediately seized on a few innocuous sentences in a Trump phone call with a foreign leader to launch just the third presidential impeachment in U.S. history.

Those events are well-known, but ponder them for a moment. This was a soft coup, a nonviolent version of Jan. 6 that was far more dangerous than the Capitol riot. The effort to remove a lawfully elected president was planned and orchestrated by officials at the highest level of government and the media. While Jan. 6 was a one-off eruption of crazed anger, the false attacks on Trump edged our political discourse toward Orwellian Newspeak by presenting lies and smears as ringing defenses of sacred constitutional values.

The ongoing attacks against Musk are following the same playbook. The man once hailed by liberals as a genius for developing electric vehicles is now Public Enemy No. 1 because he says Twitter should allow more free speech. Ponder that as well: Musk’s enemies are casting him as a threat to the country because of his commitment to one of America’s most cherished freedoms.

Progressives have abandoned their longstanding anti-corporate stance to argue that an unelected, unaccountable company must aggressively censor the vox populi. We saw the same dizzying turnabout in Russiagate, where the left abandoned its historic defense of Russia to cast dealings with that nation as un-American (making Joe McCarthy their new “Uncle Joe”). 

Yes, Musk has restored Donald Trump’s Twitter account which the company’s previous leaders had disabled when he was president. But there is zilch, zero, nada evidence at this point that Twitter has become a toxic cesspool of hate. Nevertheless, that is the bogus claim being advanced by thought leaders including Jelani Cobb, dean of Columbia University’s journalism school.

Ponder the argument here that a corporation should have the power to remove the president of the United States from communicating through one of the nation’s prime networks. The same people who cheered that decision also thought it was appropriate for Twitter to help swing the 2020 election by prohibiting users from sharing blockbuster reports about Hunter Biden’s foreign dealings, recorded on his laptop.

If one needs any more proof that principle has no part in the attacks on Musk, consider that while Apple has joined many other major companies in pulling its advertising from Twitter, it issued an update only for its Chinese users limiting a function commonly used by protestors as discontent was percolating against that country’s extreme COVID restrictions.

The attacks on Musk shed light on a darker mystery of American life: Why did the left attack Trump so savagely? Yes, Trump is a coarse, combative man who has the same relationship with truth as a used-car salesman. But that hardly makes him an outlier in our coarse, combative culture where, the left has long argued, truth and almost everything else we used to define as reality are just social constructs.

At bottom, they saw Trump – and now Musk – as a threat to their power and privilege. For all their talk of democracy and the will of the people, the left has always embraced a top-down approach in which a benighted few control society. Trump was the first president without political or military experience. He  was not just an outsider; he  also promised to expose the hypocrisy and self-dealing of the ruling class, both Democrats and Republicans (hence the rise of “Never Trump” Republicans).

The fact that this man with no political experience accomplished so much – including helping the economy hum, brokering a peace deal in the Middle East, calling out China’s ruthlessness, and creating conditions for the development of a COVID vaccine in record time – exposed the failures of our best and brightest. He wasn’t a threat to the nation, but to their authority.

The left sees Musk as a similar threat. For decades they have largely controlled the flow of information in prestige publications and network news divisions. The rise of social media gave them new mechanisms for defining national narratives, and for silencing those who disagreed with them through cancel culture and outright censorship. They see Musk’s promise to restore free speech on Twitter as a threat to this power. Whoopi Goldberg stated this baldly when she counseled liberals to walk away from Twitter until they figure out how to “get the control you need” of the platform.

Hence the effort to Trumpify Musk.

Ponder for a moment the ubiquity and ferocity of attacks on this one man and the outrageous effort to cast calls for censorship as ringing defenses of liberty. Consider too that this, like the treatment accorded Trump, has not just been normalized, but valorized.

When authorities lose the power to convince, they coerce. That is what is going on now as they tell us to shut up and submit. Please tweet that out.

Authored by Alan Dershowitz, op-ed via The Daily Caller,

The City of San Francisco is constitutionally prohibited from disqualifying job applicants on the basis of race. That is precisely what occurred to John Arntz who has held the job of San Francisco’s director of the Department of Elections for two decades.

He has been repeatedly praised for his excellent performance at this increasingly important job – important because of so many election challenges and doubts. Just two years ago, the election commission commended him for his “incredible leadership.”

But now they are essentially firing him because he is apparently of the wrong race to satisfy their “racial equity plan”.

This is what he was told:

“Our decision wasn’t about your performance, but after twenty years we wanted to take action on the City’s racial equity plan and give people an opportunity to compete for a leadership position.”

The mayor of San Francisco, London Breed, disagreed:

“John Arntz has served San Francisco with integrity, professionalism and has stayed completely independent. He’s remained impartial and has avoided getting caught up in the web of City politics, which is what we are seeing now as a result of this unnecessary vote.”

“Over the last year John successfully ran four elections while navigating a pandemic that thwarted San Francisco into crisis response – all without a single issue. Rather than working on key issues to recover and rebuilt our City, this is a good example of unfair politicization of a key part of our government that is working well for the voters of this city.”

All of the 12 managers in his department asked that his contract be renewed. But in today’s woke world of identity politics, race trumps meritocracy. “Racial equity” plans are apparently more important than electoral integrity.

It well maybe that Arntz’s “equity” replacement will be as good as or better than him. There are, after all, highly qualified people of all races and backgrounds. But that is not the point. His contract would clearly have been renewed — he would not have been fired — if he were of an “acceptable” race.

But he is not, because he does not meet the criteria for the city’s “racial equity plan.”

To cover their legal rear ends (“CYA”) the panel has said that Arntz can “reapply” and be considered among the pool of candidates who do meet the criteria of racial equity, even though he does not! This “CYA” tactic does not even pass the giggle test.

It certainly does not pass the constitutional test, even the one that currently allows universities to place the thumb of racial diversity on the scale of admissions. That test is likely to be changed — perhaps disallowed — even in the context of private universities such as Harvard.

There is one important benefit to the San Francisco decision — at least as compared to university admissions decisions. The San Francisco panel did not try to disguise the racial criteria they are employing, whereas most universities go to great length to deny that race alone is often a dispositive factor in ranking applicants.

This will make it easier for the courts to hold San Francisco’s Arntz decision as a clear violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

But even if this particularly outrageous decision is struck down as unconstitutional, many cities and other governmental units will continue to use race as a basis for hiring and firing employees. They will simply be less transparent about it than San Francisco was.

In the bad old days, race was often used to discriminate against black applicants. Today race is often used to discriminate in favor of black applicants. I guess that is some sort of progress. But real progress will be achieved only if and when race is no longer a factor that trumps meritocracy.

Only then will Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream of how his children and ours should be judged become a reality.

Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor who exposed the U.S. government’s unconstitutional mass surveillance programs, received a Russian passport on Thursday after taking the country’s citizenship oath. 

“Edward received a Russian passport yesterday and took the oath in accordance with the law,” his lawyer Anatoly Kucherena said, according to Russian media. “He is, of course, happy, thanking the Russian Federation for the fact that he received citizenship.”

That citizenship comes with an enormously valuable feature: “Under the Constitution of Russia, he can no longer be extradited to a foreign state,” said Kucherena. 

Snowden faces prosecution on espionage charges for giving journalists an enormous volume of classified documents about NSA surveillance programs.

In 2013, Snowden famously traveled from Hawaii, where he worked for the NSA, to Hong Kong, where he arranged to meet journalists Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras. 

To obtain a Russian passport, one must pledge to: 

“…observe the constitution and legislation of the Russian Federation, the rights and freedoms of its citizens; perform the duties of a citizen of the Russian Federation for the benefit of the state and society; defend the freedom and independence of the Russian Federation; be loyal to Russia, respect its culture, history and traditions.”

Snowden’s citizenship and accompanying oath are prompting reiterations of the false claim that he “fled to Russia” after leaving Hong Kong. The truth, however, is that the Obama administration trapped Snowden in Russia.  

Snowden was merely using Moscow as a flight connection as he tried to make it to Ecuador and seek political asylum. Upon arriving in Russia, he learned Obama had revoked his passport. After spending 40 days at Sheremetyevo airport — and applied to 27 countries for asylum — he was granted asylum by Russian President Putin.  

I’m in Russia because the White House intentionally canceled my passport to trap me here. They *downed the President of Bolivia’s diplomatic aircraft* to prevent me from leaving, and continue to interfere with my freedom of movement to this day.

In case that was unclear. https://t.co/hOb2Azc41G

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) December 2, 2022

Despite all the contrary facts that have been in plain view for nine years, a chorus of deep state useful idiots unleashed a new round of social media smears against the NSA whistleblower. “Edward Snowden, Russian asset and now citizen,” tweeted Washington Post columnist and Bulwark culture editor Sonny Bunch.  

Meanwhile, headlines at many outlets emphasized that Snowden “swore allegiance to Russia,” implying he’d abandoned his American citizenship. 

Shame on @WaPo for not checking w/ ⁦@Snowden⁩’s lawyers in the US. This misleading headline makes it sound like he renounced his US citizenship and swore fealty to Russia. He & his wife remain Americans. https://t.co/ZSrILewDlO

— unR̶A̶D̶A̶C̶K̶ted (@JesselynRadack) December 2, 2022

Snowden’s wife, Lindsay Mills, is also seeking Russian citizenship. The couple lives in Moscow with their two sons, who were born in Russia. 

Pleas for then-President Donald Trump to pardon Snowden — along with Julian Assange– fell on deaf ears.  

Authored by Joseph Lord via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Senate Republicans have vowed to oppose any spending bill that would go on beyond the 117th Congress.

After a long effort to pass an omnibus spending bill for fiscal year 2023, Democrats were forced to accept a short-term continuing resolution (CR) instead.

CRs, while they prevent the government from shutting down, make no changes to long-term federal spending. Rather, they simply continue to spend at levels set the prior fiscal year.

Earlier this year, Democrats passed a CR that will fund the government through Dec. 16, at which point the government will shut down if lawmakers have not passed a new spending bill.

One of the Democrats’ many agenda items during the lame-duck session is the passage of a more comprehensive omnibus spending bill. In contrast to a CR, an omnibus bill, if passed, would allow Democrats to set appropriations levels for next year even though they’ll be in the House minority.

Because the 118th Congress will sit for the first time on Jan. 3, 2022, allowing a CR to run out before then could give a lame-duck Democrat majority a last-minute chance to fund its policies through all of fiscal year 2023.

This, a group of Republican senators told Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in a Nov. 30 letter, is unacceptable.

The letter was written by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and signed onto by three other Republicans—Sens. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), and Mike Braun (R-Ind.).

In it, the coalition demanded that McConnell not allow Democrats to succeed in their efforts to set next year’s spending levels.

“On November 8, 2022, the American people made their voices heard at the ballot box,” the letter opened. “Using the
Democratic process, millions of Americans sent a message—they want divided power in Washington to curb the worst excesses of both parties.”

The four Republicans said they “stand with the voters.”

They wrote, “We believe it would be both imprudent, and a reflection of poor leadership, for Republicans to ignore the will of the American people and rubber stamp an omnibus spending bill that funds ten more months of [President Joe Biden’s] agenda without any check on his reckless policies that have led to a 40-year high in inflation.”

According to the most recent data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, inflation has slowed from its peak of over nine percent in June, but it remains high. In October, the value of the dollar dropped by 7.7 percent, a situation that Republicans have blamed on Democrats’ “out of control spending” (pdf).

Since taking unilateral control of the government, Democrats have rushed through trillions in new spending: first with the passage of the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, which received no GOP support, the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and the $740 billion Inflation Reduction Act.

The effect of this spending, the Republicans wrote, has been higher costs for American households. They cited a figure provided by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget which estimates that Democrats have authorized $4.8 trillion in new borrowing since Biden took office.

“Since taking office, President Biden has overseen a $4.8 trillion increase in the national deficit, costing the average American household an estimated $753 more a month,” the lawmakers wrote. “It should be up to the new Congress to set spending priorities for the remainder of this fiscal year.”

Concluding the letter the Republicans wrote: “Now is the time for Republicans to get serious about leading America towards a better future.”

They demanded that McConnell not make any deals that would fund the government well into the next fiscal year.

“We must not accept anything other than a short-term Continuing Resolution that funds the federal government until shortly after the 118th Congress is sworn in,” they wrote, demanding that “[no] additional spending, [and] no additional policy priorities should be included.”

Anything more urgent, they added, should be handled as an individual bill rather than as part of an omnibus spending bill.

‘A Lame Duck Spending Blowout’: Roy

This demand, the passage of a short-term “clean” CR with no changes to current spending, has been growing among Republicans.

In the House, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) circulated a letter making similar demands.

In the letter, Roy wrote: “Federal dollars are fueling rampant inflation and funding the Biden administration’s radical agenda. This includes empowering authoritarian bureaucrats at agencies like the IRS and FBI, implementing open-border policies that are threatening our communities, imposing COVID-19 mandates that shut down schools and are forcing our military servicemembers out of their jobs, and advancing self-destructive energy policies.

“As the September 30th federal funding deadline approaches, Republicans must do what is necessary to ensure that not one additional penny will go toward this administration’s radical, inflationary agenda,” he continued. “Any legislation that sets the stage for a ‘lame duck’ fight on government funding gives Democrats one final opportunity to pass that agenda.

“Therefore, we, the undersigned, pledge to the American people to reject any continuing resolution that expires prior to the first day of the 118th Congress, or any appropriations package put forward in the remaining months of this Democrat-led Congress.”

On Dec. 1, Roy re-upped these demands in an op-ed for the Washington Examiner. He described Democrats’ ongoing efforts to pass an omnibus bill as “a lame-duck spending blowout.”

“When is $5 trillion still not enough?” Roy quipped. “Answer: When you’re a progressive about to lose your grip on total power.”

Later, he wrote: “Taxpayers … deserve better than another rushed backroom deal as lawmakers sprint home for Christmas. Democrats ran all of government for two years but focused on their special spending causes rather than pass individual bills to finance the government. Now with three weeks left in a lame duck, they want to jam the GOP again.”

Roy said that Republicans should not be cowed by Democrats threatening to shut down the government to pass a spending bill.

“The GOP campaigned on a return to regular fiscal order, and why not start now?” Roy wrote. “Democrats can threaten a government shutdown, but they’d own it as the party in control. If Republicans aren’t going to use their power to enforce some fiscal discipline, they might as well stay in the minority.”

What’s Next

Despite opposition to an omnibus bill among both House and Senate Republicans, Democrats could still get what they hope for.

Read more here…

Authored by Janice Hisle via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

When a researcher begins with a conclusion, then looks for data to support that, “it’s a danger to all of science,” Dr. Paul Hruz, a St. Louis physician-scientist told a federal judge.

Yet Hruz said he has seen this disturbing pattern recur in recent years, as he examined studies purporting to prove the benefits of hormones and surgeries as treatments for gender-conflicted youths.

“It is erroneous to say that we identified an effective solution that maximizes benefits and minimizes risk,” Hruz testified Dec. 1 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Assailing the poor quality of research about gender-transition medical treatments for minors, and raising concerns about the risk of harm, Hruz said: “There are major, major questions that remain.”

Hruz, a pediatric endocrinologist and researcher, also called the procedures “highly experimental” and “unproven.”

He was the final witness to testify during a trial that is testing the nation’s first law banning hormones and surgeries for “gender-transition” of minors.

Judge Faces Big Decision

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit seeking to throw out the 2021 Arkansas law, alleging it is unconstitutional.

The ACLU of Arkansas has denounced the law as part of a “hateful attack” on LGBT youths seeking “medically necessary care.”

But the Arkansas Attorney General’s Office is defending the Save Adolescents From Experimentation (SAFE) Act, asserting that the state has a compelling interest to protect vulnerable children from medical interventions that can cause permanent harm, including ongoing health problems and sterility.

No dates have been set for attorneys to file final written briefs—the final pieces of the puzzle for Judge James Moody Jr. to consider before he issues a ruling. His decision could influence the way other states and courts respond to controversies surrounding similar legislation.

Moody will be considering two weeks’ worth of testimony that began with witnesses the ACLU called in mid-October. After a month-long recess, the trial resumed on Nov. 28 with witnesses testifying on behalf of the SAFE Act.

Treatments ‘Disrupt’ Healthy Process

During the last day of testimony on Dec. 1, Dylan Jacobs, deputy solicitor general for the Arkansas Attorney General’s Office, systematically questioned Hruz to share his extensive knowledge about treatment of “gender dysphoria,” or gender-related distress, among adolescents.

Based on his 25 years as a pediatric endocrinologist, along with 10 years of intensely researching gender dysphoria, Hruz said he would never prescribe puberty-blockers or cross-sex hormones without solid scientific studies showing that they do more good than harm.

Endocrinologists are dedicated to “restoring the body to its natural state of health” by correcting hormonal imbalances or deficiencies, he said.

Thus, Hruz objects to using hormones for gender dysphoria, and disrupting a normally functioning, healthy endocrine system.

6,000 Sex-Based Differences

Jacobs pointed out that ACLU witnesses described puberty blockers as a harmless “pause button.” Not so, Hruz said.

Puberty blockers prevent sex-specific changes, including easily observed ones such as breast development in girls and testicle development in boys. But inside the body, many other changes are also occurring during adolescence; the impact of interfering with those changes remains largely unknown, which is troubling, Hruz said.

“It is impossible to turn back time. So, once you’ve blocked puberty… you cannot buy back the time when that physical process has been disrupted,” Hruz said.

He also said credible studies show that, if left alone, many transgender-identifying youths will likely revert to their biological sex. But if put on puberty blockers, 98 percent of the youths will go on to take cross-sex hormones.

Flooding a person’s body with hormones of the opposite sex can cause myriad unknown effects, he said, noting that there are more than 6,000 sex-specific genetic differences between males and females.

In addition, it’s unclear how the combined effects of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones could affect young people in the long run, Hruz said.

Rapid-Fire Answers

In instance after instance, Hruz enumerated specific problems with studies that claim hormones or surgeries benefited youths with gender dysphoria.

“Despite the claims that are made about the efficacy of the affirmative approach, the evidence is insufficient to make that conclusion,” Hruz said.

With near-encyclopedic detail, Hruz fired off answers so quickly that the court stenographer struggled to keep pace. Moody repeatedly asked him to speak more slowly.

At one point, the judge became so frustrated, he threatened to stop the witness from further testimony unless Jacobs found a way to get Hruz to slow down his statements.

Hruz moderated his pace but continued speaking authoritatively as he testified for more than three hours under Jacobs’ questioning.

Generally, when considering medical treatment options, “The higher the risk, the lower the quality of evidence, the more caution that is used,” Hruz said.

Yet, with gender-affirming care, that principle seems not to apply, he said.

He couldn’t remember seeing any other medical treatments so strongly recommended despite such poor-quality evidence.

Another “unique” feature of this debate: The existence of gender dysphoria hinges on the patient’s self-reported identity and desires, Hruz said. There is no way to “test the accuracy of that condition,” he said.

Read more here…

More than one thousand New York Times employees could walk off the job late next week if a newsroom union fails to strike a deal with the publisher. 

After 20 months of negotiations, enough is enough: Today, more than 1,000 @NYTimesGuild members pledged to walk out if @nytimes does not agree to a complete and fair contract by Dec. 8.

— NYTimesGuild (@NYTimesGuild) December 2, 2022

In a series of tweets, NYTimesGuild, the labor union of more than 1,000 NYTimes employees, complained about pensions, health care, and pay while the progressive newspaper is on track for an annual operating profit of $320 million and splurged $150 million on stock buybacks.  

If you can believe it, NYTimes still pays their base journalist a measly $65,000 yearly, barely enough to live in NYC. 

A company on track for an annual operating profit of $320 million or more should be paying its employees a minimum of $65,000 a year. The @nytimes thinks this is unreasonable. The @NYTimesGuild does not.

— NYTimesGuild (@NYTimesGuild) December 2, 2022

This walkout pledge was not a decision we made lightly. But the truth is @nytimes is a blank page without @NYTGuild members. It’s time they gave us a contract that reflects our true worth. pic.twitter.com/MTMdockEKK

— NYTimesGuild (@NYTimesGuild) December 2, 2022

The lack of pay increases and failed negotiations by the union to solidify a deal appears to have been the last straw:

“Enough. If there is no contract by Dec. 8, we are walking out,” read the email’s subject line containing the letter that was sent to NYTimes publisher A.G. Sulzberger and CEO Meredith Kopit Levien on Friday, according to New York magazine.

The labor union wants negotiations on health care, pension plans, and a pay increase. They threatened to stop working for a full day next Thursday if an agreement wasn’t reached. 

“Labor unrest at the Times is always awkward for the top editor, who gets pinioned between the newsroom they run and the business side to which they must answer. The big walkout would be the first real crisis for new executive editor Joe Kahn,” New York Magazine wrote. 

NYTimes spokesperson said:

“While we are disappointed that the NewsGuild is threatening to strike, we are prepared to ensure The Times continues to serve our readers without disruption. We remain committed to working with the NYT NewsGuild to reach a contract that we can all be proud of.”

Meanwhile, “the paper,” NYTimes television critic James Poniewozik said, “doesn’t write itself.” A labor action and what could result in content disruption wouldn’t necessarily be a terrible thing, as it would force readers to search for news elsewhere. 

Authored by Katabella Roberts via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Survivors of the mass shooting at Robb Elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, have filed a $27 billion class-action lawsuit against multiple law enforcement officials in the state.

This comes six months after the killings, which were the deadliest U.S. school shooting in almost a decade. Nineteen children and two teachers we killed by the gunman in May.

The lawsuit was filed on Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. It names the city of Uvalde, its police department, the school district, the state Department of Public Safety, and several police and school officials as defendants.

The plaintiffs, which include parents, teachers, and staff members, are alleging that the officials failed to follow protocols for an active shooter, despite having received active shooter training and that they did not neutralize the shooter immediately, leading to further trauma and injuries.

“Law enforcement took seventy-seven minutes to accomplish what they were duty bound to expeditiously perform,” the lawsuit states.

“Not only had CISD-PD undertaken a state-sponsored and mandated active shooter response training, but CISD had additionally promulgated its own required protocols and standards to employ in the event of an active shooter on one of its campuses.

“Despite such preparedness, the CISD police department, along with similarly trained law enforcement agencies including the City of Uvalde’s police department, the Texas Department of Public Safety, San Antonio Police Department’s SWAT unit, Uvalde’s Sheriff’s office, and the United States Department of Homeland Security fundamentally strayed from conducting themselves in conformity with what they knew to be the well-established protocols and standards for responding to an active shooter,” the lawsuit added.

Officers Waited Over an Hour

Nearly 400 law enforcement officials arrived at the school on May 24 but opted to wait over 70 minutes to enter the fourth-grade classroom where gunman Salvador Ramos had locked himself in and take him down.

A 77-page report published in July by the Texas state House of Representatives found that there were multiple “shortcomings and failures” across the board by both law enforcement and UCISD in its response.

Plaintiffs are seeking damages for the survivors of the shooting, including parents whose children were killed and those who witnessed the deadly incident.

According to the lawsuit, plaintiffs “sustained emotional and psychological damages as a result of Defendants’ conduct” on the day of the shooting, while some of the children are suffering from severe anxiety and nightmares.

A string of lawsuits have been filed against the Uvalde school district and law enforcement officers since May.

Mother of Victim, 10, Files Lawsuit

Earlier this week, Sandra Torres, the mother of 10-year-old victim Eliahna sued over the response to the shooting.

The lawsuit names the city of Uvalde; the County of Uvalde; the Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District; the Uvalde Police Department; Uvalde CISD Police; Uvalde County Sheriff’s Office; Uvalde Constables, and the Texas Department of Public Safety as defendants.

Apple Inc’s massive exposure to Chinese manufacturing has left it with production shortfalls of iPhones due to Beijing’s harsh virus containment policies and unrest at a major factory in central China operated by Foxconn. A new report shows the iPhone maker’s retreat from China is accelerating. 

WSJ said Apple is “telling suppliers to plan more actively for assembling Apple products elsewhere in Asia, particularly India and Vietnam, they say, and looking to reduce dependence on Taiwanese assemblers led by Foxconn.” 

Apple’s supply chain data indicates China is the iPhone maker’s primary location. Market research firm Counterpoint Research recently noted 85% of the Pro lineup of iPhones is made in Foxconn’s giant city-within-a-city factory in Zhengzhou. 

The factory has been hit with Covid-19 restrictions and unrest in recent weeks and months, leading to a production shortfall of 6 million iPhone Pros by the end of the year.

“Apple no longer feels comfortable having so much of its business tied up in one place, according to analysts and people in the Apple supply chain,” WSJ noted. 

“In the past, people didn’t pay attention to concentration risks.

 “Free trade was the norm and things were very predictable. Now we’ve entered a new world,” Alan Yeung, a former US executive for Foxconn, said. 

People familiar with Apple’s supply chain said that not all production would be shifted outside China. However, the remaining production in China will draw on a larger pool of assemblers, not just Foxconn. They said Luxshare Precision Industry Co. and Wingtech Technology Co. are two companies in line to receive more business from Apple. 

As for the shift out of China, people involved in the discussions said Apple is telling manufacturing partners to look at other countries. 

However, Apple has spent decades interweaving its supply chains within China, and change won’t come overnight. 

“Finding all the pieces to build at the scale Apple needs is not easy,” said Kate Whitehead, a former Apple operations manager who now owns her own supply-chain consulting firm.  

Ming-chi Kuo, an analyst at TF International Securities who follows the supply chain, said Apple’s longer-term objective is to ship 40% to 45% of iPhones from India. And suppliers said Vietnam could soon be a significant player in manufacturing other Apple products such as AirPods, smartwatches, and laptops.

The bigger trend is the fracturing of the global supply chain. US firms realize China’s zero Covid policy and shutdowns, along with heightened geopolitical risk across the region, are bad for business and recently outlined in the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai’s latest survey of US firms in China found a near doubling of respondents over the past year that are slashing investment.

Authored by A.B. Stoddard via RealClear Wire,

Democrats face an inflection point, though they are trying not to face up to it. Surprising results in the November elections, producing a cloudy picture for both parties, have quieted a push to get President Biden to forgo a second term. But the liabilities of the GOP do not make Biden more popular; nor do they make him younger.

A split decision at the ballot box has Democrats cheering, but they have lost control of the House, and Biden’s job approval ratings are still nothing to crow about. Republicans underperformed because of the Dobbs ruling by the Supreme Court, and because of the extreme candidates backed by Donald Trump, when they should have won big. Democrats were not saved from a red wave because voters liked all the bipartisan bills they passed or that gasoline prices went down here and there. Record high inflation, a crisis at the border, and rising crime remain resonant issues with voters and still pose problems for the Democratic Party.

Yet Democrats seem to have backed down from the urgency of finding a new presidential nominee for their party in 2024. Talk of who could replace Biden – and when and how – had consumed Democrats throughout the summer and fall. They were not only anticipating a bad election, and a pivot point for the party, but whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would relinquish power as well, and support a new general of leadership for House Democrats. She did. And as I wrote in July, Biden should soon tell the country he will leave office in January of 2025.

The purple wave that helped Democrats mitigate their losses seems to have weakened Trump and strengthened Biden – the opposite of what was expected, particularly had Trump’s senate candidates prevailed. Trump announced his third presidential campaign anyway, but his diminished standing with GOP elites – combined with the midterm results – seems to have stiffened Biden’s spine about facing off against Trump once again in 2024.

Another campaign for Biden may even be a sure thing. “Those close to the White House say that, at this point, they expect only a family emergency or a personal health issue would change Biden’s mind about seeking re-election,” NBC reported, adding that Biden plans travel to potential battleground states and that advisors are reaching out to supporters “all in advance of a campaign launch early next year.”

Right on cue Democrats are talking comfortably again, even publicly, about a second Biden campaign. Before the election, Democrats believed Biden could face a primary challenge, but now some potential contenders are swearing off running against him. California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker have both said they won’t run if Biden does. “I think the president is running for re-election. So I think you’ll see Democrats supporting the president,” Pritzker told the New York Times. Newsom, who most Democrats assumed has been building a campaign-in-waiting, told Politico he assured the president, as well as his wife, that he wasn’t running if Biden ran or if he chose not to.

“He not only beat Trump once, I think he can beat him again,” Newsom said. “I hope he runs, I’ll enthusiastically support him.”

Biden himself is reportedly having conversations with his family, which started over Thanksgiving, about whether to run again. He has said running is his “intention” but has also said he wasn’t certain and would make an announcement early next year.

At 80, Biden is already America’s oldest president. The office has visibly aged him. He and Democrats aren’t talking about him launching a campaign for an election to serve two more years, but to serve another six years. Biden is not even halfway through his term. The worst thing for the party is for Biden to pretend that a visibly fatigued 82-year-old man, even if his stamina was not further degraded whatsoever by the next two years, can promise to lead the free world in the most grueling job on the planet until his 86th birthday. Biden running and having to quit, or serving and having to quit, because of his health is a foreseeable, avoidable problem for Democrats. The risk this poses is not worth the advantages Biden’s incumbency would afford him in a reelection campaign. Moreover, if Biden runs and appears physically weaker late next year it is likely someone could jump in to challenge him. That is a bad scenario for the Democrats, no matter who that is or how it turns out.

Polls show that rank-and-file Democrats don’t want Biden to run for a second term. Overall, strong majorities of Americans across the political spectrum don’t want Biden or Trump to run again.

Plus, there was no blue wave, either. The 2022 elections did not affirm support for Democrats, their policies, or the president. Frustrated voters unhappy with Biden and Democrats retained a near status quo in Washington, angry over abortion and afraid of some freaky Republican candidates they couldn’t trust in office.

In an interview, pollster Stanley Greenberg told the New York Times that his surveys show continued vulnerabilities for Democrats, and he thinks “we need a new voice to address huge challenges but also huge opportunities.”

The sooner the next crop of Democrats capable of leading their party can begin to campaign openly for the 2024 nomination, the better off the party will be. Dragging that process out, and risking an emergency, is not a position a strong leader would leave his party in. Pelosi likes to say that power is not given, it is taken. But last month she gave hers away. If it wasn’t the best thing for her, it was still the best decision for her party. Biden should do the same.