Mediaboss Marketing

A bill that aims to reinvigorate Americas technological footprint has passed the Senate. The Innovation and Competition Act aims directly at keeping pace with Chinas global economic influence. Billions of dollars will pay for research, making the United States a more competitive global market. And a big chunk of that money could be available in Cincinnati.Greater Cincinnati is a great place to make an investment in research, Ohio Republican Sen. Rob Portman said. Portman sees the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act as a big step in the future of our country and keeping American innovation moving forward. This is a bill about responding to the threat we face from places like China where our research is both behind in some cases, but also being taken by China and other countries, Portman said. 5G technology, supporting space exploration, developing regional technology hubs like Cincinnati and more are on the table.Vice President Kamala Harris recently visited the University of Cincinnati Innovation Center which could see some of this funding.I brought the vice president to Cincinnati a couple of weeks ago to look at what Cincinnati's doing. It's up to us to make it a little bit easier for people in the community, Democratic Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown said. Brown says the money will be left up to leaders in the city to request and the Brent Spence Bridge may benefit. On the other side, Republican Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul was one of the 32 no votes. He calls it wasteful spending. He was able to add a late amendment to make sure funding doesn't go to China. For many years we worried about Russia this, Russia that. It turns out after the Cold War ended, they were behind 20 years and weren't good at technology because communism and socialism doesn't work well. So, I guess I don't see it as sort of as imminent threat as others do, Paul said. Portman agrees money shouldnt be allowed to go to China. This bill should benefit the American people.In particular, he says, reducing our reliance on foreign products like the current semiconductor shortage. He sees becoming a major producer for those parts as a good fit for Ohio. If you try to go buy a car today, even a used car, youll find that the prices are pretty high and a lot of its because the semiconductors that we rely on for our vehicles, as well as a lot of the electronics and other things, are in short supply right now. So, it helps in this bill because it establishes some incentives to create fabrication here in this country so we're not relying on countries like Taiwan, or Korea or China for semiconductors, Portman said. This bill has only passed the Senate and does need to clear the house but is expected to have the votes to pass.President Biden says he looks forward to signing it into law as soon as possible.Kentucky Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell voted yes on the bill, as did Indiana Republican Sen. Todd Young, who was one of the authors of the bill. Indiana Republican Sen. Mike Braun voted no.

A bill that aims to reinvigorate Americas technological footprint has passed the Senate.

The Innovation and Competition Act aims directly at keeping pace with Chinas global economic influence.

Billions of dollars will pay for research, making the United States a more competitive global market. And a big chunk of that money could be available in Cincinnati.

Greater Cincinnati is a great place to make an investment in research, Ohio Republican Sen. Rob Portman said.

Portman sees the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act as a big step in the future of our country and keeping American innovation moving forward.

This is a bill about responding to the threat we face from places like China where our research is both behind in some cases, but also being taken by China and other countries, Portman said.

5G technology, supporting space exploration, developing regional technology hubs like Cincinnati and more are on the table.

Vice President Kamala Harris recently visited the University of Cincinnati Innovation Center which could see some of this funding.

I brought the vice president to Cincinnati a couple of weeks ago to look at what Cincinnati's doing. It's up to us to make it a little bit easier for people in the community, Democratic Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown said.

Brown says the money will be left up to leaders in the city to request and the Brent Spence Bridge may benefit.

On the other side, Republican Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul was one of the 32 no votes. He calls it wasteful spending. He was able to add a late amendment to make sure funding doesn't go to China.

For many years we worried about Russia this, Russia that. It turns out after the Cold War ended, they were behind 20 years and weren't good at technology because communism and socialism doesn't work well. So, I guess I don't see it as sort of as imminent threat as others do, Paul said.

Portman agrees money shouldnt be allowed to go to China. This bill should benefit the American people.

In particular, he says, reducing our reliance on foreign products like the current semiconductor shortage. He sees becoming a major producer for those parts as a good fit for Ohio.

If you try to go buy a car today, even a used car, youll find that the prices are pretty high and a lot of its because the semiconductors that we rely on for our vehicles, as well as a lot of the electronics and other things, are in short supply right now. So, it helps in this bill because it establishes some incentives to create fabrication here in this country so we're not relying on countries like Taiwan, or Korea or China for semiconductors, Portman said.

This bill has only passed the Senate and does need to clear the house but is expected to have the votes to pass.

President Biden says he looks forward to signing it into law as soon as possible.

Kentucky Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell voted yes on the bill, as did Indiana Republican Sen. Todd Young, who was one of the authors of the bill. Indiana Republican Sen. Mike Braun voted no.

See the original post:
Bill to boost US tech innovation could bring big bucks to Cincinnati - WLWT Cincinnati

Another day, another claim by Rand Paul that someone, probably a Democrat or an Antifa terrorist, is plotting to kill him.

The antigay, anti-science senator from Kentucky says he has received not one, not two, not three, not four, but fivefive!death threats in the last week. And it all has to do with his beef with Dr. Anthony Fauci, who hes angry at because he wont embrace the coronavirus Wuhon lab leak conspiracy theory.

This week, Ive had five death threats just for being outspoken on it, Paul said on Fox News on Friday night. I dont know what the worlds coming to.

He continued, You cant ask honest, difficult questions that in the end have proved out that Dr. Fauci was not being honest with us, but as a repercussion, my family had white powder sent to our house, and five death threats phoned in.

(For the record: Dr. Fauci has been honest. Its Rand whos been lying.)

Last week, a package containing white powder awas delivered Rands house. An initial test determined the substance was not dangerous, but that didnt stop him and his wife, Kelley, from rushing to Twitter to say someone was plotting to have them assassinated.

The couple blamed adult contemporary singer Richard Marx, best known for his 1989 worldwide hit single Right Here Waiting, for being responsible after he said something mean about Rand on Twitter.

Last August, Rand said a crazed mob tried to murder him and Kelley in cold blood while they were walking from the White House to their hotel after Donald Trumps RNC speech.

Video of the incident, however, showed the couple walking down the street completely protected by a wall of police officers as a group of about a dozen reporters and perfectly peaceful protestors snapped photos and pleaded with him to speak up in support of Black Lives Matter.

When the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia and the FBI both decided not to pursue an investigation into the matter, Rand went ballistic on Twitter, raving about how the thugs who attacked my wife and me were walking free.

Since claiming he received five death threats last week, Paul has made multiple appearances on Fox News and has been obsessively tweeting about Dr. Fauci, calling him a massive fraud and a flip-flop, accusing him of peddling science fiction, and suggesting his days are numbered.

Now whos making the death threats, Rand?

Graham Gremore is the Features Editor and a Staff Writer at Queerty. Follow him on Twitter@grahamgremore.

See the original post here:
Rand Paul claims his life is in danger (again), says I dont know what the worlds coming to! - Queerty

The question of whether women should serve in front-line combat roles was settled years ago, when the Obama administration officially rescinded a long-standing ban on such duty.

So why do we still require only men to register with the Selective Service System when they turn 18? Why has the struggle for gender equality stopped at the door of the draft board?

Or why, on Monday, did the Supreme Court turn down the chance to bring the countrys military traditions into the 21st century? It did so by opting not to hear a case brought by the National Coalition for Men, which argued the male-only registration rule violates the 5th Amendments protection against discrimination based on gender.

Rarely have I found myself on the same side of an issue with a group dedicated to ending discrimination against men, but I am in total agreement that male-only military conscription is not just sexist, its unconstitutional.

It would have been so simple for the court to overturn its 40-year-old precedent that women should be exempt from registration. After all, that decision came down in 1981, at a time when women were technically restricted from combat roles. (I say technically because women have given their lives in every American conflict going back to the Revolutionary War.)

Instead, the court punted.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by justices Stephen Breyer and Brett M. Kavanaugh, acknowledged in a statement that thousands of women have served with distinction in a wide range of combat roles, from operating military aircraft and naval vessels to participating in boots-on-the-ground infantry missions.

However, she wrote, the court has traditionally deferred to lawmakers when it comes to matters of national defense and military affairs, and the issue is currently pending before Congress.

In 2016, Congress created the National Commission on Military, National and Public Service to study, among other things, whether Selective Service registration should be required of both men and women.

In 2020, the commission released its final report, and to no ones surprise, urged Congress to eliminate male-only registration and make registration with the Selective Service mandatory by all citizens and residents regardless of sex.

Male-only registration, said the commission, sends a message to women not only that they are not vital to the defense of the country but also that they are not expected to participate in defending it.

The report was released mid-pandemic, so it probably didnt get as much attention as it should have.

But Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said recently he intends to take up the question in next years National Defense Authorization Act.

At this moment, a draft is theoretical. The United States has not compelled citizens to serve in the armed forces for nearly 50 years.

But the specter of military conscription has been raised over the years during moments of extreme international tension.

In 1980, after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, then-President Carter raised the possibility of a draft and reinstated mandatory registration, which had lapsed after Vietnam. (Three years earlier, he had pardoned thousands of young men who had opposed the Vietnam War and evaded the draft, many by moving to Canada.)

The idea surfaced again in 2007 when conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan had our all-volunteer military stretched thin.

During the Trump years, the presidents bellicose posturing against North Korea and Iraq led some to wonder about the possibility of yet another military conflict. (Trump, by the way, received five draft deferments during the Vietnam era. Four were education deferments, and his fifth and last was a medical deferment. A podiatrist who was a tenant of his father, Fred Trump, diagnosed bone spurs in his heels.)

In February 2020, after a high-ranking Iranian military official, Qassem Suleimani, was killed by a U.S. airstrike and Iran threatened to retaliate, the hashtag #WorldWarIII trended on social media along with rumors about a draft. The Selective Services website briefly crashed from all the traffic.

Perhaps the more interesting question is whether there should be military registration at all.

In 2019, a bipartisan bill was introduced in Congress that would abolish the Selective Service System entirely, and repeal all state and federal sanctions for failing to register, which include denial of federal student aid and job training as well as federal jobs. Also, at least on paper, violators face fines of up to $250,000 and/or five years in jail, but no one has been indicted for failing to register since 1986 and that case was dismissed before trial.

No young person, regardless of gender, should be subject to a military draft or be forced to register for a draft in the United States, said one of the House bills sponsors, Democratic U.S. Rep. Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon. The military draft registration system is an unnecessary, wasteful bureaucracy which unconstitutionally violates Americans civil liberties. We should be abolishing military draft registration altogether, not expanding it.

For feminists with pacifist tendencies like me, the issue of all-gender Selective Service registration poses a dilemma.

If we force anyone to register, we should force everyone to register, right? But is the system really necessary at all?

It pains me to agree with Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, a sponsor of the Senates version of the bill, whose political views I generally find odious.

But he makes a good point: Ive long stated, he said, that if a war is worth fighting, Congress will vote to declare it and people will volunteer.

(Robin Abcarian is a columnist for the Los Angeles Times.)

Read the original:
Why should women be exempt from the military draft? - Bradford Era

The question of whether women should serve in front-line combat roles was settled years ago, when the Obama administration officially rescinded a long-standing ban on such duty.

So why do we still require only men to register with the Selective Service System when they turn 18? Why has the struggle for gender equality stopped at the door of the draft board?

Or why, on Monday, did the Supreme Court turn down the chance to bring the countrys military traditions into the 21st century? It did so by opting not to hear a case brought by the National Coalition for Men, which argued the male-only registration rule violates the 5th Amendments protection against discrimination based on gender.

Male-only military conscription is not just sexist, its unconstitutional.

It would have been so simple for the court to overturn its 40-year-old precedent that women should be exempt from registration.

Instead, the court punted.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Brett M. Kavanaugh, acknowledged in a statement that thousands of women have served with distinction in a wide range of combat roles, from operating military aircraft and naval vessels to participating in boots-on-the-ground infantry missions.

However, she wrote, the court has traditionally deferred to lawmakers when it comes to matters of national defense and military affairs, and the issue is currently pending before Congress.

In 2016, Congress created the National Commission on Military, National and Public Service to study, among other things, whether Selective Service registration should be required of both men and women.

In 2020, the commission released its final report, and to no ones surprise, urged Congress to eliminate male-only registration and make registration with the Selective Service mandatory by all citizens and residents regardless of sex.

Male-only registration, said the commission, sends a message to women not only that they are not vital to the defense of the country but also that they are not expected to participate in defending it.

The report was released mid-pandemic, so it probably didnt get as much attention as it should have.

But Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said recently he intends to take up the question in next years National Defense Authorization Act.

At this moment, a draft is theoretical. The United States has not compelled citizens to serve in the armed forces for nearly 50 years.

During the Trump years, the presidents posturing against North Korea and Iraq led some to wonder about the possibility of yet another military conflict.

In February 2020, after a high-ranking Iranian military official, Qassem Suleimani, was killed by a U.S. airstrike and Iran threatened to retaliate, the hashtag #WorldWarIII trended on social media along with rumors about a draft. The Selective Services website briefly crashed from all the traffic.

Perhaps the more interesting question is whether there should be military registration at all.

In 2019, a bipartisan bill was introduced in Congress that would abolish the Selective Service System entirely, and repeal all state and federal sanctions for failing to register, which include denial of federal student aid and job training as well as federal jobs. Also, at least on paper, violators face fines of up to $250,000 and/or five years in jail, but no one has been indicted for failing to register since 1986 and that case was dismissed before trial.

No young person, regardless of gender, should be subject to a military draft or be forced to register for a draft in the United States, said one of the House bills sponsors, Democratic U.S. Rep. Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon. We should be abolishing military draft registration altogether, not expanding it.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, a sponsor of the Senates version of the bill, makes a good point: Ive long stated, he said, that if a war is worth fighting, Congress will vote to declare it and people will volunteer.

Robin Abcarian is a syndicated columnist.

Read more from the original source:
Abcarian: Why should women be exempt from the draft? - Boston Herald

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul provided proof that people who have already been infected with and have recovered from COVID-19 do not need to be vaccinated against it any more.

The proof, coming in the form of a study, also "crushes the idea of vaccine passports,"Red Statenoted. This is because it proves that all people do not need to be vaccinated against the virus, and consequently do not need to prove that they've been inoculated.

"Great news! Cleveland clinic study of 52,238 employees shows unvaccinated people who have had COVID 19 have no difference in re-infection rate than people who had COVID 19 and who took the vaccine," Paul tweetedon Tuesday.

"This information frees up millions of doses of vaccines for those not yet infected in places with vaccine shortages like India," he saidsharing the link to the article by News Medical Life Sciences on the Cleveland Clinic study.

According to News Medical, the scientists who conducted the study wanted to evaluate the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine among those who were and were not infected by the virus. Individuals who were previously infected, as per the study, do not get any additional benefits if they get vaccinated as compared to those with no prior infection of COVID-19.

The Cleveland Clinic study, entitled "Necessity of COVID-19 Vaccination In Previously Infected Individuals," involved 52,238 employees of the Cleveland Clinic Health System that worked on December 16, 2020 in Ohio and comprise a mixture of vaccinated people and COVID-19-infected people.

"The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection remained almost zero among previously infected unvaccinated subjects, previously infected subjects who were vaccinated, and previously uninfected subjects who were vaccinated, compared with a steady increase in cumulative incidence among previously uninfected subjects who remained unvaccinated," the results of the study said in its Abstract.

The study pointed out that there was no repeat infection on the 1,359 respondents who did not get vaccinated after previously being infected by COVID-19.

As per the five-man team of scientists who conducted the study, people who have not been infected by the virus should be prioritized for vaccination since previously-infected people would be "unlikely to benefit" from it.

RedState highlighted that the study reveals the reality and effectivity of natural immunity. It pointed out that what was previously pushed by many - that people with natural immunity do not need to get vaccinated anymore, since they've already acquired resistance to the virus due to their prior infection and eventual recovery.

"That's not to say a person who has had COVID can't get vaccinated. It's a free country, after all, but there's no reason to force people to do so," the media outfit stressed.

Last January, President Joe Biden mandatedthe use of an individual's COVID-19 vaccination for travel as a precursor to the vaccination passport. Although the bid was highly opposedby state legislators out of their concern for the protection of citizens' privacy, since the vaccination passport would be run using private company platforms and will be used by various businesses.

The mandate to require vaccination credentials are also blasted as a precursor to China's system of controlover its citizens.

Read more here:
Vaccine Passports Not Needed: Study Proves There's No Point In Vaccinating People Who've Already Had COVID - Christianity Daily