Tag Archives : Build House

Psychiatrist testifies Sandy Hook parents live in 'terror' at Alex Jones trial

AUSTIN (KXAN) — A forensic psychiatrist testified that two parents of a Sandy Hook victim live in “terror for their own physical safety” — not because of the trauma of the loss of their child, in his opinion, but because of threats from followers of conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.

Dr. Roy Lubit testified before the jury about the mental, emotional and even physical effects suffered by Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis, whose 6-year-old son, Jesse, was killed by a gunman in the 2012 shooting. The parents are now suing Austin-based talk show host and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones over his claims that the shooting was fake and the parents could be paid “crisis actors.”

The trial continued into its second week, despite the media company behind his site, Infowars, filing for bankruptcy late last week.

On Friday evening, Jones’ attorney Andino Reynal alerted the court to the filing by Free Speech Systems, LLC, the parent company for Jones’ media operations, but said it would not halt the ongoing trial.

The trial was postponed earlier this year after Infowars and two of Jones’ other companies, Prison Planet TV and IW Health, also filed for bankruptcy. These cases were dismissed from bankruptcy court so this trial could proceed.

Heslin and Lewis are seeking $150 million in damages to compensate for defamation and mental anguish, attorneys explained. They have also asked the jury to consider additional punitive damages.

Mark Bankston, one of the family’s attorneys, said his clients had to deal with harassment, threats and confrontation from people who believed the shooting had been a hoax.

“Jesse’s legacy had now become tied with this,” he told the jury during his opening statements.

Lubit testified that Lewis used to host dinner parties for friends but no longer feels comfortable doing so. He said she fears for her safety, which is why she has a “sophisticated” security system and sleeps with a weapon within reach. He described how she refuses to turn on the air-conditioning unit because she worries the noise will prevent her from hearing “something she may need to hear.”

As for Heslin, Lubit testified that he believes his emotions have been “drained out.”

“Neil told me that he has nightmares about [Alex] Jones,” Lubit told the jury.

He described incidents in which Heslin said he was confronted, harassed, shoved and even had a bullet shot at his home. He believes these incidents “pushed them back, shoved them back into some of the earlier pain.”

He also told the jury the parents hired a “strong security detail” for the duration of the trial because they are afraid of Jones’ followers.

“It’s on their mind all the time. What’s on their mind is not the death of their child, but the threats, the attacks,” he said.

When Jones’ defense team began their cross-examination, Reynal asked Lubit about his 2018 campaign for Congress as a Democratic candidate in Connecticut and about his thoughts on Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.

“The fact is you don’t like Alex Jones, right?” Reynal said.

Lubit replied, “I don’t like what he does.”

Reynal also asked Lubit how much of the parents’ anguish he believes comes from the ongoing lawsuit. Lubit told the jury he knows litigation is stressful, but he believes the parents were dealing with serious issues prior to the lawsuit being filed.

Lubit told the jury he did not directly treat Heslin and Lewis, but he consulted a psychotherapist — Michael Crouch — who did.

Crouch also took the stand, testifying that to his knowledge, the parents were healing until 2017. According to previous testimony during the trial, that is when Heslin spoke out about losing his son Jesse in an interview with Megyn Kelly and when the family began facing more targeted attacks.

Jones has also already been found liable for defamation in this case as well as in another case scheduled for trial in the Connecticut courts. Jury selection is scheduled to begin this week, according to the attorney representing the plaintiffs in that case.

Attorney Christopher Mattei said in a statement, “Mr. Jones has once again fled like a coward to bankruptcy court in a transparent attempt to delay facing the families that he has spent years hurting. These families have an endless well of patience and remain determined to hold Mr. Jones accountable in a Connecticut court.”

Jones, who continued to broadcast live throughout last week on Infowars, and his attorneys have insisted this trial is an infringement on his right to free speech.

Jones is expected to take the stand as a witness Tuesday following testimony by Heslin and Lewis.

Attorneys told the court Jones will be the last witness to take the stand before the jury begins deliberating the first portion of their charge: how much Jones owes the parents in compensatory damages.

More witness testimony is expected later in the week before the jury considers the possible amount of punitive damages owed.

Source: TEST FEED1

Are investors right in expecting a dovish Fed pivot?

Following last week’s meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), the policymaking arm of the Federal Reserve (Fed), U.S. Treasury yields fell sharply and stock prices surged higher. Even though the FOMC raised the policy rate by 75-basis points, financial markets rallied as investors concluded that Chairman Jerome Powell’s comments during the follow-up press conference were indicative of a dovish monetary policy tilt.

Specifically, the following statement by Powell was taken by market watchers as suggestive of a policy shift: “As the stance of monetary policy tightens further, it likely will become appropriate to slow the pace of increases while we assess how our cumulative policy adjustments are affecting the economy and inflation.”

Investors felt further emboldened when the first estimate of second quarter GDP appeared to suggest that the U.S. had experienced two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. Financial market signals indicate that participants not only are expecting the Fed to reach the terminal policy rate by early 2023 but are in fact betting that the U.S. central bank will be forced to make a U-turn and start easing policy soon thereafter.

Yields on U.S. Treasury securities have swung wildly since early March. The benchmark 10-year Treasury note (T-note) yield initially surged from about 1.72 percent on March 1 to around 3.49 percent on June 14, and then fell to around 2.68 percent on July 29. The sharp drop in 10-year T-note yield during the past few weeks suggests that bond investors are pricing in an economic downturn. Furthermore, investors in long-dated U.S. Treasury securities appear to be discounting the risk that the American economy may have entered a new inflationary regime.

Meanwhile, stock markets are also factoring in a dovish tilt at the Fed — the benchmark S&P 500 Index has rallied sharply since hitting a bottom on June 16. The problem with the recent financial market rally is that it implies an easing of financial conditions and a positive wealth effect, and neither of these developments will help the Fed in its ongoing battle to cool demand and ease inflationary pressures.

The 30-year mortgage rate and corporate bond yields closely track the yield on the 10-year T-note. The recent drop in the benchmark T-note yield will lower borrowing costs and potentially reenergize the demand-side of the economy and complicate the Fed’s battle against high inflation. The recent equity market rally, if sustained, is also likely to create headaches for the Fed.

This is especially likely if the market belief that we have already seen the worst of the bear market generates a fresh wave of investor enthusiasm and if the nascent rally is further fueled by expectations that the Fed will soon pivot. Rapid recovery in financial asset values could encourage households to embark on a fresh spending spree, which in turn could keep prices at elevated levels. That would force the Fed to have to raise rates by even more than currently projected.

The monetary policy transmission mechanism is partly reliant on the proper functioning of the asset price channel — higher policy rates depress asset values, which in turn generate a negative wealth effect and result in a cooling down of aggregate demand. For this channel to operate effectively, the central bank must convince financial market participants that rate hikes will be sustained and that high interest rates will be maintained until monetary policy goals and objectives are achieved.

The Fed, however, currently faces a self-inflicted credibility problem. Given Fed’s penchant for supporting asset bubbles and bailing out investors in recent decades, it now faces a tricky challenge as it has to convince market participants that reliance on a “Fed Put” is no longer an appropriate strategy. Since inflation is expected to remain well above the 2 percent target level for quite a while, the central bank has to forcefully persuade investors that rate cuts will not be forthcoming anytime soon.

Given the Fed’s poor forecasting track record and recent struggles with forward guidance, it is no surprise that Chairman Powell indicated that maintaining some degree of optionality would allow the Fed to react quickly to changing circumstances. However, it appears that, in the absence of clearer guidance, markets misread the central bank’s commitment to its 2 percent inflation target and is ignoring or downplaying the severity of the inflation challenge.

Clearly, the inflation dragon is yet to be slain. While commodity prices have eased somewhat and goods price inflation will likely ratchet down in the coming months, there is still ongoing and broad-based upward pressure on prices. The trimmed-mean PCE (personal consumption expenditures) inflation rate suggests that underlying inflation is still at very high levels.

Furthermore, the employment cost index (ECI), a key measure of wage inflation, surged in June. Shift in consumer spending away from goods and towards labor-intensive services will delay any moderation in wage growth.

Additionally, rental inflation, which typically lags home price changes by about 12 months, is expected to remain high for several more months. Owners’ equivalent rent of residences and rent of primary residences account for a substantial share of the CPI basket, and, consequently, the rising cost of shelter will limit the pace of disinflation in the near term.

If investors are indeed misreading the Fed’s commitment to maintaining a tight policy for a prolonged period and are failing to adequately take into account future inflation risks, then recent stock and bond market rallies may well prove to be premature and even counterproductive.

Vivekanand Jayakumar is an associate professor of economics at the University of Tampa.

Source: TEST FEED1

White House defends construction on border wall

(NewsNation) — The White House is defending a Homeland Security decision to close four gaps in the border wall in an open area of southern Arizona near Yuma, one of the busiest sectors for illegal crossings. The Biden administration authorized the completion of the Trump-funded U.S.-Mexico border wall on Thursday.

“There will not be another foot of wall constructed on my administration. Not another foot,” President Joe Biden said back in August 2020.

The president had pledged during his campaign to cease all future wall construction, but the administration later agreed to some barriers, citing safety. The Department of Homeland Security said Thursday the work to close four wide gaps in the wall near Yuma will better protect migrants who can slip down a slope or drown walking through a low section of the Colorado River.

When asked by a reporter why the Biden administration was building the border wall in Arizona, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre claimed the administration was “cleaning up the mess the prior administration left behind.”

Immigration attorney Saman Nasseri joined Nexstar’s NewsNation to analyze the Biden administration’s decision to defend the wall’s construction.

“If you’re asking me point blank, I mean, he’s filling in an area of the wall that is known for people to be crossing through and coming through the border … regularly to get to that part of the Colorado River and they cross the river. And this is kind of like a landing ground for people from all over the world. They know this,” Nasseri said.

Even though the White House said the construction is an effort to clean up after the Trump administration, Nasseri said that the previous administration wanted those gaps and the wall filled as well. Now, Biden’s team is following up on that goal, getting the construction done.

“They’re taking that budget that was allocated for this,” Nasseri said.

Homeland Security said that the area presents safety and life hazard risks for both immigrants and agents, particularly around a section of the Colorado River.

A 5-year-old girl recently drowned while crossing the Colorado River in Yuma near this section, where the wall is scheduled to be reinforced. And authorities have reported 235,230 migrant encounters in the Yuma sector since October of 2021.

But Nasseri said he believes immigrants will find a way to get to the U.S. whether the wall is built or not.

“But you also have to think that a large percentage of those numbers are people that have come from other countries, not just Mexico. And if you think that people are going to get back on flights and go back to Africa, or Russia, or, you know, parts of Central America … I don’t think that little section of construction is going to deter them,” Nasseri said.

With the new construction to close off the gaps, Nasseri said new hotspots will occur in places such as Arizona, Texas and San Diego.

“They’re going to make their way through that wall because they’re determined. They came here with a purpose, they’re not just going to turn around and go because this, you know, this gap is gonna get filled in,” Nasseri said.

Nasseri thinks the White House is looking at this construction as a safety concern, especially since there have been numerous deaths in the area.

“I think the White House is trying to view it as a safety issue and maybe trying to get a better grasp and concentrate things more … We don’t have enough officers, there are not enough Border Protection Officers to be at every single section of the wall and every part of the border to see who’s coming in. So by doing this, you may be able to concentrate it a little bit more and put officers where they need to be so they can get a better idea of who’s coming in,” Nasseri said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Source: TEST FEED1

Showdown at the not-so-OK Corral

The final day of a congressional session before a summer recess can be a carnival of cacophony, chaos, and conflict, especially just three months out from a critical midterm election that could flip majority control of one or both chambers.    

Friday, July 29, 2022, was just such a get-away day in the House (the Senate would stay on another week to wrap-up its business). Both houses had already racked up a list of accomplishments they could proudly tout back home with their constituents.  The House had agreed to a Senate-passed amendment to a long-stalled “chips and science” bill to restore American preeminence in the manufacture of computer semi-conductor microchips. And Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) brokered an agreement on a major, $369-billion economic package to address climate change, energy production, health care costs, tax code revisions, and deficit reduction. 

The monkey wrench thrown into the cogs of this otherwise rapidly churning legislative sausage-making machine was a last-minute decision Thursday to bring to the House floor on Friday a bill making it a crime to sell, manufacture, transfer, import, or possess designated semiautomatic weapons. Earlier in the week, the Rules Committee was scheduled to take up that bill along with six other gun-violence/public health and safety related measures. But the planned Tuesday meeting was postponed shortly beforehand, “subject to the call of the chair.”  Something was obviously afoot or gone awry, but no public explanation was given.  

As the Washington Post reported on Saturday (July 30), the assault weapons ban that passed on its own Friday, 217-213, was a “politically fraught issue that tested the unity of the [Democratic] Caucus.” Five Democrats voted against the assault weapons bill and two others were persuaded at the last minute to change their votes from “nay” to “yea” to save the bill from defeat. 

What was at play, according to the Post account, were battles among various factions within the party: the Congressional Black Caucus, the Progressive Caucus, and a band of moderate Democrats from swing districts. The CBC wanted “guardrails” on the law enforcement assistance measures to prevent abuse; the Progressives were insisting on first passing the assault weapons ban that week, while delaying action on the other six bills until August to allow for further modifications. The moderates were squeezed-out in the middle and apparently furious that the balanced package approach they supported was jettisoned.   

Add to all this the outrage of House Republicans when an emergency Rules Committee meeting was called at 7 p.m. Thursday (the same hour former professional baseball player Roberto Clemente Jr. threw-out the first pitch at the congressional baseball game). What the Democrats needed was a special rule to waive the requirement of a two-thirds vote for same-day floor consideration of a second rulemaking in order for the assault weapons ban vote on Friday. 

At 9:15 a.m. Friday, the initial waiver rule was called-up, debated, and then adopted around 11:45. Then, at high noon, the Rules Committee met in another emergency session to clear the way for the second rule providing for consideration of the gun ban bill by a majority, rather than two-thirds, vote. (If you have followed all this procedural jerking-around thus far, you deserve a gold medal, or at least a neck rub).     

While the overflow of procedural moves seemed like a cascading river of riveting drama, it was not riveting enough to hold the presence of 28 percent of House members. By the time of the final passage vote at 6:30 p.m. Friday, only 309 of the 431 sitting House members were still around in the chamber to vote, even though 377 members were there for the first vote that morning.   

What saved the vote for Democrats was that 121 members (including some Republicans) cast their votes remotely by proxy (compared to only 64 proxy votes cast around noon). Proxies have been allowed since May 2020 to protect the institution during the pandemic emergency. The emergency rule allowed members to sign a letter to the Clerk affirming they were “unable to physically attend the proceedings of the House” because of “the public health emergency,” and allowed them to designate in their letter a member to cast their votes for them on the floor, specifying how they would vote on each anticipated rollcall. 

Friday, July 29, was “senior skip day,” or, more accurately, “member sick-out day.” Although most of those new-born proxy huggers had not suddenly been stricken by illness, by invoking the health threat in their signed affirmation letter,  the ploy opened a convenient loophole for them to leave town early while still being held accountable for their votes. Fortunately, fellow passengers on their flights back home were not aware of the fleeing members’ agony of retreat. 

Don Wolfensberger is a Congress Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, former chief-of-staff of the House Rules Committee, and author of, “Changing Cultures in Congress: From Fair Play to Power Plays.”  The views expressed are solely his own. 

Source: TEST FEED1

How does monkeypox spread? An infectious disease expert explains

SAN FRANCISCO (KRON) — California became the latest to declare an emergency over monkeypox, following Illinois and New York. The nation’s rising case count – over 5,800 cases as of Monday night, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows – has many wondering how the disease is spreading.

That’s especially true in San Francisco amid large gatherings, like the three-day music and arts festival Outside Lands that kicks off this weekend.

Dr. Peter Chin-Hong, Infectious Disease Expert with the University of California San Francisco, broke it down into three levels of risk when it comes to the spread of monkeypox: high, medium and low. He credits the vaccine with being able to put more people in the low-risk group. 

Prolonged skin-to-skin contact is the most common – and thus, high-risk – way that monkeypox is spread, according to Dr. Chin-Hong. “Intimate contact is very efficient because you’re making little cuts in the skin with the person who’s not infected and the virus from the open sore can enter very easily.”

Another way that monkeypox is spread is through shared bedding and clothing. It’s not as likely, but still possible. “Usually with someone who’s had an open lesion, slept in the bedding, and then it survives in that way with a high load, so I would call that … maybe medium,” said Dr. Chin-Hong.

He said monkeypox can only be spread from the time someone feels sick to the time their rash scabs off. Casual interactions such as a simple handshake are low-risk that would require very specific scenarios for spread.

“You could be shaking somebody’s hand, have a cut in your hand and the person has an open sore and they didn’t know it, or recognize it — that’s possible,” said Chin-Hong.

As far as events like Outside Lands, the doctor is more concerned about what happens behind closed doors than among those gathering in Golden Gate Park. “Risky activities are not in Outside Lands. It’s in the events or the intimate settings that people have or encounters they have after the event,” said Chin-Hong.

Dr. Chin-Hong said the vaccines that have been and continue to be administered will be a game-changer with monkeypox. He said the shot will abort the disease completely if taken within the first four days of being infected.

Scientists say that unlike campaigns to stop COVID-19, mass vaccinations against monkeypox won’t be necessary. They think targeted use of the available doses, along with other measures, could shut down the expanding epidemics that were recently designated by the World Health Organization as a global health emergency.

President Joe Biden is set to name top officials from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the CDC – Robert Fenton and Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, respectively – to serve as the White House coordinators to combat the growing monkeypox outbreak on Tuesday. The White House said the pair would coordinate “strategy and operations to combat the current monkeypox outbreak, including equitably increasing the availability of tests, vaccinations and treatments.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Source: TEST FEED1

End Citizens United PAC rolls out $2M ad buy hitting Oz over NJ ties

The End Citizens United PAC rolled out a $2 million ad buy in Pennsylvania on Tuesday, hitting Republican Senate nominee Dr. Mehmet Oz over his ties to New Jersey and special interests. 

The ad buy, which will run Aug. 2 through Aug. 13 will air on broadcast, cable, and streaming in the Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Harrisburg media markets. The Hill was the first outlet to report on the ad buy, which is the group’s first of the general election cycle. 

The ad, which is titled “Fuhgeddaboudit,” accuses Oz of taking money from the pharmaceutical industry and refers to him as a “Jersey Oz.” 

“Mehmet Oz is as New Jersey as listening to Bruce Springsteen while driving on the parkway to go down the shore. That’s exactly why he’s out-of-touch with hardworking Pennsylvanians,” Tiffany Muller, the president of End Citizens United, said in a statement to The Hill. 

The liberal group’s ad campaign is the latest to hit the television doctor-turned-politician in Pennsylvania. Democrats, including Senate nominee John Fetterman, have sought to portray Oz as a carpetbagger from New Jersey. 

Fetterman has used various methods to mock Oz over the issue, including flying an airplane banner along South Jersey beaches that read, “HEY DR. OZ, WELCOME HOME TO NJ! ❤ JOHN” and enlisting the help of former “Jersey Shore” cast member Nicole “Snooki” LaValle.

Oz’s campaign has responded to Fetterman’s tactics, saying Oz is more actively engaged with voters. 

“Dr. Oz is busy criss-crossing the commonwealth and meeting with voters hearing how crime and inflation is impacting their lives, while John Fetterman is sitting behind his computer screen from his basement bunker refusing to meet with Pennsylvanians,” said Britany Yanick, a spokesperson for the Oz campaign. 

Pennsylvania’s Senate race is slated to be one of the most closely watched races of the cycle, with the non-partisan Cook Political Report rating the race as a “toss-up.” The Real Clear Politics polling average shows Fetterman leading the race by an average of 8.7 points. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Feehery: Biden is no Reagan, but he can win like him

Joe Biden is no Ronald Reagan. 

Some Biden partisans are trying to link the conservative icon with our current bumbling president and, of course, there is no comparison. 

Reagan was a gifted communicator. Biden is in the malapropist hall of fame. Reagan had a set of deep and unyielding beliefs. Biden blows with the wind. Reagan was a staunch anti-communist. Biden? Not so much.  

But no matter how dissimilar Biden is from Reagan, Biden can still pull a Reagan. He can come back from a bumpy first two years and win reelection.  

Indeed, recent history would suggest that the current president is slightly favored to win a second term, should he decide that he wants to run.  

Bill Clinton’s first two years were even more discouraging to the general public than Mr. Biden’s. Barack Obama may have inspired his own fan base and among wealthy Democrats, but his first two years were no picnic. George W. Bush started his presidency with a series of missteps, but the 9/11 attacks and a weak opponent in then-Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) helped him to win a second term.  

Here are five ways that Joe Biden can win a second term. 

1) The economy rebounds strongly. Whether we are in a recession or not right now doesn’t matter for Biden’s second term. What matters is where we are, fiscally and economically, in 2024. Americans tend to have a short-term memory. Reagan’s recession hurt congressional Republicans in 1982, but with inflation tamed, with interest rates falling back to earth and with burgeoning economic growth, thanks to the president’s pro-growth tax cuts, it was all morning in America by the 1984 elections. If the economy gets worse for the next two years, Joe Biden is toast. But if it comes back (and it usually comes back) Biden could stay in the driver’s seat. 

2) The Republicans over-reach. It seems pretty likely that the GOP will take back both the House and the Senate in November. That was the best thing that ever happened to Bill Clinton in the 1994 elections. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) proved to be a media superstar and took all the attention away from the thoroughly dysfunctional Clinton White House. Republicans were also able to get America’s economic house in order, by insisting on a balanced budget and pro-growth tax cuts, all of which Clinton ran on to win reelection. By insisting on a government shutdown and by losing control of the narrative, Republicans were perceived as being too extreme — and that helped to position Clinton as a centrist.  

3) The Republicans can run a flawed candidate. Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.), the 1996 nominee, was a great hero and statesman, but a terrible presidential candidate. In 2012, conservatives simply didn’t believe that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was a severe-enough conservative and they found his campaign uninspiring. In 1984, former Vice President Walter Mondale promised the American people that he would raise their taxes, a dubious promise that fell flat with the tax-paying public. Kerry was easy to portray as an out-of-touch elitist in 2004. Should Donald Trump decide to run again, he could definitely inspire his political base, but at what cost to the rest of the party? And what Republican can possibly run, beat Trump in a primary and get the Trump voters to jump on his or her bandwagon? It’s not as easy as it sounds. 

4) A third party forms. Robust third parties are usually bad for incumbents, but they are especially bad for the Republican Party. When Ross Perot ran in 1992, he took the lion’s share of votes away from George H.W. Bush. In 1980, Rep. John Anderson’s (R-Ill.) efforts to run a third-party campaign against Reagan turned out to be nothing more than an annoyance, but at the time, the media played it up as a real threat. When Pat Buchanan ran under the Reform Party banner in 2000, he almost tipped the scales to Vice President Gore. A new third party is being formed as we speak by disaffected former Republican office-holders. Could it become a real factor in 2024? It’s hard to say, but if it doesn’t, it will most likely split Republican voters.  

5) Democrats don’t have anybody serious to challenge Biden. The reason Biden is in the White House right now is because the Democrats had nobody else who could plausibly run and win. Kamala Harris hasn’t exactly covered herself in glory so far as vice president. Pete Buttigieg? Give me a break. Gavin Newsom? I don’t think so. The only Democrat who could plausibly win the White House in 2024, outside of Biden, is Joe Manchin, and I don’t see him getting through a Democratic primary.  

Feehery is a partner at EFB Advocacy and blogs at thefeeherytheory.com. He served as spokesman to former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), as communications director to former House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and as a speechwriter to former House Minority Leader Bob Michel (R-Ill.).  

Source: TEST FEED1

America is heading toward its third great political realignment

Across nearly four centuries, the genius of Anglo-American political institutions has been their general tendency toward evolutionary, rather than revolutionary, change. This inclination has been clearly reflected in the development of the most stable and successful political party systems in the world. Over time, political ascendency has favored those parties that stood for a steady broadening of the voting population and their inclusion in the processes of democratic governance through peaceful, though not always uncontroversial, means.

Even in those rare instances when “regime change” has required a resort to military force — England’s “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 or America’s Revolution of 1776 — these revolutions have been decidedly more limited in scope and far less bloodthirsty than the malign template of the French Revolution of 1789 and others that have emulated its “root and branch” approach to radical societal change.

In the United States there have been just two great political realignments, both of them occasioned by immense and catastrophic events that reached into every corner of the republic and fundamentally changed how people thought about politics and the very character of the Great American Democracy.

The first was the Civil War (1861-1865) — far and away the greatest bloodletting in our history — the result of which was the overthrow of the Democratic Party ascendency begun by Thomas Jefferson in 1800 that had endured for 60 years but eventually would be undone by its persistent toleration of slavery. The further result was the 70-year ascendency of the Republican Party begun by Abraham Lincoln in 1860.

The second great catastrophe leading to political realignment was the Great Depression, beginning in 1929, which inflicted more material misery on the American people than anything in our history — and even more ominously, seriously called into question the institution of capitalism that heretofore had been seen as the indispensable element in American growth and prosperity. As a result of this shattering event, millions of Americans who were adherents of the Republican Party ever since the Civil War changed their allegiance to the Democratic Party and its New Deal, led by Franklin Roosevelt in 1932. Most would generally maintain that allegiance for nearly 90 years.

It is evident that there is a great deal of party-switching going on today, mainly benefitting Republicans since the most striking group switching their allegiance are Hispanics and, to a much lesser but significant extent, African Americans who have been historically the most reliable part of the long-ruling Democratic coalition. Many Democrats comfort themselves by viewing these shifts as temporary and thinking of them in the context of the well-known pattern of voters less bonded to their usual party affiliation, who routinely punish the party of the White House incumbent whose policies they find disappointing. 

This midterm retribution, however, in no way precluded these critical swing voting blocs — e.g., independents, suburban women — from bouncing back to their usual party affiliation in the presidential election two years later, as both Presidents Clinton and Obama, hugely punished in their first midterms but subsequently re-elected, can testify. In the eyes of these Democrats, thus reassured by history, all that is needed for their party to rebound is a fresh new face as their presidential standard-bearer in 2024.

I would suggest that this viewpoint profoundly misreads what is happening in our country today, and that a series of unprecedented events, ideological obsessions, mistaken policies, and economic and cultural impacts is irreversibly changing how longtime, devoted Democrats — notably from within minority communities but also from an alienated working-class generally — view today’s political parties.

This present trend in party-switching is not just about this one election; it represents a more permanent, new affiliation because the Democratic Party for which their parents and grandparents signed up long ago has ceased to exist, replaced by an affluent elite that openly mocks their values and wages war against their economic well-being. The best historical template for today’s switchers is African Americans during the Depression, who decisively and permanently switched from the party of Lincoln to the party of Roosevelt simply because Democrats spoke directly to their needs and beliefs and Republicans, who long took them for granted, did not.  

Similarly, those voters now abandoning the Democratic Party won’t be coming home any time soon. 

William Moloney is a Senior Fellow in Conservative Thought at Colorado Christian University’s Centennial Institute who studied at Oxford and the University of London and received his doctorate from Harvard University.  He is a former Colorado Commissioner of Education.

Source: TEST FEED1

A nasal vaccine could be key in curbing the spread of COVID-19

As Americans continue to live with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and a highly contagious version of the virus that is currently circulating nationwide, researchers and public health officials are looking onward to a new generation of vaccines.

Just last week, federal health officials and vaccine manufacturers gathered for a White House summit on the future of COVID-19 vaccines, agreeing there’s a need for innovative vaccines that are more effective in preventing infections and protecting against potential variants. 

The summit occurred as the U.S. is undergoing another surge in coronavirus cases, driven by two new types of the omicron variant, BA.4 and BA.5, both subvariants of the highly contagious omicron variant. Early evidence shows the subvariants are better at evading prior immunity, meaning people with immunity either from vaccines or past COVID infection are susceptible to infection. 

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Director Anthony Fauci during the summit advocated for “two pillars” of the next generation of vaccines, which includes the development of a pan-coronavirus vaccine to help curb the proliferation of variants and a nasal vaccine that can be inhaled instead of injected. 

America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news.

Currently, most studies of intranasal COVID-19 vaccines are in the preliminary stages. But early research has shown promising results in terms of efficacy. 

A viable nasal vaccine may be key in preventing the spread of the virus. While current mRNA COVID-19 vaccines induce robust immunity in the blood, preventing severe disease, research has suggested the antibody response in the airways where the virus enters the body may be lacking, particularly when it comes to the omicron sublineage. 

Recent research published in Science Immunology suggests coupling mRNA vaccines with an intranasal booster vaccine can provide much stronger protection against the virus where it enters the body, thus limiting the spread and preventing breakthrough infections. 

“The omicron variant almost completely escaped neutralization by mucosal antibodies in individuals who received mRNA vaccines in previously infected individuals,” Jie Sun, a professor of medicine at the University of Virginia and one of the authors of the study, said. 

“We think the robust antibody responses in the respiratory tract would neutralize the virus immediately upon viral entry when the individual contracts the virus, preventing the establishment of viral infection and subsequent passing of the infection to others.” 

For the study, researchers showed that mice given an mRNA vaccine experienced a good antibody response in the blood but not very good mucosal immunity. However, when given a nasal booster, researchers observed a “very robust” mucosal immunity response against all SARS-CoV-2 variants tested. Sun said using the vaccines in tandem has the potential to stop the establishment of a viral infection immediately.

“Because most of the population already got the mRNA vaccine or has been exposed or contracted COVID, all we need is maybe to provide a nasal booster to really attract this preexisting immunity to the mucosal surface. So it’s like we’d have a guy at the door to immediately stop any bad guy from coming into the building,” Sun said. 

But still, Sun cautioned that much more research needs to be done and it’s too early to say whether the results observed in animal models will translate to humans. 

Plenty of nasal vaccine candidates are under development, but most studies right now are still at an early phase, and there’s been very few human trials. Sun said it will likely be a couple of years before a nasal vaccine is made available to the public. 

“We hope it’s going to work in humans. No one knows right now.” 

Source: TEST FEED1