thetennesseestar--2020-09-04--Commentary: Antifa Aren’t Revolutionaries -They Serve the Powers That Be

Antifa rules the streets of Portland and sows chaos in many other American cities .
Millions of Americans don ’ t like Antifa , but many struggle to figure out who these black-masked radicals really are .
Conservatives like to call Antifa “ fascist ” or the modern-day successor to the Ku Klux Klan .
Liberals will insist either that Antifa is a nonexistent , right-wing fantasy or that they ’ re secret white supremacists out to discredit the “ peaceful ” protesters .
Conservatives and liberals both throw out terrible historical comparisons when discussing Antifa .
Cable news talkers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Omaha Beach on D-Day while conservatives view them as more like the Nazis fighting our boys .
It ’ s worth our time to explain what exactly Antifa is .
Antifa , short for “ anti-fascist , ” is a far-left movement dedicated to fighting whatever its adherents think is fascism .
It ’ s a loose organization without a clear structure or public leaders .
Its name comes from a Communist-organized group in Weimar Germany .
Unlike their ancestors , most American Antifa would better be described as anarchists rather than Communists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to think of Antifa as particularly ideological .
Yes , they are extreme leftists , but what primarily defines them is who they target and the goals advanced by their violence .
And it ’ s not exactly Communism .
Antifa may describe themselves as anti-capitalists , but they don ’ t target capital .
They ’ re not intimidating corporate CEOs or rioting over jobs being shipped overseas .
They don ’ t try to shut down banks or financial institutions .
They focus exclusively on enemies they share with mainstream liberals—Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ alt-Right , ” conservatives , etc .
They never seem to go after targets that would draw condemnation from liberal elites .
With the exception of the police and some politicians , they go after powerless people .
It ’ s easy for them to sucker punch a random Trump supporter in the street .
That person ’ s story will never be told in the media and reporters will believe whatever lies Antifa spread about their victims .
Commentators love to give their historic examples for Antifa .
If the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offer Communist examples .
If they see Antifa as Nazis , they compare them to the stormtroopers .
If they see Antifa as racist Democrats , they say Antifa is the new Ku Klux Klan .
Most of these examples are peddled haphazardly and make little sense .
Antifa ’ s members are not fascists or “ racist Democrats ” in disguise .
They are on the far-Left , which makes the Communist comparisons more apt .
( Some conservatives will retort : “ But the fascists are on the far-Left !
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stanley Payne and Paul Gottfried , strongly disagree that fascism is a left-wing phenomenon .
In any case , the only thing shared between fascists and Antifa is a love of violence . )
Antifa isn ’ t like state-run Communist bodies such as the Stasi .
They are ( fortunately ) not picking up people and taking them to the gulags on the orders of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) .
Antifa also doesn ’ t resemble left-wing terror groups like the Weathermen or the Red Army Faction .
Those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and clear ideological goals .
Their actions weren ’ t directing mindless mob violence .
The RAF and the Weathermen planned and carried out bombings , kidnappings , and hijackings .
While both of those groups receive some posthumous adoration from idiotic leftists , neither was tolerated by the authorities .
Both groups were zealously pursued by the authorities and few dared to defend their terrorism publicly .
Antifa , on the other hand , is ignored by the authorities and regularly defended in the public square .
Maoist Red Guards are the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were mobs of students endorsed by the highest authority in Chinese Communism and given free rein to attack dissidents .
Their main purpose was to shore up the regime ’ s power and ensure the public toed the Communist Party line .
The Red Guards weren ’ t necessarily controlled by the state , but they were sanctioned by the regime and advanced the interests of the nation ’ s elites .
Antifa does the same for our liberal elites .
Individual Antifa may be anarchists or Communists , but their actions ultimately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scream “ liberals get the bullet , too !
” all they want , but their activity helps squishy liberals the most .
Antifa doesn ’ t harm big business or the military-industrial complex—they only ensure that it ’ s difficult for the Right to organize and speak freely in America .
In fact , big business and the military-industrial complex essentially endorsed the riots and promised to donate more to left-wing causes .
Most of the businesses they burn down are local shops that can ’ t recoup the costs of destruction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even more of the market .
The riots ensure only chains can survive .
Several mainstream media outlets run puff pieces on the black-masked anarchists and celebrate them as American heroes , further indicating the elite ’ s comfort with Antifa .
If they were a real threat to the current order , we wouldn ’ t see CNN lying for them .
These anchors would demand their prosecution and denounce their violence .
But the mainstream media doesn ’ t care about torched small businesses in flyover country , beaten Trump supporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all bad , expendable Americans in the eyes of liberal journalists .
For all their bluster about the revolution , Antifa ultimately is a tool for liberal elites .
That ’ s why the Democratic Party , corporate execs , and major media outlets sanction their violence .
The only leader who wants to put a stop to their marauding is Donald Trump .
His critics love to mock him for allowing this violence , but it ’ s hard for him to stop it when all the other powers in government and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exploits the anarcho-tyranny that rules this land .
They don ’ t have to worry about prosecution , but anyone who stands up to their violence can expect the full brunt of the law .
See Kyle Rittenhouse and Steven Baca for what happens when you dare defend yourself against Antifa .
Elites know they must protect their attack dogs from any consequences .
Antifa is a dangerous group , but it isn ’ t a truly revolutionary group .
It operates more like a mob than an army .
They ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And their most distinguishing characteristic is that they don ’ t challenge the power structure ; they reinforce it .
The people who challenge the power structure the most exist on the political Right .
That ’ s why liberal elites tolerate Antifa violence .
The black-masked thugs do their dirty work for them .
Paul Bradford is a Capitol Hill refugee now earning an honest living .

by Paul Bradford
Antifa rules the streets of Portland and sows chaos in many other American cities. Millions of Americans don’t like Antifa, but many struggle to figure out who these black-masked radicals really are.
Conservatives like to call Antifa “fascist” or the modern-day successor to the Ku Klux Klan. Liberals will insist either that Antifa is a nonexistent, right-wing fantasy or that they’re secret white supremacists out to discredit the “peaceful” protesters.
Conservatives and liberals both throw out terrible historical comparisons when discussing Antifa. Cable news talkers compare them to the American soldiers storming Omaha Beach on D-Day while conservatives view them as more like the Nazis fighting our boys.
It’s worth our time to explain what exactly Antifa is.
Antifa and Its Enemies
Antifa, short for “anti-fascist,” is a far-left movement dedicated to fighting whatever its adherents think is fascism. It’s a loose organization without a clear structure or public leaders. Its name comes from a Communist-organized group in Weimar Germany. Unlike their ancestors, most American Antifa would better be described as anarchists rather than Communists. But it’s a mistake to think of Antifa as particularly ideological. Yes, they are extreme leftists, but what primarily defines them is who they target and the goals advanced by their violence. And it’s not exactly Communism.
Antifa may describe themselves as anti-capitalists, but they don’t target capital. They’re not intimidating corporate CEOs or rioting over jobs being shipped overseas. They don’t try to shut down banks or financial institutions. They focus exclusively on enemies they share with mainstream liberals—Trump supporters, the police, ICE, the “alt-Right,” conservatives, etc.
They never seem to go after targets that would draw condemnation from liberal elites. With the exception of the police and some politicians, they go after powerless people. It’s easy for them to sucker punch a random Trump supporter in the street. That person’s story will never be told in the media and reporters will believe whatever lies Antifa spread about their victims.
Commentators love to give their historic examples for Antifa. If the commentators see Antifa as Communists, they offer Communist examples. If they see Antifa as Nazis, they compare them to the stormtroopers. If they see Antifa as racist Democrats, they say Antifa is the new Ku Klux Klan. Most of these examples are peddled haphazardly and make little sense.
Antifa’s members are not fascists or “racist Democrats” in disguise. They are on the far-Left, which makes the Communist comparisons more apt. (Some conservatives will retort: “But the fascists are on the far-Left!” Nearly all scholars, including conservatives like Stanley Payne and Paul Gottfried, strongly disagree that fascism is a left-wing phenomenon. In any case, the only thing shared between fascists and Antifa is a love of violence.)
Antifa isn’t like state-run Communist bodies such as the Stasi. They are (fortunately) not picking up people and taking them to the gulags on the orders of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
Antifa also doesn’t resemble left-wing terror groups like the Weathermen or the Red Army Faction. Those groups operated as cells with obvious leaders and clear ideological goals. Their actions weren’t directing mindless mob violence. The RAF and the Weathermen planned and carried out bombings, kidnappings, and hijackings. While both of those groups receive some posthumous adoration from idiotic leftists, neither was tolerated by the authorities. Both groups were zealously pursued by the authorities and few dared to defend their terrorism publicly. Antifa, on the other hand, is ignored by the authorities and regularly defended in the public square.
Sanctioned By the Elite
Maoist Red Guards are the best historical analogy. The Red Guards were mobs of students endorsed by the highest authority in Chinese Communism and given free rein to attack dissidents. Their main purpose was to shore up the regime’s power and ensure the public toed the Communist Party line. The Red Guards weren’t necessarily controlled by the state, but they were sanctioned by the regime and advanced the interests of the nation’s elites.
Antifa does the same for our liberal elites.
Individual Antifa may be anarchists or Communists, but their actions ultimately benefit liberals. The black-masked radicals can scream “liberals get the bullet, too!” all they want, but their activity helps squishy liberals the most.
Antifa doesn’t harm big business or the military-industrial complex—they only ensure that it’s difficult for the Right to organize and speak freely in America. In fact, big business and the military-industrial complex essentially endorsed the riots and promised to donate more to left-wing causes. Most of the businesses they burn down are local shops that can’t recoup the costs of destruction, allowing giant corporations to gobble up even more of the market. The riots ensure only chains can survive.
Several mainstream media outlets run puff pieces on the black-masked anarchists and celebrate them as American heroes, further indicating the elite’s comfort with Antifa. If they were a real threat to the current order, we wouldn’t see CNN lying for them. These anchors would demand their prosecution and denounce their violence. But the mainstream media doesn’t care about torched small businesses in flyover country, beaten Trump supporters, or injured cops. Those are all bad, expendable Americans in the eyes of liberal journalists.
Reinforcing the Power Structure
For all their bluster about the revolution, Antifa ultimately is a tool for liberal elites. That’s why the Democratic Party, corporate execs, and major media outlets sanction their violence. The only leader who wants to put a stop to their marauding is Donald Trump. His critics love to mock him for allowing this violence, but it’s hard for him to stop it when all the other powers in government and society side with Antifa.
Antifa fully exploits the anarcho-tyranny that rules this land. They don’t have to worry about prosecution, but anyone who stands up to their violence can expect the full brunt of the law. See Kyle Rittenhouse and Steven Baca for what happens when you dare defend yourself against Antifa. Elites know they must protect their attack dogs from any consequences.
Antifa is a dangerous group, but it isn’t a truly revolutionary group. It operates more like a mob than an army. They’re not fascists or klansmen—they’re leftists. And their most distinguishing characteristic is that they don’t challenge the power structure; they reinforce it.
The people who challenge the power structure the most exist on the political Right. That’s why liberal elites tolerate Antifa violence. The black-masked thugs do their dirty work for them.
– – –
Paul Bradford is a Capitol Hill refugee now earning an honest living.


thetennesseestar--2020-09-04--Oregon Coronavirus Fund May Violate Constitution by Excluding Non-Black Applicants, Experts Say

A COVID-19 relief fund for African-Americans operated out of Portland , Ore. , with federal tax dollars may run afoul of both the Constitution and 1964 Civil Rights Act if it excludes non-black applicants , legal experts warn .
The Oregon Cares Fund for Black Relief + Resiliency said it seeks to offer “ economic relief for the Black community , who are among Oregon ’ s most vulnerable groups due to systemic divestment and disparities widened and exacerbated by COVID-19.
” The program is administered by two local nonprofits , the Contingent and the Black United Fund of Oregon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ designed and led by Black leaders for the Black community , ” the program ’ s website states .
The funds are “ meant to provide the Black community with the resources it needs to weather the global health pandemic and consequent recession , ” according to the site “ The Oregon Cares Fund is for Black people , Black-owned businesses , and Black community based organizations , ” the site states , noting elsewhere that the $ 62 million in funds it receives are drawn as a grant “ from the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Funds received by the State of Oregon under the Coronavirus Aid , Relief and Economic Security ( CARES ) Act.
” The Oregon legislature announced in mid-July that it had allocated the $ 62 million “ to provide economic relief to Black individuals and businesses.
” “ National and state data show that the Black community is one of the communities experiencing a disproportionate share of negative economic and health effects due to COVID-19 , ” the legislature wrote .
Federal money can not go toward racially discriminatory programs The program ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal statute and the U.S. Constitution .
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that “ any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance ” is forbidden from racially discriminating against participants .
The Justice Department goes so far as to stipulate that “ all recipients [ of federal funds ] must comply with Title VI , as well as other antidiscrimination laws , at all times including during emergencies.
” “ The prohibition against discrimination on the basis of race … can never be waived , ” the DOJ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these requirements becomes even more important during emergencies and disasters in order to ensure that no one is unjustly denied the services and support they need during times of crisis , when their physical safety or well-being are often at greatest risk , and when many of the resources they might otherwise have drawn upon for support may not be available.
” The Civil Rights Act is statutory law .
Yet the program may also violate the Constitution itself .
Eugene Volokh , a professor of constitutional law at the University of California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ program seems “ pretty clearly unconstitutional , ” though he stopped short of declaring it as such without more information .
“ If indeed this is a fund for black relief in the sense that only blacks need apply , that violates the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution , ” Volokh told Just the News .
“ The Equal Protection clause bans the government from discriminating based on race , ” he continued .
“ The Supreme Court has allowed some exceptions under the rubric of race-based action .
But it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s just open to one race , it ’ s unconstitutional.
” “ If an organization considered race-based disadvantages as part of its criteria , that might pass muster , ” he added .
“ But a categorical exclusion or hundred-percent quota would not fly.
” Ilya Shapiro , the director of the Robert A .
Levy Center for Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute , was more blunt .
“ For any group that ’ s getting federal funds or tax breaks , racial discrimination is just a constitutional non-starter , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Oregon Cares Fund , on the other hand , argued that the project passes constitutional muster .
She provided Just the News with two separate legal reviews , one by the Oregon Legislative Counsel Committee and the other by the law firm Schwabe , Williamson & Wyatt .
The LCC review did not directly address the Oregon Cares Fund but instead examined whether “ a grant program to provide technical assistance to minority- and woman-owned businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic ” might violate both federal and state constitutions .
To avoid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a state program must “ develop evidence of inequities caused by racial discrimination and demonstrate that its race-based classification is designed to remediate those inequities ” in a narrowly targeted way .
The law firm ’ s review , meanwhile , directly addressed the Oregon Cares Fund and stated that the initiative is “ narrowly tailored ” to address historic inequities in a way that satisfies constitutional demands .
“ To be clear , the Oregon Cares Fund does not seek to address the longstanding , general economic disparities experienced by Black Oregonians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rather , it narrowly targets the disproportionate harm , traceable to discrimination , that COVID-19 is causing Black Oregonians in the form of employment and business interruption.
” Whether or not the Oregon Cares Fund will ultimately turn away white applicants is not immediately clear on its website .
Under its list of qualifications for application , it does not stipulate race in any way , even though the rest of the site stresses heavily the black-oriented nature of the fund .

by Daniel Payne
A COVID-19 relief fund for African-Americans operated out of Portland, Ore., with federal tax dollars may run afoul of both the Constitution and 1964 Civil Rights Act if it excludes non-black applicants, legal experts warn.
The Oregon Cares Fund for Black Relief + Resiliency said it seeks to offer “economic relief for the Black community, who are among Oregon’s most vulnerable groups due to systemic divestment and disparities widened and exacerbated by COVID-19.” The program is administered by two local nonprofits, the Contingent and the Black United Fund of Oregon.
“The Oregon Cares Fund is designed and led by Black leaders for the Black community,” the program’s website states. The funds are “meant to provide the Black community with the resources it needs to weather the global health pandemic and consequent recession,” according to the site
“The Oregon Cares Fund is for Black people, Black-owned businesses, and Black community based organizations,” the site states, noting elsewhere that the $62 million in funds it receives are drawn as a grant “from the U.S. Treasury’s disbursement of Coronavirus Relief Funds received by the State of Oregon under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act.”
The Oregon legislature announced in mid-July that it had allocated the $62 million “to provide economic relief to Black individuals and businesses.”
“National and state data show that the Black community is one of the communities experiencing a disproportionate share of negative economic and health effects due to COVID-19,” the legislature wrote.
Federal money cannot go toward racially discriminatory programs
The program’s funding stream may run afoul of both federal statute and the U.S. Constitution. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that “any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance” is forbidden from racially discriminating against participants.
The Justice Department goes so far as to stipulate that “all recipients [of federal funds] must comply with Title VI, as well as other antidiscrimination laws, at all times including during emergencies.”
“The prohibition against discrimination on the basis of race … can never be waived,” the DOJ says, adding that “complying with these requirements becomes even more important during emergencies and disasters in order to ensure that no one is unjustly denied the services and support they need during times of crisis, when their physical safety or well-being are often at greatest risk, and when many of the resources they might otherwise have drawn upon for support may not be available.”
The Civil Rights Act is statutory law. Yet the program may also violate the Constitution itself. Eugene Volokh, a professor of constitutional law at the University of California, Los Angeles, said that the program seems “pretty clearly unconstitutional,” though he stopped short of declaring it as such without more information.
“If indeed this is a fund for black relief in the sense that only blacks need apply, that violates the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution,” Volokh told Just the News.
“The Equal Protection clause bans the government from discriminating based on race,” he continued. “The Supreme Court has allowed some exceptions under the rubric of race-based action. But it’s quite clear that if it’s just open to one race, it’s unconstitutional.”
“If an organization considered race-based disadvantages as part of its criteria, that might pass muster,” he added. “But a categorical exclusion or hundred-percent quota would not fly.”
Ilya Shapiro, the director of the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, was more blunt. “For any group that’s getting federal funds or tax breaks, racial discrimination is just a constitutional non-starter,” he said.
A spokeswoman for the Oregon Cares Fund, on the other hand, argued that the project passes constitutional muster. She provided Just the News with two separate legal reviews, one by the Oregon Legislative Counsel Committee and the other by the law firm Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt.
The LCC review did not directly address the Oregon Cares Fund but instead examined whether “a grant program to provide technical assistance to minority- and woman-owned businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic” might violate both federal and state constitutions.
To avoid that violation, the committee argued, a state program must “develop evidence of inequities caused by racial discrimination and demonstrate that its race-based classification is designed to remediate those inequities” in a narrowly targeted way.
The law firm’s review, meanwhile, directly addressed the Oregon Cares Fund and stated that the initiative is “narrowly tailored” to address historic inequities in a way that satisfies constitutional demands.
“To be clear, the Oregon Cares Fund does not seek to address the longstanding, general economic disparities experienced by Black Oregonians,” the review said. “Rather, it narrowly targets the disproportionate harm, traceable to discrimination, that COVID-19 is causing Black Oregonians in the form of employment and business interruption.”
Whether or not the Oregon Cares Fund will ultimately turn away white applicants is not immediately clear on its website. Under its list of qualifications for application, it does not stipulate race in any way, even though the rest of the site stresses heavily the black-oriented nature of the fund.
– – –
Photo “Salem, Oregon” by M.O. Stevens. CC BY-SA 3.0.


thetennesseestar--2020-09-04--Operation Legend Made 2,000 Arrests, Seized Around 182 Pounds of Drugs Since July, DOJ Says

Operation Legend , a federal initiative to combat murder and violent crime in major U.S. cities , has recorded over 2,000 arrests and seized large quantities of narcotics since the program ’ s July inception , according to the Department of Justice .
A total of 147 people have been arrested for homicide , 544 firearms have been seized and around 182 lbs ( 83 kilograms ) of narcotics , including heroin , cocaine , meth and fentanyl , have been removed from the streets during the operation , according to a Thursday Department of Justice press release .
Around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal offenses throughout Kansas City , Missouri , Chicago , Albuquerque , Cleveland , Detroit , Milwaukee , St. Louis , Memphis and Indianapolis , the release said .
Chicago had the most felony arrests with 103 since the program took effect in there on July 22 , according to the news release .
Kansas City , Missouri was a close second with a total of 99 felony apprehensions , the DOJ wrote .
Operation Legend began July 8 under the direction of Attorney General William Barr .
It was named after 4-year-old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at his Kansas City , Missouri home , the press release said .
Taliferro ’ s alleged killer has since been arrested and the program has spread to crime ridden cities throughout the nation , offering federal assistance to investigate and prevent violent crime , according to an Aug. 13 DOJ press release .
Civil unrest , rioting and crime has risen in cities across the country since the death of George Floyd , a black man who died after a Minneapolis , Minnesota , police officer knelt on his neck for nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was sparked again after the officer-involved shooting of Jacob Blake , a black man , who was shot multiple times in the back during a confrontation in Kenosha , Wisconsin , video showed .
Jake Dima is a reporter for the Daily Caller News Foundation .

by Jake Dima
Operation Legend, a federal initiative to combat murder and violent crime in major U.S. cities, has recorded over 2,000 arrests and seized large quantities of narcotics since the program’s July inception, according to the Department of Justice.
A total of 147 people have been arrested for homicide, 544 firearms have been seized and around 182 lbs (83 kilograms) of narcotics, including heroin, cocaine, meth and fentanyl, have been removed from the streets during the operation, according to a Thursday Department of Justice press release.
Around 480 of the arrestees were charged with federal offenses throughout Kansas City, Missouri, Chicago, Albuquerque, Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Memphis and Indianapolis, the release said.
Chicago had the most felony arrests with 103 since the program took effect in there on July 22, according to the news release. Kansas City, Missouri was a close second with a total of 99 felony apprehensions, the DOJ wrote.
Operation Legend began July 8 under the direction of Attorney General William Barr. It was named after 4-year-old LeGend Taliferro, who was fatally shot at his Kansas City, Missouri home, the press release said. Taliferro’s alleged killer has since been arrested and the program has spread to crime ridden cities throughout the nation, offering federal assistance to investigate and prevent violent crime, according to an Aug. 13 DOJ press release.
Civil unrest, rioting and crime has risen in cities across the country since the death of George Floyd, a black man who died after a Minneapolis, Minnesota, police officer knelt on his neck for nearly 9 minutes, video showed.
Unrest was sparked again after the officer-involved shooting of Jacob Blake, a black man, who was shot multiple times in the back during a confrontation in Kenosha, Wisconsin, video showed.
– – –
Jake Dima is a reporter for the Daily Caller News Foundation.


thetennesseestar--2020-09-04--Majority of Voters Prefer Pandemic Decisions be Made at the Local and State Levels

Responses to the poll track notably along partisan lines .
Most Democrats ( 55 % ) favor a national shutdown @ @ @ @ @ ( 72 % ) and a plurality of Independents ( 47 % ) disagree , @ @ @ @ @ state and local officials determine the appropriate policies for their communities .
Most suburban and @ @ @ @ @ be made closer to home , while urban voters are evenly divided .
The survey @ @ @ @ @ conducted by Rasmussen using a mixed mode approach from August 27-29 , 2020 .
To @ @ @ @ @ s cross-demographic tabulations , click here .
To see this poll question ’ s methodology @ @ @ @ @ here .

Responses to the poll track notably along partisan lines. Most Democrats (55%) favor a national shutdown. However, most Republicans (72%) and a plurality of Independents (47%) disagree, with those respondents prefer letting state and local officials determine the appropriate policies for their communities.
Most suburban and rural voters prefer that decisions be made closer to home, while urban voters are evenly divided.
The survey of 1,200 Registered Voters was conducted by Rasmussen using a mixed mode approach from August 27-29, 2020.
To see this poll question’s cross-demographic tabulations, click here.
To see this poll question’s methodology and sample demographics, click here.


thetennesseestar--2020-09-04--Leahy and Swain Take a Call from an MNPS Teaching Assistant  Who Discusses a Teacher’s Typical Schoo

Leahy and Swain Take a Call from an MNPS Teaching Assistant  Who Discusses a Teacher’s Typical School Day in Wake of the Coronavirus

Live from Music Row Thursday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville ’ s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. – host Leahy welcomed all-star panelist Carol Swain to the studio and Caller Shelly .
During the third hour , caller Shelly disclosed what a teacher ’ s typical day looked like since the coronavirus has closed in-person learning in Nashville Public Schools .
She revealed that teachers are not receiving pay cuts or raises , but appear to be working more hours with more responsibilities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lighting up after our interview with Fran Bush , Metro Nashville Public Schools board member .
Let ’ s play sports .
On the line now , and we are very interested in what this caller has to say , Shelly , from Nashville , who works for Nashville Public Schools , wants to talk with us .
Good morning , Shelly .
Caller Shelly : Good morning .
How are you ?
Leahy : We are delighted that you have taken the time to call us .
Shelly : Not a problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thought that Metro teachers are getting paid the same amount working fewer hours .
Nothing could be further from the truth .
Leahy : Well good .
Just a moment .
To set this up .
Swain : I asked the question , and you corrected it .
Leahy : Before Shelly , tell us exactly , are you a teacher ?
What is your position ?
Shelly : Actually I ’ m considered a school aid .
I write up the curriculum .
I do posters .
I do more of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually know whether or not people are getting paid the same or not .
Are you in a position to know ?
Shelly : Yes .
I am in a position to know .
I am in a position to work with all the teachers in the building .
So yes .
Leahy : Tell us what the pay structure is in the current pandemic .
Shelly : The pay , they have not had any pay cuts or raises to my knowledge .
Shelly : But the hours that they are working @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did with in-person learning .
Leahy : So Shelly , if you would in terms of point of fact then .
Teachers are making exactly the same now as they were before the pandemic ?
Is that right ?
Shelly : As far as I know , yes .
Swain : And they are working harder because they are learning new things ?
They have to learn to work online .
So this is learning that we all have to do .
Shelly : It ’ s not just learning online .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the teachers ’ day .
For example , Metro Schools is putting together a new program called The Navigator Program , where every child and every school needs to be called by a teacher every week .
Leahy : Let ’ s go back to the typical teacher ’ s time before the pandemic and after the pandemic at Metro Nashville Public Schools .
Shelly : Before the pandemic , usually teachers got in the building between 7 and 7:30 for an 8 o ’ clock start time .
Then they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there was a faculty meeting , would be cleared out by 3:30 with the children leaving at 3 .
Leahy : Were there lesson plans after that typically , Shelly ?
Shelly : Some of the lesson plans and grading .
And entering things into the books would be usually in the evening and that kind of stuff .
So that ’ s all still happening .
Shelly : Right .
Plus evening time for lesson planning , grading , and all that kind of stuff .
Leahy : Tell us , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ average Metro and other teachers here that are listening here , I ’ m sure who could advise on this .
What is the typical teachers ’ days like now ?
Shelly : The typical teacher ’ s day most of the teachers are still going into the school building , because it ’ s just easier to have their manipulative in the classroom than to have them at home .
So a lot of the teachers are still in the building between 7:15 and 7:30 .
At 8 o ’ clock the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ classes sometimes they start with different meetings .
They have depending on which grade they are .
Kindergarten may be digitally for 45 minutes .
They are trying to get them up to an hour .
That ’ s a lot of screen time for a five-year-old .
Shelly : So what they call brain break .
So we get up and dance and that kind of stuff .
The older children are being on for an hour at a time .
And then they switch classes .
They go to their specials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meetings .
They are calling children from Navigator .
They are setting up IEP meetings all through Zoom .
Shelly : Individual educational program for children that might have special accommodations made for school .
They have their literacy .
And we now have a new literacy component where they are meeting with a literacy counselor on an almost daily basis .
They ’ re still online and hooked in for the entire day .
They do work a lunch hour in for them .
Or not a lunch hour , a lunch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times that ’ s now getting pulled up based on the students ’ needs .
Then the teacher foregoes their lunch .
Leahy : What time does their day end , Shelly ?
Shelly : Well now that we have this Navigator thing when they go to bed at night .
Leahy : So they ’ ll go from 7:15 in the morning til 8 at night ?
Is that what you are saying ?
Leahy : Let me ask you one last question , Shelly .
In terms of the teachers and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that virtual learning is an utter disaster from a number of folks .
From your perspective , would you say virtual learning is an utter disaster ?
Or would you say it is not an utter disaster and why ?
Shelly : I don ’ t think it ’ s an utter disaster .
I think for kids it might be a really good thing for them .
But I think it ’ s difficult to gauge at this point .
Leahy : Shelly , we are losing a little bit of quality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ call us back in a couple of weeks and tell us how things are going , please ?
Leahy : Shelly , thanks for the call .
Thank you , Shelly .
Listen to the third hour here : Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Reportwith Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510 .
Listen online at iHeart Radio .

Live from Music Row Thursday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. – host Leahy welcomed all-star panelist Carol Swain to the studio and Caller Shelly.
During the third hour, caller Shelly disclosed what a teacher’s typical day looked like since the coronavirus has closed in-person learning in Nashville Public Schools. She revealed that teachers are not receiving pay cuts or raises, but appear to be working more hours with more responsibilities.
Leahy: The phones Carol are lighting up after our interview with Fran Bush, Metro Nashville Public Schools board member. Let’s play sports. On the line now, and we are very interested in what this caller has to say, Shelly, from Nashville, who works for Nashville Public Schools, wants to talk with us. Good morning, Shelly.
Caller Shelly: Good morning. How are you?
Leahy: We are delighted that you have taken the time to call us.
Shelly: Not a problem. (Inaudible talk) and Carol thought that Metro teachers are getting paid the same amount working fewer hours. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Leahy: Well good. Just a moment. To set this up.
Swain: I asked the question, and you corrected it.
Leahy: Before Shelly, tell us exactly, are you a teacher? What is your position?
Shelly: Actually I’m considered a school aid. I write up the curriculum. I do posters. I do more of the support areas.
Swain: So you actually know whether or not people are getting paid the same or not. Are you in a position to know?
Shelly: Yes. I am in a position to know. I am in a position to work with all the teachers in the building. So yes.
Leahy: Tell us what the pay structure is in the current pandemic.
Shelly: The pay, they have not had any pay cuts or raises to my knowledge.
Leahy: OK.
Shelly: But the hours that they are working are a lot more than what they did with in-person learning.
Leahy: So Shelly, if you would in terms of point of fact then. Teachers are making exactly the same now as they were before the pandemic? Is that right?
Shelly: As far as I know, yes.
Swain: And they are working harder because they are learning new things? They have to learn to work online. So this is learning that we all have to do.
Shelly: It’s not just learning online. They have added more things within the structure of the teachers’ day. For example, Metro Schools is putting together a new program called The Navigator Program, where every child and every school needs to be called by a teacher every week.
Leahy: Let’s go back to the typical teacher’s time before the pandemic and after the pandemic at Metro Nashville Public Schools.
Shelly: Before the pandemic, usually teachers got in the building between 7 and 7:30 for an 8 o’clock start time. Then they were generally, most of the teachers unless there was a faculty meeting, would be cleared out by 3:30 with the children leaving at 3.
Leahy: Were there lesson plans after that typically, Shelly?
Shelly: Some of the lesson plans and grading. And entering things into the books would be usually in the evening and that kind of stuff. So that’s all still happening.
Leahy: So 7:30-3:30 there typically?
Shelly: Right. Plus evening time for lesson planning, grading, and all that kind of stuff.
Leahy: Tell us, if you would, Shelly, what the average Metro and other teachers here that are listening here, I’m sure who could advise on this. What is the typical teachers’ days like now?
Shelly: The typical teacher’s day most of the teachers are still going into the school building, because it’s just easier to have their manipulative in the classroom than to have them at home. So a lot of the teachers are still in the building between 7:15 and 7:30. At 8 o’clock the digital classes start.
And the digital classes sometimes they start with different meetings. They have depending on which grade they are. Kindergarten may be digitally for 45 minutes. They are trying to get them up to an hour. That’s a lot of screen time for a five-year-old.
Leahy: Yeah.
Shelly: So what they call brain break. So we get up and dance and that kind of stuff. The older children are being on for an hour at a time. And then they switch classes. They go to their specials in between digital classes they have their meetings. They are calling children from Navigator. They are setting up IEP meetings all through Zoom.
Leahy: What’s an IEP meeting?
Shelly: Individual educational program for children that might have special accommodations made for school. They have their literacy. And we now have a new literacy component where they are meeting with a literacy counselor on an almost daily basis.
They’re still online and hooked in for the entire day. They do work a lunch hour in for them. Or not a lunch hour, a lunch 30 minutes. But a lot of times that’s now getting pulled up based on the students’ needs. Then the teacher foregoes their lunch.
Leahy: What time does their day end, Shelly?
Shelly: Well now that we have this Navigator thing when they go to bed at night.
Leahy: So they’ll go from 7:15 in the morning til 8 at night? Is that what you are saying?
Shelly: Yes.
Leahy: Let me ask you one last question, Shelly. In terms of the teachers and the students, we are hearing reports that virtual learning is an utter disaster from a number of folks. From your perspective, would you say virtual learning is an utter disaster? Or would you say it is not an utter disaster and why?
Shelly: I don’t think it’s an utter disaster. I think for kids it might be a really good thing for them. But I think it’s difficult to gauge at this point.
Leahy: Shelly, we are losing a little bit of quality on the audio. But would you call us back in a couple of weeks and tell us how things are going, please?
Shelly: Absolutely.
Leahy: Shelly, thanks for the call. Thank you, Shelly.
Listen to the third hour here:
– – –
Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Reportwith Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio.


thetennesseestar--2020-09-04--Analysis: Joe Biden and Kamala Harris Support Abortion up to Birth

In the face of overwhelming facts to the contrary , five prominent “ fact checkers ” are claiming that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris don ’ t support legalizing abortion up until birth .
To reach this false conclusion , these individuals repeatedly use a propaganda technique condemned by George Orwell , the author of 1984 .
The resulting misinformation shrouds the policies of Biden and Harris , who are planning to legalize abortions of humans who are capable of living outside the womb .
This stance is opposed by about 80 % of Americans and involves ending the lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ following milestones : • None By 12 weeks , “ electrical activity of the nervous system is discernible ” and “ attempts to suckle ” are observed “ in utero and in aborted fetuses.
” – Before We Are Born : Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects • None By 14 weeks , they exhibit conscious “ motor planning ” and “ social behavior.
” • None By 14 to 22 weeks , “ a physiological fetal reaction to painful stimuli ” occurs .
• None By 18 weeks , pain sensory receptors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] and mucous surfaces , ” and the cerebral cortex has the same number of nerve cells as a full-grown adult .
• None By 20 weeks , he or she “ now sleeps and wakes and hears sounds.
” • None , pre-birth humans look like this : At the 2020 Republican National Convention , keynote speakers and others stated : • None “ Joe Biden supports taxpayer funding of abortion right up to the moment of birth.
” • None “ Joe Biden claims he has empathy for the vulnerable—yet the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abortion of defenseless babies right up to the moment of birth.
” • None “ President Trump will stand up against Biden-Harris , who are the most anti-life presidential ticket ever , even supporting the horrors of late-term abortion and infanticide.
” • None “ If you watched the DNC last week , ” their “ argument for Joe Biden boiled down to the fact that they think he ’ s a nice guy , ” but policies that “ allow abortion up until the point of birth are not nice.
” Taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ checkers reported : • None “ Biden does not support ‘ late-term abortion and infanticide ’ .
” – Glenn Kessler , Salvador Rizzo , and Meg Kelly of the • None Trump “ mischaracterizes the Democratic Party ’ s stance on abortion and Biden ’ s position.
” • None “ Biden has not explicitly expressed support for late-term abortions.
” • None “ Democrats generally back abortion rights , but Biden isn ’ t pushing to allow abortions for any reason up until birth.
” • None “ Democrats support abortion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they call for women to have an unfettered right to terminate pregnancies up until the point of birth.
” In support of those claims , these fact checks all use a mix of similar half-truths that lead readers to believe the polar opposite of reality .
Biden ’ s campaign website says that he “ will work to codify Roe v. Wade , ” the Supreme Court ’ s 1973 ruling that struck down the laws of 30 states that prohibited abortions except to save the life of the mother .
This means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that enforce the provisions of Roe instead of relying upon judicial dictates .
Biden ’ s website also says that he will “ appoint U.S. Supreme Court justices and federal judges ” who will uphold Roe .
The 2020 Democratic Party Platform embraces the same position .
In and of themselves , these stances constitute support for abortion up till birth because Roe v. Wade : • None mandates that abortion be legal after “ viability ” when needed to protect “ the health of the mother.
” Viability , or the stage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ living outside the womb with medical care , begins around • None defines the word “ health ” so broadly that it includes practically anything .
Some illuminating examples of what considers harmful to health include the work of “ child care , ” the “ stigma of unwed motherhood , ” and “ the distress , for all concerned , associated with the unwanted child.
” • None gives the power to determine what comprises a health risk to anyone who is licensed to perform abortions .
It does this by mandating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court issued on the same day .
In , the Court ruled that all abortion providers have full authority to decide if an abortion is necessary to protect “ health ” based solely upon their “ best clinical judgment.
” The implications of Roe were made clear by late-term abortionist Warren Hern , author of “ the nation ’ s most widely used textbook on abortion standards and procedures.
” He stated , “ I will certify that any pregnancy is a threat to a woman ’ s life and could cause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In direct contradiction to the actual words of Roe , all of these fact checkers allege that supporting Roe does not mean supporting late-term abortions .
PolitiFact , for example , writes that the Democratic Party platform “ does not address late-term abortion ” and that Biden ’ s goal to codify Roe “ would generally limit abortions to the first 20 to 24 weeks of gestation.
” PolitiFact then casually adds that Roe and “ related precedents ” require states to allow abortions after viability “ to preserve the life or health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quintessential half-truth because it fails to reveal that “ health , ” as defined by Roe , means virtually anything that any abortionist says it means .
Further proof that Democrats plan to legalize abortions up till birth is found in the text of the Women ’ s Health Protection Act , which is actively cosponsored by 44 of 47 Democrats in the U.S. Senate and 217 of 235 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives .
Both the House bill and the Senate bill , which is cosponsored by Kamala Harris : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or requirements ” on “ abortion after fetal viability ” if the “ treating health care provider ” decides that “ continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient ’ s life or health.
” • None defines a “ health care provider ” to include “ any entity or individual ” who is “ licensed or certified ” to perform “ abortion services.
” • None would overturn more than 400 restrictions on abortion that have been passed by state and local governments since 2010 .
The Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Women ’ s Health Protection Act but claims that it would merely prohibit states “ from banning abortion before the fetus reaches viability.
” This description is at flagrant odds with the text of the bill , which again , bans states from prohibiting “ abortion after fetal viability ” when any licensed abortionist says there is “ a risk ” to the “ health ” of the mother .
A third line of evidence that Biden , Harris , and other Democrats are intent on legalizing abortion after viability is the enactment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , along with promises to nullify state laws that limit late-term abortions .
For example , New York governor Andrew Cuomo signed a law in 2019 that repealed a section of the state ’ s criminal code which had banned third-trimester abortions except when necessary to protect a woman ’ s life .
In its place , the new law allows such abortions “ at any time when necessary to protect a patient ’ s life or health.
” As a NY State agency explains , the purpose of the bill was to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in line with ” with Roe v. Wade .
States such as Rhode Island and Illinois have recently enacted similar laws .
Biden is also on board with this agenda , as his campaign website says that his “ Justice Department will do everything in its power to stop the rash of state laws that so blatantly violate Roe v. Wade.
” While she was running for president , Kamala Harris ’ campaign website vowed that she “ will require , for the first time , that states and localities with a history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from her Department of Justice before any abortion law or practice can take effect.
” Given that Roe has not been overturned , and the Supreme Court “ reaffirmed ” its “ essential holding ” in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey , how can states defy Roe ?
A 2011 New York Times commentary by Yale Law School fellow Emily Bazelon explains that this is the norm because abortion advocates have decided not to challenge such laws in court .
She writes that “ abortion rights groups ” have “ been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prohibit “ abortion after 20 or 22 weeks of pregnancy ” because : • None 72 % of the public favors “ making late-term abortion illegal , ” and it is “ best ” not to tread on this “ dangerous political ground.
” • None the current members of the Supreme Court might overturn if such a case came before them .
• None “ recent polls ” show “ that more Americans now identify as ‘ pro-life ’ .
” Likewise , a 2018 Gallup survey found that 65 % of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ second three months of pregnancy , ” and 81 % favor making it illegal in the “ last three months of pregnancy.
” Yet , NPR misleads their audience to believe the converse by reporting that “ a majority of Americans ( 61 % ) say abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
” NPR provides no evidence or link to support his claim .
Bazelon ’ s commentary , which provides strategic advice for abortion advocates , stresses that “ abortion foes … reduced popular support ” for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as if it were the norm rather than the exception .
Yet only 1.5 percent of abortions occur late in the second trimester.
” Four of the five fact checks present that same narrative .
PolitiFact , for instance , writes that “ late-term abortions are very rare , about 1 % .
” In the context of whether such abortions should be legal , this is a brazen half-truth because it fails to mention that the total number of abortions is so enormous that this small percentage amounts to thousands of late-term @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the journal Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health estimates that “ more than 15,000 ” abortions are performed each year in the U.S. “ at 21 weeks or later.
” The authors note that this amounts to about 1 % of all abortions , “ but given an estimated 1.21 million abortions in the United States annually , ” “ later abortions ” add up to “ a substantial number of abortions.
” Hence , these supposedly “ very rare ” late-term abortions are more numerous than incidents that the media portrays @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Examples include : • None of people under the age of 45 .
• None the 50 people per year who are executed under the • None per year who are arrested for murder or manslaughter in an on-duty shooting , and the 1–2 officers who are ultimately Beyond the common arguments of the other fact checkers , the Washington Post adds a unique one to the mix .
“ Experts told us , ” say the Post ’ s fact checkers , that just because “ some Democrats support abortion rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mean they support ‘ extreme late-term abortions ’ .
” As proof of this , they name one “ expert , ” who they describe as “ Katie L. Watson , a professor at Northwestern University ’ s Feinberg School of Medicine.
” That is yet another half-truth because Watson ’ s official bio reveals that she is not a doctor but “ a lawyer ” and “ bioethicist ” who “ is currently serving terms on the Board of the National Abortion Federation ( NAF , the professional organization of independent abortion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Council of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
” After whitewashing Watson ’ s bio , the Post quotes her stating , “ That ’ s like saying everyone who ‘ supports ’ the Second Amendment ‘ supports ’ school shootings.
” This analogy is inapt because Second Amendment advocates don ’ t support legalizing school shootings , but abortion advocates do support legalizing abortions .
This follows another attempt by the Post ’ s Fact Checker to place a veneer of factuality on a pro-abortion talking point .
In a fact check @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argued that “ supporting abortion rights is not the same as supporting abortions.
” This is akin to saying that “ supporting the legalization of rape is not the same as supporting rape.
” Or “ supporting the legalization of murder is not the same as supporting murder.
” Or “ supporting the legalization of slavery is not the same as supporting slavery.
” All of the examples above materially differ from saying something like “ supporting drug legalization is not the same as supporting drugs.
” This is because abortion , rape @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actions that people take against other humans .
In contrast , taking drugs is something that people do to themselves .
James D. Agresti is the president of Just Facts , a think tank dedicated to publishing rigorously documented facts about public policy issues .

by James D. Agresti
Overview
In the face of overwhelming facts to the contrary, five prominent “fact checkers” are claiming that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris don’t support legalizing abortion up until birth. To reach this false conclusion, these individuals repeatedly use a propaganda technique condemned by George Orwell, the author of 1984.
The resulting misinformation shrouds the policies of Biden and Harris, who are planning to legalize abortions of humans who are capable of living outside the womb. This stance is opposed by about 80% of Americans and involves ending the lives of pre-birth humans who have passed the following milestones:
By 12 weeks, “electrical activity of the nervous system is discernible” and “attempts to suckle” are observed “in utero and in aborted fetuses.”
– Encyclopedia of Human Biology
By 14 weeks, “limb movements … become coordinated.”
– Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects
By 14 weeks, they exhibit conscious “motor planning” and “social behavior.”
– PLoS ONE
By 14 to 22 weeks, “a physiological fetal reaction to painful stimuli” occurs.
– Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy
By 18 weeks, pain sensory receptors spread to “all cutaneous [skin] and mucous surfaces,” and the cerebral cortex has the same number of nerve cells as a full-grown adult.
– New England Journal of Medicine
By 20 weeks, he or she “now sleeps and wakes and hears sounds.”
– American Medical Association Complete Medical Encyclopedia
By 20 weeks , pre-birth humans look like this:
Conflicting Claims
At the 2020 Republican National Convention, keynote speakers and others stated:
“Joe Biden supports taxpayer funding of abortion right up to the moment of birth.”
– Vice-President Mike Pence
“Joe Biden claims he has empathy for the vulnerable—yet the party he leads supports the extreme late-term abortion of defenseless babies right up to the moment of birth.”
– President Donald Trump
“President Trump will stand up against Biden-Harris, who are the most anti-life presidential ticket ever, even supporting the horrors of late-term abortion and infanticide.”
– Deirdre Byrne , a Catholic nun, retired surgeon, and retired Army officer
“If you watched the DNC last week,” their “argument for Joe Biden boiled down to the fact that they think he’s a nice guy,” but policies that “allow abortion up until the point of birth are not nice.”
– Ronna McDaniel , Chair of the Republican National Committee
Taking issue with those statements, various fact checkers reported:
“Biden does not support ‘late-term abortion and infanticide’.”
– Glenn Kessler, Salvador Rizzo, and Meg Kelly of the Washington Post Fact Checker
Trump “mischaracterizes the Democratic Party’s stance on abortion and Biden’s position.”
– Unnamed staff at PolitiFact
“Biden has not explicitly expressed support for late-term abortions.”
– Asma Khalid and Sam Gringlas of NPR
“Democrats generally back abortion rights, but Biden isn’t pushing to allow abortions for any reason up until birth.”
– Eugene Kiely, Lori Robertson, Robert Farley, D’Angelo Gore, Jessica McDonald, Brooks Jackson and Rem Rieder of FactCheck.org
“Democrats support abortion rights, but that does not mean they call for women to have an unfettered right to terminate pregnancies up until the point of birth.”
– Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the New York Times
In support of those claims, these fact checks all use a mix of similar half-truths that lead readers to believe the polar opposite of reality.
The Implications of Roe v. Wade
Biden’s campaign website says that he “will work to codify Roe v. Wade,” the Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling that struck down the laws of 30 states that prohibited abortions except to save the life of the mother. This means he will try to pass federal laws that enforce the provisions of Roe instead of relying upon judicial dictates.
Biden’s website also says that he will “appoint U.S. Supreme Court justices and federal judges” who will uphold Roe. The 2020 Democratic Party Platform embraces the same position.
In and of themselves, these stances constitute support for abortion up till birth because Roe v. Wade:
mandates that abortion be legal after “viability” when needed to protect “the health of the mother.” Viability, or the stage of development where humans are capable of living outside the womb with medical care, begins around 22 weeks gestation and extends to birth.
defines the word “health” so broadly that it includes practically anything. Some illuminating examples of what Roe considers harmful to health include the work of “child care,” the “stigma of unwed motherhood,” and “the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child.”
gives the power to determine what comprises a health risk to anyone who is licensed to perform abortions. It does this by mandating that Roe “be read together” with Doe v. Bolton , a companion case that the Supreme Court issued on the same day. In Doe , the Court ruled that all abortion providers have full authority to decide if an abortion is necessary to protect “health” based solely upon their “best clinical judgment.”
The implications of Roe were made clear by late-term abortionist Warren Hern, author of “the nation’s most widely used textbook on abortion standards and procedures.” He stated, “I will certify that any pregnancy is a threat to a woman’s life and could cause grievous injury to her physical health.”
In direct contradiction to the actual words of Roe, all of these fact checkers allege that supporting Roe does not mean supporting late-term abortions. PolitiFact, for example, writes that the Democratic Party platform “does not address late-term abortion” and that Biden’s goal to codify Roe “would generally limit abortions to the first 20 to 24 weeks of gestation.”
PolitiFact then casually adds that Roe and “related precedents” require states to allow abortions after viability “to preserve the life or health of the mother.” This is a quintessential half-truth because it fails to reveal that “health,” as defined by Roe, means virtually anything that any abortionist says it means.
The Women’s Health Protection Act
Further proof that Democrats plan to legalize abortions up till birth is found in the text of the Women’s Health Protection Act, which is actively cosponsored by 44 of 47 Democrats in the U.S. Senate and 217 of 235 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Both the House bill and the Senate bill, which is cosponsored by Kamala Harris:
would eliminate all “limitations or requirements” on “abortion after fetal viability” if the “treating health care provider” decides that “continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.”
defines a “health care provider” to include “any entity or individual” who is “licensed or certified” to perform “abortion services.”
would overturn more than 400 restrictions on abortion that have been passed by state and local governments since 2010.
The Washington Post Fact Checker is aware of the Women’s Health Protection Act but claims that it would merely prohibit states “from banning abortion before the fetus reaches viability.” This description is at flagrant odds with the text of the bill, which again, bans states from prohibiting “abortion after fetal viability” when any licensed abortionist says there is “a risk” to the “health” of the mother.
State Laws
A third line of evidence that Biden, Harris, and other Democrats are intent on legalizing abortion after viability is the enactment of state laws that do just that, along with promises to nullify state laws that limit late-term abortions.
For example, New York governor Andrew Cuomo signed a law in 2019 that repealed a section of the state’s criminal code which had banned third-trimester abortions except when necessary to protect a woman’s life. In its place, the new law allows such abortions “at any time when necessary to protect a patient’s life or health.”
As a NY State agency explains, the purpose of the bill was to bring the state’s law “in line with” with Roe v. Wade. States such as Rhode Island and Illinois have recently enacted similar laws.
Biden is also on board with this agenda, as his campaign website says that his “Justice Department will do everything in its power to stop the rash of state laws that so blatantly violate Roe v. Wade.”
While she was running for president, Kamala Harris’ campaign website vowed that she “will require, for the first time, that states and localities with a history of violating Roe v. Wade obtain approval from her Department of Justice before any abortion law or practice can take effect.”
Given that Roe has not been overturned, and the Supreme Court “reaffirmed” its “essential holding” in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, how can states defy Roe? A 2011 New York Times commentary by Yale Law School fellow Emily Bazelon explains that this is the norm because abortion advocates have decided not to challenge such laws in court.
She writes that “abortion rights groups” have “been wise to avoid” suing states that prohibit “abortion after 20 or 22 weeks of pregnancy” because:
72% of the public favors “making late-term abortion illegal,” and it is “best” not to tread on this “dangerous political ground.”
the current members of the Supreme Court might overturn Roe if such a case came before them.
“recent polls” show “that more Americans now identify as ‘pro-life’.”
Likewise, a 2018 Gallup survey found that 65% of U.S. adults favor making abortion illegal in the “second three months of pregnancy,” and 81% favor making it illegal in the “last three months of pregnancy.”
Yet, NPR misleads their audience to believe the converse by reporting that “a majority of Americans (61%) say abortion should be legal in all or most cases.” NPR provides no evidence or link to support his claim.
Downplaying the Number of Late-Term Abortions
Bazelon’s commentary, which provides strategic advice for abortion advocates, stresses that “abortion foes … reduced popular support” for abortion by “making late-term abortion seem as if it were the norm rather than the exception. Yet only 1.5 percent of abortions occur late in the second trimester.”
Four of the five fact checks present that same narrative. PolitiFact, for instance, writes that “late-term abortions are very rare, about 1%.” In the context of whether such abortions should be legal, this is a brazen half-truth because it fails to mention that the total number of abortions is so enormous that this small percentage amounts to thousands of late-term abortions per year.
A 2013 paper in the journal Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health estimates that “more than 15,000” abortions are performed each year in the U.S. “at 21 weeks or later.” The authors note that this amounts to about 1% of all abortions, “but given an estimated 1.21 million abortions in the United States annually,” “later abortions” add up to “a substantial number of abortions.”
Hence, these supposedly “very rare” late-term abortions are more numerous than incidents that the media portrays as common occurrences in the United States. Examples include:
the 12,000 murders per year committed with guns.
the 5,000 Covid-19-related deaths of people under the age of 45.
the 50 people per year who are executed under the death penalty .
the 7 police officers per year who are arrested for murder or manslaughter in an on-duty shooting, and the 1–2 officers who are ultimately convicted of such crimes.
Pro-Abortion Rhetoric
Beyond the common arguments of the other fact checkers, the Washington Post adds a unique one to the mix. “Experts told us,” say the Post’s fact checkers, that just because “some Democrats support abortion rights,” this “doesn’t mean they support ‘extreme late-term abortions’.” As proof of this, they name one “expert,” who they describe as “Katie L. Watson, a professor at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine.”
That is yet another half-truth because Watson’s official bio reveals that she is not a doctor but “a lawyer” and “bioethicist” who “is currently serving terms on the Board of the National Abortion Federation (NAF, the professional organization of independent abortion clinics) and on the National Medical Council of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.”
After whitewashing Watson’s bio, the Post quotes her stating, “That’s like saying everyone who ‘supports’ the Second Amendment ‘supports’ school shootings.” This analogy is inapt because Second Amendment advocates don’t support legalizing school shootings, but abortion advocates do support legalizing abortions.
This follows another attempt by the Post’s Fact Checker to place a veneer of factuality on a pro-abortion talking point. In a fact check published earlier this year, the Post argued that “supporting abortion rights is not the same as supporting abortions.” This is akin to saying that “supporting the legalization of rape is not the same as supporting rape.” Or “supporting the legalization of murder is not the same as supporting murder.” Or “supporting the legalization of slavery is not the same as supporting slavery.”
All of the examples above materially differ from saying something like “supporting drug legalization is not the same as supporting drugs.” This is because abortion, rape, slavery, and murder all involve actions that people take against other humans. In contrast, taking drugs is something that people do to themselves.
– – –
James D. Agresti is the president of Just Facts, a think tank dedicated to publishing rigorously documented facts about public policy issues.


thetennesseestar--2020-09-04--MNPS School Board Member Fran Bush Discusses Her Crusade to Get Kids Back in School and Playing Spor

MNPS School Board Member Fran Bush Discusses Her Crusade to Get Kids Back in School and Playing Sports

Live from Music Row Thursday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville ’ s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. – host Michael Patrick Leahy welcomed MNPS District Six school board member Fran Bush to the newsmakers line .
During the third hour , Bush explained her position calling for in-person school and sports to resume in Davidson County .
She added that underserved students are seriously being hurt , and that she continues to be ignored by the director of schools Dr. Battle while they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : I ’ m in the studio with Carol Swain .
And on the newsmaker line my new hero , metro school board member Fran Bush .
Welcome , Fran .
Bush : Hi .
Good morning .
Good morning everybody .
How is everybody doing this morning ?
Swain : Hi Fran .
Thank you so much for everything you are doing .
Bush : Oh , hi Carol it ’ s so great to hear from you .
Leahy : Wow .
I am just very impressed by your public stance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Now Metro Public Schools .
Every other public school apparently in the state will be playing football but they are not doing it here .
What is going on with that ?
And tell us why you think they should be playing football .
Bush : Well you know it ’ s very , very disheartening , and I am so disgusted with the decisions that are made by the administration and also in correlation with the mayor ’ s office .
They have connected the dots .
And they are playing politics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simply unacceptable .
There is no reason that our kids should not be able to participate in their sport .
We have kids that have come out and said hey , we ’ ve done everything right this summer to condition and yet we are still being punished .
And all of our friends around us are playing their sport .
They are getting their film .
We have a lot of children that come from Metro Public Schools that are in under-served communities and this is their out .
They work hard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not listening to these children .
And it is horrible .
Leahy : And the science behind , as you point out , is just not there .
The high school teams were playing and following the guidelines .
None of the kids got COVID-19 .
And in every other county public schools and private schools in Davidson County are playing football .
Its really really harming them .
Bush : Yes .
So here ’ s the deal .
Here ’ s the science .
And here ’ s the reality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dr. Jahangir are behind the reason why these students are not playing .
Only MNPS students .
And yet , like you just pointed out , that everybody else in the district is playing right ?
So the other schools in the district say we hear your science and we hear your numbers but we are going to go with our science .
People who are in the epidemiology world and the pediatric world .
And we are also going to consult with them .
So it was an all-out one and one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And that ’ s why they are playing because the science doesn ’ t add up for these students .
Yes , it may be a positive result .
And we know COVID is not going away .
But what are we going to do ?
Are we going to keep these kids sheltered like this ?
No , we can ’ t .
We have to do exactly what they say safely .
Leahy : You know I ’ ve followed this controversy very closely , and I ’ ve learned something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So this guy , Alex Jahangir from Vanderbilt , is apparently the big medical expert that the mayor is relying upon .
He ’ s an orthopedic surgeon , not an epidemiologist .
You pointed that out , Fran .
Bush : Yes .
I was totally shocked and I can not believe that we were following the science behind this .
I ’ m not saying that he ’ s not a nice person , and I ’ m not saying he doesn ’ t mean well .
But this is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had a doctor that comes from Vanderbilt in the pediatric role of immunizations and epidemiology , and they didn ’ t listen .
They did a wonderful presentation of why students should be back in school and what is harming them right now .
Not just virtual learning .
That ’ s one component that ’ s harming them .
We are talking about emotionally .
We have to look at their emotional well being .
These kids are becoming stressed and very much disengaged .
And some aren ’ t even logging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another problem we are having .
We are going to get totally behind academically .
The science doesn ’ t add up .
And Dr. Hildred , this is the public health department .
There are other counties that have said , we hear you health department , but we are going to go with the American Association of Pediatrics and their recommendations .
And we are going to go with the CDC recommendations and open the schools .
And they are doing it .
And MNPS , I can not believe I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and I ’ ve never seen this happen before .
Leahy : Just to be clear .
Right now there is no in-person instruction .
You want that to stop .
You want in-person instruction to start .
Do I have that right ?
Bush : Yes , absolutely .
Again when we look at the science of experts they are saying that this is going to be detrimental to our kids .
Meaning in a year and a half or two years it will take that long for these kids to recover @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like ?
That means our average kindergartener or second grader will fall behind those years .
Meaning that those teachers are going to do double or triple down of bringing those kids up to their grade levels .
And literacy is out the door .
Swain : Fran , am I correct in believing that these public school teachers are being paid the same , and I would say even though they are having far less work ?
By keeping the kids at work it also takes away the fact that Nashville Public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ educating inner-city children anyway ?
Bush : Yes .
I ’ m glad you point that out .
And yes that is definitely accurate .
And that ’ s why most of our students are in underserved communities that are going to suffer the most .
And then we need to get these students back in the classroom safely .
But what we ’ ve found out is that these schools are not ready .
All the time that we thought , and I thought , that we were preparing our schools for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case .
Leahy : Let me ask this Fran .
Back in March Dr. Battle was unanimously appointed as the director of schools .
And now you are telling her , hey we need to get back to school .
We need to start sports .
What is the response you are getting and what ’ s going to happen next ?
Bush : Well I made the recommendation back in April .
We did a survey with several of our parents and gave them options .
It ’ s all about options @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of parents and data came back , and our results came back that parents want their early learning students back in-person .
So those who couldn ’ t go back would have an option for virtual and in-person .
After that survey , I thought that would be some sort of timeline of making sure that our teachers were on board and what teachers were willing to go back .
Of course , teachers make up part of this equation .
None of that was done .
And we have the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convincing these teachers that it ’ s so deadly to go back .
We have so many different bad players here .
And it ’ s not right .
And the kids are suffering .
And there are a lot of teachers that are doing the best they can , and we are very proud of what they are doing with what they have .
However , those teachers that want to get back in the classroom , and there are so many , want to get back .
Leahy : When you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going back to school in-person and for having football now for these high school students how does she respond to you ?
Bush : Oh my goodness .
It is so horrible .
Not just for football .
We have soccer , volleyball , and track .
These coaches have said to her , please let us have a seat at the table so we can tell you how we can do this safely .
She refused to do it up until she got pressured to do it .
And then at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a meeting but she really didn ’ t want to listen to them .
They had a playbook on safety measures on how they can get back into their sport .
They didn ’ t want to hear that .
Leahy : Does she talk to you ?
Does she talk to you when you say these things or does she ignore you ?
Bush : She ignores everything that I ’ ve asked her to do .
I have sent her text messages , and I said look at this young @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conference last week and this young man stood up and he said please , I have a 4.2 GPA I ’ ve done everything right academically .
I have this scholarship and I could be going to Yale and Princeton .
My family can ’ t afford this but this is my opportunity .
I sent her a text and said hey look at this young man .
I sent her a second one and I gave her his story and she completely ignored my text messages .
Swain : I can tell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that she was not the right person for that position .
And so once again , Mayor Cooper has let down the city by taking the easy way out and not trying to address a problem .
Bush : Yes .
And I will tell you that I met with Mayor Cooper yesterday .
The meeting was absolutely a disaster .
He actually threw a temper tantrum .
Bush : He literally raised his voice to me twice when I was very calm and I was raising my points .
Listen to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Reportwith Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510 .
Listen online at iHeart Radio .

Live from Music Row Thursday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. – host Michael Patrick Leahy welcomed MNPS District Six school board member Fran Bush to the newsmakers line.
During the third hour, Bush explained her position calling for in-person school and sports to resume in Davidson County. She added that underserved students are seriously being hurt, and that she continues to be ignored by the director of schools Dr. Battle while they are playing politics with students.
Leahy: I’m in the studio with Carol Swain. And on the newsmaker line my new hero, metro school board member Fran Bush. Welcome, Fran.
Bush: Hi. Good morning. Good morning everybody. How is everybody doing this morning?
Swain: Hi Fran. Thank you so much for everything you are doing.
Bush: Oh, hi Carol it’s so great to hear from you.
Leahy: Wow. I am just very impressed by your public stance calling for football to be played. Now Metro Public Schools. Every other public school apparently in the state will be playing football but they are not doing it here. What is going on with that? And tell us why you think they should be playing football.
Bush: Well you know it’s very, very disheartening, and I am so disgusted with the decisions that are made by the administration and also in correlation with the mayor’s office. They have connected the dots. And they are playing politics with our kids.
It’s simply unacceptable. There is no reason that our kids should not be able to participate in their sport. We have kids that have come out and said hey, we’ve done everything right this summer to condition and yet we are still being punished.
And all of our friends around us are playing their sport. They are getting their film. We have a lot of children that come from Metro Public Schools that are in under-served communities and this is their out. They work hard to maintain their GPA and Dr. Battle is not listening to these children. And it is horrible.
Leahy: And the science behind, as you point out, is just not there. The high school teams were playing and following the guidelines. None of the kids got COVID-19. And in every other county public schools and private schools in Davidson County are playing football. Its really really harming them.
Bush: Yes. So here’s the deal. Here’s the science. And here’s the reality behind the science. Dr. Hildred and Dr. Jahangir are behind the reason why these students are not playing. Only MNPS students. And yet, like you just pointed out, that everybody else in the district is playing right? So the other schools in the district say we hear your science and we hear your numbers but we are going to go with our science. People who are in the epidemiology world and the pediatric world. And we are also going to consult with them.
So it was an all-out one and one side. They did their homework. And that’s why they are playing because the science doesn’t add up for these students. Yes, it may be a positive result. And we know COVID is not going away. But what are we going to do? Are we going to keep these kids sheltered like this? No, we can’t. We have to do exactly what they say safely.
Leahy: You know I’ve followed this controversy very closely, and I’ve learned something from you that is stunningly obvious. So this guy, Alex Jahangir from Vanderbilt, is apparently the big medical expert that the mayor is relying upon. He’s an orthopedic surgeon, not an epidemiologist. You pointed that out, Fran.
Bush: Yes. I was totally shocked and I cannot believe that we were following the science behind this. I’m not saying that he’s not a nice person, and I’m not saying he doesn’t mean well. But this is not his area of expertise. And we had a doctor that comes from Vanderbilt in the pediatric role of immunizations and epidemiology, and they didn’t listen.
They did a wonderful presentation of why students should be back in school and what is harming them right now. Not just virtual learning. That’s one component that’s harming them. We are talking about emotionally. We have to look at their emotional well being. These kids are becoming stressed and very much disengaged. And some aren’t even logging onto the computer. That’s another problem we are having. We are going to get totally behind academically.
The science doesn’t add up. And Dr. Hildred, this is the public health department. There are other counties that have said, we hear you health department, but we are going to go with the American Association of Pediatrics and their recommendations. And we are going to go with the CDC recommendations and open the schools. And they are doing it. And MNPS, I cannot believe I have been here all my life, and I’ve never seen this happen before.
Leahy: Just to be clear. Right now there is no in-person instruction. You want that to stop. You want in-person instruction to start. Do I have that right?
Bush: Yes, absolutely. Again when we look at the science of experts they are saying that this is going to be detrimental to our kids. Meaning in a year and a half or two years it will take that long for these kids to recover academically.
So what does that look like? That means our average kindergartener or second grader will fall behind those years. Meaning that those teachers are going to do double or triple down of bringing those kids up to their grade levels. And literacy is out the door.
Swain: Fran, am I correct in believing that these public school teachers are being paid the same, and I would say even though they are having far less work? By keeping the kids at work it also takes away the fact that Nashville Public Schools were doing a poor job of educating inner-city children anyway?
Bush: Yes. I’m glad you point that out. And yes that is definitely accurate. And that’s why most of our students are in underserved communities that are going to suffer the most. And then we need to get these students back in the classroom safely. But what we’ve found out is that these schools are not ready. All the time that we thought, and I thought, that we were preparing our schools for safe return, that is not the case.
Leahy: Let me ask this Fran. Back in March Dr. Battle was unanimously appointed as the director of schools. And now you are telling her, hey we need to get back to school. We need to start sports. What is the response you are getting and what’s going to happen next?
Bush: Well I made the recommendation back in April. We did a survey with several of our parents and gave them options. It’s all about options for these parents. And a high number of parents and data came back, and our results came back that parents want their early learning students back in-person.
So those who couldn’t go back would have an option for virtual and in-person. After that survey, I thought that would be some sort of timeline of making sure that our teachers were on board and what teachers were willing to go back.
Of course, teachers make up part of this equation. None of that was done. And we have the president of the MNEA, who is basically convincing these teachers that it’s so deadly to go back. We have so many different bad players here. And it’s not right.
And the kids are suffering. And there are a lot of teachers that are doing the best they can, and we are very proud of what they are doing with what they have. However, those teachers that want to get back in the classroom, and there are so many, want to get back.
Leahy: When you make your case to Dr. Battle for going back to school in-person and for having football now for these high school students how does she respond to you?
Bush: Oh my goodness. It is so horrible. Not just for football. We have soccer, volleyball, and track. These coaches have said to her, please let us have a seat at the table so we can tell you how we can do this safely. She refused to do it up until she got pressured to do it. And then at the last hour, she was about to have a meeting but she really didn’t want to listen to them. They had a playbook on safety measures on how they can get back into their sport. They didn’t want to hear that.
Leahy: Does she talk to you? Does she talk to you when you say these things or does she ignore you?
Bush: She ignores everything that I’ve asked her to do. I have sent her text messages, and I said look at this young man. When they had their press conference last week and this young man stood up and he said please, I have a 4.2 GPA I’ve done everything right academically.
I have this scholarship and I could be going to Yale and Princeton. My family can’t afford this but this is my opportunity. I sent her a text and said hey look at this young man. I sent her a second one and I gave her his story and she completely ignored my text messages.
Swain: I can tell you that I have felt all along that she was not the right person for that position. And so once again, Mayor Cooper has let down the city by taking the easy way out and not trying to address a problem.
Bush: Yes. And I will tell you that I met with Mayor Cooper yesterday. The meeting was absolutely a disaster. He actually threw a temper tantrum.
Swain: You mean tiny tot threw a temper tantrum?
Leahy: Oh, dear.
Bush: He literally raised his voice to me twice when I was very calm and I was raising my points.
Listen to the full third hour here:
– – –
Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Reportwith Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio.