wnd--2020-09-21--Followers of 'trained Marxists' assault innocents, burn Bibles, attack statues of historical figures

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics . ]
In his enduring classic , “ Democracy in America ( 1835-1840 ) , ” Alexis de Tocqueville located the distinctive character of American civilization in the unforced blending of “ the spirit of religion and the spirit of liberty.
” In America , unlike revolutionary France , liberty did not assert itself against religion but rather saw in it “ the cradle of its infancy and the divine source of its rights.
” Religion reminded a commercially minded people about the things of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an excessive engrossment in material things .
If the political realm remained “ agitated , contested , and uncertain ” -- as it always will -- the moral world , informed by religion , resisted the pull of lawlessness and limitless self-assertion .
It gave human beings a sense of limits and an understanding of the ends and purposes that ought to inform the exercise of human freedom .
Despots , who necessarily have contempt for all restraints , could do without religion , Tocqueville argued , but a free people could not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this understanding of the connection between religion and democratic liberty remained the American consensus .
Americans didn ’ t confuse liberty with moral relativism or indifference to truth .
While the consent of the governed was our sacred political principle , our political heritage always discreetly bowed before the sovereignty of God .
Unlike totalitarian revolutionaries who wished to deify man , the American revolutionaries wisely affirmed what Tocqueville called “ liberty under God and the laws.
” Such was the path of a decent , ordered liberty that resisted fashionable efforts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to truth and moral conscience .
Liberals once applauded religion , at least as an instrument for justice and as a reminder that everyone , including the highly placed and powerful , remained subject to the judgment of God .
Abolitionism , the Social Gospel , and the civil rights movement were peopled by ministers and people of faith who freely appealed to moral conscience informed by the Gospel .
Today ’ s left , with a few notable exceptions , appeals to a highly moralistic conception of social justice and doctrinaire equality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real emphasis on human sinfulness as a universal attribute , or on humility -- and with it , the concomitant need for repentance , forgiveness , and mutual accountability .
Those accredited with “ victimhood ” are said to be without sin , thus having no need for humility and self-limitation .
Victimizers , ever more arbitrarily defined , are condemned as guilty for who they are rather than what they have done .
In this worldview , aggressive secularism and moralism go hand in hand with the reckless condemnation of whole groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” for example , plays the same role that “ kulaks , ” Jews , and class enemies played in the totalitarian ideologies of the 20th century .
( If the practice is not yet totalitarian , the theory most certainly is . )
The deification of alleged “ victims ” and the demonization of the police and the majority population invites ostracism and “ canceling ” of many imperfect but decent people .
Such acts of “ woke ” despotism are made possible by an arbitrary repudiation of common morality , religious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imperfection , all of which make repentance and forgiveness possible .
It is no accident , as the Marxists used to say , that the anarchists and proto-totalitarians among us in Antifa and Black Lives Matter ( the movement , not necessarily the slogan ) mock biblical religion , common morality , and the traditional family .
BLM ’ s statement of purpose is a series of aggressive and predictable ideological clichés , rooted in a blatant repudiation of the moral and religious heritage of the West .
These self-proclaimed “ trained Marxists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideological language .
Their adherents publicly assault innocents , burn Bibles , attack statues of historical figures and religious icons , and publicly display guillotines -- guillotines !
-- while swarming the homes of prominent Americans , including liberals , whom they seek to threaten and humiliate .
Politicians , corporations , and churchmen shamelessly apologize for , and even underwrite , these repulsive revolutionaries .
Such self-destructive indulgence of totalitarian nihilism is evidence of just how deep our current crisis has become .
A word to the wise .
A civilization that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be a dark one -- in truth , it would be no civilization at all .
In “ The American Commonwealth ” -- an 1888 book that ranks an honorable second place behind Tocqueville ’ s as the most thoughtful , penetrating , and morally serious guide to the considerable strengths but also the weaknesses of , and threats to , the integrity of American democracy -- James Bryce imagines a democratic civilization without religion .
He reminds us that religion has exerted a “ stimulating presence on the thought and imagination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wonders if “ social polity ” would become unstable , and morality diffused and threatened , in a world where human beings “ cease to believe that there was any power above them , any future before them , anything in heaven and earth but what their senses told them.
” Bryce could not imagine civilized liberty ( or human existence more broadly ) without a healthy deference to religion and moral conscience informed by it .
Nothing in our recent experience suggests that he was wrong .

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics.]
By Daniel J. Mahoney
Real Clear Politics
In his enduring classic, “Democracy in America (1835-1840),” Alexis de Tocqueville located the distinctive character of American civilization in the unforced blending of “the spirit of religion and the spirit of liberty.” In America, unlike revolutionary France, liberty did not assert itself against religion but rather saw in it “the cradle of its infancy and the divine source of its rights.” Religion reminded a commercially minded people about the things of the spirit and prevented them from succumbing to an excessive engrossment in material things.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
If the political realm remained “agitated, contested, and uncertain” -- as it always will -- the moral world, informed by religion, resisted the pull of lawlessness and limitless self-assertion. It gave human beings a sense of limits and an understanding of the ends and purposes that ought to inform the exercise of human freedom. Despots, who necessarily have contempt for all restraints, could do without religion, Tocqueville argued, but a free people could not.
For a century and a half, this understanding of the connection between religion and democratic liberty remained the American consensus. Americans didn’t confuse liberty with moral relativism or indifference to truth. While the consent of the governed was our sacred political principle, our political heritage always discreetly bowed before the sovereignty of God. Unlike totalitarian revolutionaries who wished to deify man, the American revolutionaries wisely affirmed what Tocqueville called “liberty under God and the laws.” Such was the path of a decent, ordered liberty that resisted fashionable efforts to separate freedom from a humble deference to truth and moral conscience.
Liberals once applauded religion, at least as an instrument for justice and as a reminder that everyone, including the highly placed and powerful, remained subject to the judgment of God. Abolitionism, the Social Gospel, and the civil rights movement were peopled by ministers and people of faith who freely appealed to moral conscience informed by the Gospel. Today’s left, with a few notable exceptions, appeals to a highly moralistic conception of social justice and doctrinaire equality. Their conception is shorn of any real emphasis on human sinfulness as a universal attribute, or on humility -- and with it, the concomitant need for repentance, forgiveness, and mutual accountability. Those accredited with “victimhood” are said to be without sin, thus having no need for humility and self-limitation. Victimizers, ever more arbitrarily defined, are condemned as guilty for who they are rather than what they have done.
In this worldview, aggressive secularism and moralism go hand in hand with the reckless condemnation of whole groups and peoples. “White privilege,” for example, plays the same role that “kulaks,” Jews, and class enemies played in the totalitarian ideologies of the 20th century. (If the practice is not yet totalitarian, the theory most certainly is.) The deification of alleged “victims” and the demonization of the police and the majority population invites ostracism and “canceling” of many imperfect but decent people. Such acts of “woke” despotism are made possible by an arbitrary repudiation of common morality, religious humility, and the awareness of shared imperfection, all of which make repentance and forgiveness possible.
It is no accident, as the Marxists used to say, that the anarchists and proto-totalitarians among us in Antifa and Black Lives Matter (the movement, not necessarily the slogan) mock biblical religion, common morality, and the traditional family. BLM’s statement of purpose is a series of aggressive and predictable ideological clichés, rooted in a blatant repudiation of the moral and religious heritage of the West. These self-proclaimed “trained Marxists” do more than speak a wooden ideological language. Their adherents publicly assault innocents, burn Bibles, attack statues of historical figures and religious icons, and publicly display guillotines -- guillotines! -- while swarming the homes of prominent Americans, including liberals, whom they seek to threaten and humiliate. Politicians, corporations, and churchmen shamelessly apologize for, and even underwrite, these repulsive revolutionaries. Such self-destructive indulgence of totalitarian nihilism is evidence of just how deep our current crisis has become.
A word to the wise. A civilization that vilifies and dismisses religion and traditional morality would be a dark one -- in truth, it would be no civilization at all. In “The American Commonwealth” -- an 1888 book that ranks an honorable second place behind Tocqueville’s as the most thoughtful, penetrating, and morally serious guide to the considerable strengths but also the weaknesses of, and threats to, the integrity of American democracy -- James Bryce imagines a democratic civilization without religion. He reminds us that religion has exerted a “stimulating presence on the thought and imagination” of even unbelievers, and he wonders if “social polity” would become unstable, and morality diffused and threatened, in a world where human beings “cease to believe that there was any power above them, any future before them, anything in heaven and earth but what their senses told them.” Bryce could not imagine civilized liberty (or human existence more broadly) without a healthy deference to religion and moral conscience informed by it.
Nothing in our recent experience suggests that he was wrong.


wnd--2020-09-21--Trump's triumph with Supreme Court is at hand

President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are on the cusp of making history .
With Trump having named two justices to the U.S. Supreme Court , Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh , they have an opening to elevate a third justice to fill the seat of Ruth Bader Ginsburg , thereby securing the constitutionalism of the court for a generation .
Trump and McConnell need only persuade 50 of the 53 Senate Republicans to vote to confirm the nominee Trump says he will send up at week 's end , following the days of mourning for Ginsburg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska , have said that they will not vote to confirm a justice nominated this close to a presidential election .
Yet , if Trump appoints a qualified female jurist , as he has pledged to do , and she passes muster in the Judiciary Committee , would four GOP senators really collude with Chuck Schumer 's Democratic Caucus to kill that Republican nominee and risk having President Joe Biden fill the seat ?
A Senate vote to reject a Republican nominee , in which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would demoralize and divide the party on election eve and betray a cause for which some have fought for 50 years .
It is hard to conceive of a greater act of political treason .
Many Republican presidents made strides toward recapturing the court after the radical rampage of the Earl Warren era .
None achieved it .
Three of Richard Nixon 's four picks went south on Roe v. Wade , and Justice Harry Blackmun authored the abominable decision .
Gerald Ford 's lone nominee , Justice John Paul Stevens , went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
While Ronald Reagan nominated Antonin Scalia , his other choices , Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy , became `` swing votes . ''
George H. W. Bush picked David Souter and Clarence Thomas , with the latter 's constitutionalism canceled out by the former 's liberalism .
But today , the hour of Trump 's triumph may be at hand , and the stark panic on the left testifies to it .
Mobs are forming outside McConnell 's home in Kentucky .
Former Attorney General Eric Holder threatens that if Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic Senate will cancel out its victory by `` packing '' the courts .
Rep. Joe Kennedy III says that if McConnell prevails in 2020 , `` We pack the court in 2021 . ''
Radicals are threatening to take to the streets and burn the country down if a Trump nominee is elevated .
Let them try .
When FDR , after his landslide reelection , sought to pack the court by increasing the number of justices in 1937 , the result was a national recoil and a political rout that cost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican senators have to bite the bullet on this one and vote on whomever Trump nominates before this session of Congress ends .
And , in this battle , there is no room for conscientious objectors .
Even `` Never Trumpers '' and Republicans for Biden have to take a stand .
For if they play a role in killing Trump 's nominee , and Biden wins in November , they will have helped to turn the Supreme Court over to leftist Democrats who will fill both the Ginsburg seat and that of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hold the court for years .
Consider the issues that the new nominee will decide .
The cause of right to life .
Affirmative action .
Religious freedom .
Immigration .
Gun rights .
All could be lost if the opportunity to fill the Ginsburg seat is forfeited by Republican defectors .
The 50-year struggle to recapture the Supreme Court would be over .
Are there Republicans who would really walk away from this last , best chance to secure the court , simply because the process offends their sense of proper procedure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Murkowski , Collins and a few other Republicans .
But to vote down a qualified conservative nominee , on the eve of a presidential election , would amount to a crippling blow to their party and to their reputations within that party .
It is said there is not time enough to get the vote done responsibly .
Nonsense .
Gerald Ford 's choice of John Paul Stevens went through in 19 days .
Only 49 days lapsed between the nomination of Ginsburg and her confirmation .
Of the nominees to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brutalized worst in the last 50 years were all Republican appointees : Clement Haynsworth in 1970 , Robert Bork in 1987 , Clarence Thomas in 1991 and Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 .
No Democratic nominee has been savaged like these four federal court judges .
And for Biden to condone a relentless partisan attack on a qualified female judge would seem to be risking the women 's vote in 2020 .
Assume that Amy Coney Barrett , Catholic jurist and mother of seven , is nominated .
Would fellow Catholic Joe Biden demand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she might be a vote against Roe v. Wade , which Joe now enthusiastically champions ?

President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are on the cusp of making history.
With Trump having named two justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, they have an opening to elevate a third justice to fill the seat of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, thereby securing the constitutionalism of the court for a generation.
Trump and McConnell need only persuade 50 of the 53 Senate Republicans to vote to confirm the nominee Trump says he will send up at week's end, following the days of mourning for Ginsburg.
Two Republican senators, however, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, have said that they will not vote to confirm a justice nominated this close to a presidential election.
Yet, if Trump appoints a qualified female jurist, as he has pledged to do, and she passes muster in the Judiciary Committee, would four GOP senators really collude with Chuck Schumer's Democratic Caucus to kill that Republican nominee and risk having President Joe Biden fill the seat?
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
A Senate vote to reject a Republican nominee, in which Republican senators cast the decisive votes, would demoralize and divide the party on election eve and betray a cause for which some have fought for 50 years. It is hard to conceive of a greater act of political treason.
Many Republican presidents made strides toward recapturing the court after the radical rampage of the Earl Warren era. None achieved it. Three of Richard Nixon's four picks went south on Roe v. Wade, and Justice Harry Blackmun authored the abominable decision.
Gerald Ford's lone nominee, Justice John Paul Stevens, went left as soon as he went up. While Ronald Reagan nominated Antonin Scalia, his other choices, Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, became "swing votes." George H. W. Bush picked David Souter and Clarence Thomas, with the latter's constitutionalism canceled out by the former's liberalism.
But today, the hour of Trump's triumph may be at hand, and the stark panic on the left testifies to it.
Will President Trump's SCOTUS nominee be confirmed by Nov. 3? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 91% (68 Votes) 9% (7 Votes)
Mobs are forming outside McConnell's home in Kentucky. Former Attorney General Eric Holder threatens that if Republicans confirm a justice this year, a Democratic Senate will cancel out its victory by "packing" the courts. Rep. Joe Kennedy III says that if McConnell prevails in 2020, "We pack the court in 2021." Radicals are threatening to take to the streets and burn the country down if a Trump nominee is elevated.
Let them try.
When FDR, after his landslide reelection, sought to pack the court by increasing the number of justices in 1937, the result was a national recoil and a political rout that cost him 72 House seats in 1938.
Republican senators have to bite the bullet on this one and vote on whomever Trump nominates before this session of Congress ends.
And, in this battle, there is no room for conscientious objectors.
Even "Never Trumpers" and Republicans for Biden have to take a stand. For if they play a role in killing Trump's nominee, and Biden wins in November, they will have helped to turn the Supreme Court over to leftist Democrats who will fill both the Ginsburg seat and that of Justice Stephen Breyer, 82, and hold the court for years.
Consider the issues that the new nominee will decide.
The cause of right to life. Affirmative action. Religious freedom. Immigration. Gun rights. All could be lost if the opportunity to fill the Ginsburg seat is forfeited by Republican defectors. The 50-year struggle to recapture the Supreme Court would be over.
Are there Republicans who would really walk away from this last, best chance to secure the court, simply because the process offends their sense of proper procedure?
This may be a hard vote for Murkowski, Collins and a few other Republicans. But to vote down a qualified conservative nominee, on the eve of a presidential election, would amount to a crippling blow to their party and to their reputations within that party.
It is said there is not time enough to get the vote done responsibly.
Nonsense. Gerald Ford's choice of John Paul Stevens went through in 19 days. Only 49 days lapsed between the nomination of Ginsburg and her confirmation.
Of the nominees to the Supreme Court, those who have been brutalized worst in the last 50 years were all Republican appointees: Clement Haynsworth in 1970, Robert Bork in 1987, Clarence Thomas in 1991 and Brett Kavanaugh in 2018.
No Democratic nominee has been savaged like these four federal court judges. And for Biden to condone a relentless partisan attack on a qualified female judge would seem to be risking the women's vote in 2020.
Assume that Amy Coney Barrett, Catholic jurist and mother of seven, is nominated. Would fellow Catholic Joe Biden demand that his Democratic colleagues reject Barrett because she might be a vote against Roe v. Wade, which Joe now enthusiastically champions?


wnd--2020-09-22--DOJ rejects Nadler's demand because of committee's earlier abuse of Barr

( FOX NEWS ) -- The Justice Department on Monday refused a request from Rep. Jerrold Nadler , the House @ @ @ @ @ top officials to testify on several issues , citing a recent appearance by Attorney General @ @ @ @ @ an attempt by committee members to “ air grievances.
” The letter , signed by @ @ @ @ @ Boyd , said that committee members spent most of Barr ’ s July 28 appearance @ @ @ @ @ scold and insult the country ’ s top prosecutor .
The letter even pointed to @ @ @ @ @ New York Times described the hearing .
“ Democrat after Democrat posed questions to Mr. @ @ @ @ @ off when he tried to reply , substituting their own replies for his , ” @ @ @ @

(FOX NEWS) -- The Justice Department on Monday refused a request from Rep. Jerrold Nadler, the House Judiciary Committee chairman, for top officials to testify on several issues, citing a recent appearance by Attorney General William Barr which it called an attempt by committee members to “air grievances.”
The letter, signed by Assistant Attorney General Stephen E. Boyd, said that committee members spent most of Barr’s July 28 appearance at an Oversight hearing to scold and insult the country’s top prosecutor. The letter even pointed to how an article in The New York Times described the hearing.
“Democrat after Democrat posed questions to Mr. Barr only to cut him off when he tried to reply, substituting their own replies for his,” the Times wrote.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-09-22--Mark Levin: Schumer was speaking like a fascist

( FOX NEWS ) -- Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer , D-N.Y. , spoke like a fascist when he vowed @ @ @ @ @ the table '' if President Trump goes forward with a nomination to replace late Supreme @ @ @ @ @ , according to `` Life , Liberty & Levin '' host Mark Levin .
`` @ @ @ @ @ is traditional and constitutional , '' Levin , a former Reagan Justice Department official , @ @ @ @ @ Monday 's edition of `` The Mark Levin Show '' .
`` Chuck Schumer said @ @ @ @ @ who is the president for four years -- nominates someone to the Supreme Court while @ @ @ @ @ , and the Republican Senate -- while they have a majority -- vote to confirm @ @ @ @ @ Court ... everything is on the table , '' Levin stated before asking : `` @ @ @ @ @ Senate -- let alone one senator -- the power to 'put everything on the table @ @ @

(FOX NEWS) -- Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., spoke like a fascist when he vowed that "nothing is off the table" if President Trump goes forward with a nomination to replace late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, according to "Life, Liberty & Levin" host Mark Levin.
"What the president is doing is traditional and constitutional," Levin, a former Reagan Justice Department official, said at the opening of Monday's edition of "The Mark Levin Show".
"Chuck Schumer said that if Donald Trump -- who is the president for four years -- nominates someone to the Supreme Court while he's the sitting president, and the Republican Senate -- while they have a majority -- vote to confirm a justice to the Supreme Court ... everything is on the table," Levin stated before asking: "Does the Constitution give the Senate -- let alone one senator -- the power to 'put everything on the table'?"
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-09-22--Actress warns Supreme Court battle to be filled with 'breathtaking ignorance' of faith

( FOX NEWS ) -- Patricia Heaton told her fellow Christian followers on social media to prepare for an “ @ @ @ @ @ in the coming days from people who are ignorant of religion .
The “ Everybody @ @ @ @ @ to Twitter on Sunday to make her declaration , bracing her followers for “ breathtaking @ @ @ @ @ of politics heats up ahead of the November election .
“ Friends , be prepared @ @ @ @ @ filled with an onslaught of arrogant pronouncements based on breathtaking ignorance of religion in general @ @ @ @ @ in particularly by people who wouldn ’ t recognize God if He bit them on @ @ @ @ @ tweeted .

(FOX NEWS) -- Patricia Heaton told her fellow Christian followers on social media to prepare for an “onslaught of arrogant pronouncements” in the coming days from people who are ignorant of religion.
The “Everybody Loves Raymond” actress took to Twitter on Sunday to make her declaration, bracing her followers for “breathtaking ignorance” as the world of politics heats up ahead of the November election.
“Friends, be prepared for social media to be filled with an onslaught of arrogant pronouncements based on breathtaking ignorance of religion in general, Christianity specifically and Catholicism in particularly by people who wouldn’t recognize God if He bit them on the bum,” she tweeted.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-09-22--Dems spending COVID-19 impact funds on favorite agendas

( FOX NEWS ) -- State and local governments are racing to spend millions in CARES Act funding before it @ @ @ @ @ government — and they 're finding unexpected ways to use it , from `` trunk-or-treating @ @ @ @ @ an experimental basic income program in St. Paul , Minn .
The CARES Act provides @ @ @ @ @ to states and local governments .
Those payments have funded things like increased police budgets @ @ @ @ @ rent and utility assistance for struggling residents .
However , blue states and Democratic mayors @ @ @ @ @ for their pet causes .
Michigan Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer is spending millions on free @ @ @ @ @ essential workers .

(FOX NEWS) -- State and local governments are racing to spend millions in CARES Act funding before it reverts back to the federal government — and they're finding unexpected ways to use it, from "trunk-or-treating" in northeast Ohio to an experimental basic income program in St. Paul, Minn.
The CARES Act provides $139 billion in payments to states and local governments. Those payments have funded things like increased police budgets to offset coronavirus costs and rent and utility assistance for struggling residents.
However, blue states and Democratic mayors are also using the money for their pet causes.
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer is spending millions on free college for more than 600,000 essential workers.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-09-22--Why are they capitalizing 'Black'?

Why are they capitalizing 'Black'?

A few months ago , I noticed that my published column spelled `` black '' `` Black . ''
As I had submitted the column with `` black '' spelled with a lower case `` b , '' I contacted my editor to find out why what I had written was changed .
She responded that the syndicate was following the Associated Press ' rules of style , a common practice in journalism and book writing .
On July 20 , 2020 , the AP published `` Explaining AP style on Black and white , '' in which it explained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to capitalize Black in a racial , ethnic or cultural sense , conveying an essential and shared sense of history , identity and community among people who identify as Black , including those in the African diaspora and within Africa .
The lowercase black is a color , not a person .
AP style will continue to lowercase the term white in racial , ethnic and cultural senses . ''
There is no `` shared sense of history , identity and community among people who identify as Black , including those in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Only left-wingers believe such nonsense .
Not only is there no shared culture or sense of identity that unites blacks outside and inside Africa , but there is also no shared culture among blacks in Africa and none among blacks outside of Africa ( `` the African diaspora '' ) .
The only thing all blacks have in common is geographic origin ( but since it is said that we all emanate from Africa , that means little ) and color .
Historically , the only identity Africans shared with other Africans was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( black ) Hutus could perpetrate the most concentrated mass murder since the Holocaust against ( black ) Tutsis .
That is why black Africans were indispensable to the transatlantic slave trade .
Those who rounded up other Africans to sell to Europeans felt no moral obligation , let alone a `` shared identity , '' with the Africans they sold .
What does a black raised in the Bronx have in common with a black raised in Cameroon ?
The answer is : nothing .
They have as little in common as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ black from Cameroon .
What does a Brazilian black have in common with a black from Chicago or a black from Uganda ?
Nothing .
Does Sen. Kamala Harris , the California daughter of a black and an ( Asian ) Indian , have more in common with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or with a tribal chief in Togo ?
Or , for that matter , more in common with white Pelosi or black Candace Owens or black Larry Elder ?
The AP decision , adopted by the New York Times and followed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is based on lies .
And , like the rest of the left 's race-based lies , it is pure pandering .
It is another attempt to depict blacks as inherently different from nonblack human beings .
That 's why the AP offered this explanation for why `` white '' should not be capitalized : '' After a review and period of consultation , we found , at this time , less support for capitalizing white .
White people generally do not share the same history and culture , or the experience @ @ @ @ @ @ @ color .
… capitalizing the term white , as is done by white supremacists , risks subtly conveying legitimacy to such beliefs . ''
The reason the AP offers for not capitalizing `` white '' is also based on a lie : `` White people generally do not share the same history and culture . ''
As it happens , white people `` generally '' share far more history and culture than do blacks .
Whites come from Europe , and the vast majority of them have shared the Christian religion and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the vast majority of blacks .
Moreover , even today , in a post-Christian Europe , a Croatian and an Irishman have more in common than a Kenyan and a Congolese , let alone a black from the Bronx .
As for giving succor to white supremacists if `` white '' were capitalized , given that white supremacists agree with the New York Times and the rest of the left that there is something inherently different about blacks , why does n't capitalizing `` black '' also risk `` conveying legitimacy '' to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is such a thing as African American culture and shared experience .
There is such a thing as African Brazilian culture and shared experience .
But there is no such thing as a shared black culture .
So , if you want to tell the world how woke you are , how you follow the herd and how little truth matters to you , capitalize `` black . ''
But if you respect blacks , respect the truth and respect yourself , do n't .

A few months ago, I noticed that my published column spelled "black" "Black." As I had submitted the column with "black" spelled with a lower case "b," I contacted my editor to find out why what I had written was changed. She responded that the syndicate was following the Associated Press' rules of style, a common practice in journalism and book writing.
On July 20, 2020, the AP published "Explaining AP style on Black and white," in which it explained:
"AP's style is now to capitalize Black in a racial, ethnic or cultural sense, conveying an essential and shared sense of history, identity and community among people who identify as Black, including those in the African diaspora and within Africa. The lowercase black is a color, not a person. AP style will continue to lowercase the term white in racial, ethnic and cultural senses."
The AP explanation is drivel.
There is no "shared sense of history, identity and community among people who identify as Black, including those in the African diaspora and within Africa."
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Only left-wingers believe such nonsense. Not only is there no shared culture or sense of identity that unites blacks outside and inside Africa, but there is also no shared culture among blacks in Africa and none among blacks outside of Africa ("the African diaspora"). The only thing all blacks have in common is geographic origin (but since it is said that we all emanate from Africa, that means little) and color.
Historically, the only identity Africans shared with other Africans was a tribal identity. That is why (black) Hutus could perpetrate the most concentrated mass murder since the Holocaust against (black) Tutsis. That is why black Africans were indispensable to the transatlantic slave trade. Those who rounded up other Africans to sell to Europeans felt no moral obligation, let alone a "shared identity," with the Africans they sold.
What does a black raised in the Bronx have in common with a black raised in Cameroon? The answer is: nothing. They have as little in common as a white from the Bronx and a black from Cameroon.
What does a Brazilian black have in common with a black from Chicago or a black from Uganda? Nothing.
Does Sen. Kamala Harris, the California daughter of a black and an (Asian) Indian, have more in common with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or with a tribal chief in Togo? Or, for that matter, more in common with white Pelosi or black Candace Owens or black Larry Elder?
The AP decision, adopted by the New York Times and followed by the rest of the media herd, is based on lies. And, like the rest of the left's race-based lies, it is pure pandering. It is another attempt to depict blacks as inherently different from nonblack human beings. That's why the AP offered this explanation for why "white" should not be capitalized:
"After a review and period of consultation, we found, at this time, less support for capitalizing white. White people generally do not share the same history and culture, or the experience of being discriminated against because of skin color. … capitalizing the term white, as is done by white supremacists, risks subtly conveying legitimacy to such beliefs."
The reason the AP offers for not capitalizing "white" is also based on a lie: "White people generally do not share the same history and culture."
As it happens, white people "generally" share far more history and culture than do blacks. Whites come from Europe, and the vast majority of them have shared the Christian religion and the Bible. There is nothing analogous among the vast majority of blacks. Moreover, even today, in a post-Christian Europe, a Croatian and an Irishman have more in common than a Kenyan and a Congolese, let alone a black from the Bronx.
As for giving succor to white supremacists if "white" were capitalized, given that white supremacists agree with the New York Times and the rest of the left that there is something inherently different about blacks, why doesn't capitalizing "black" also risk "conveying legitimacy" to white supremacist beliefs?
Yes, there is such a thing as African American culture and shared experience. There is such a thing as African Brazilian culture and shared experience. But there is no such thing as a shared black culture.
So, if you want to tell the world how woke you are, how you follow the herd and how little truth matters to you, capitalize "black." But if you respect blacks, respect the truth and respect yourself, don't.
Black is a color, not a culture.


wnd--2020-09-23--Kayleigh McEnany rips CNN's Jim Acosta over Trump COVID question

( FOX NEWS ) -- Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany accused CNN ’ s Jim Acosta of taking President Trump out @ @ @ @ @ White House press briefing .
CNN ’ s senior White House correspondent asked McEnany about @ @ @ @ @ said during an Ohio campaign rally on Monday when speaking about the ongoing coronavirus pandemic @ @ @ @ @ was talking about younger Americans , He said it ‘ affects virtually nobody , ” @ @ @ @ @ he said to Bob Woodward that ‘ it ’ s not just older people , @ @ @ @ @ , too , ’ at 200,000 deaths should n't be telling people the truth about @ @ @ @ @ ?
”

(FOX NEWS) -- Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany accused CNN’s Jim Acosta of taking President Trump out of context during Tuesday's White House press briefing.
CNN’s senior White House correspondent asked McEnany about a partial quote President Trump said during an Ohio campaign rally on Monday when speaking about the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.
“I think he was talking about younger Americans, He said it ‘affects virtually nobody,” Acosta said. “But he said to Bob Woodward that ‘it’s not just older people, it’s young people, too,’ at 200,000 deaths shouldn't be telling people the truth about this virus at his rallies?”
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-09-23--NFL captain honors slain cop by wearing name of officer on helmet

It is , of course , a scene as common to professional sports post-George Floyd as a high-five or a screaming coach : names or phrases associated with liberal causes célèbres .
What this achieves is unclear .
It 's obvious those names and phrases have been chosen upstairs .
In the case of the NBA , the league did n't even make any pretense that the phrases that appeared on the back of player jerseys originated anywhere but from a league-approved effort , with 29 messages officially vetted by league officials .
Never mind that some of them were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` Vote , '' `` Ally , '' `` Justice '' ) and some of them barely made sense ( `` Love Us '' and `` Listen to Us , '' some of the most adored and listened to people on Earth were apparently saying ) .
In the NFL , meanwhile , the entire league put `` End Racism '' on the back of the end zone .
( Thank heavens someone had the good sense to come out against racism .
It 's high time , I say . )
TRENDING @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foresaw 2020 trouble , warns of even more On a more personal level , the league also decided to honor what it called victims of racism by letting each player pick one `` victim '' to put on the back of their helmet .
This led to one of the more misguided efforts to virtue-signal on the team level , that of the Pittsburgh Steelers to put the name of Antwon Rose Jr. on the back of their helmets for the entire season .
And yet , in this effort came one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the decision of Steelers offensive captain Maurkice Pouncey to take the name of Rose off the back of his helmet and replace it with that of a slain police officer .
On the surface level , the decision to honor Rose seemed so easy .
An unarmed black 17-year-old , he was shot and killed as he was running away from East Pittsburgh police after fleeing a traffic stop in 2018 .
The story put forth by the Steelers was that they wanted to be `` unified '' about who to choose -- @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go with Rose .
There were problems with this choice from the outset , however .
First , while Rose may have been unarmed , there was plenty of reason for police to potentially assume Rose was dangerous .
He was in a vehicle that was suspected of having been used in a drive-by shooting earlier in the day , and police said there was `` ballistic damage to the rear window , '' according to the Philadelphia Tribune .
While Rose was unarmed , two guns were recovered from the vehicle and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hand , although prosecutors would eventually conclude another one of the teens committed the shooting .
( Zaijuan Hester would plead guilty to the charges . )
Meanwhile , the officer who was charged with Rose 's death was acquitted .
Pouncey is a supporter of police causes .
While he put Rose 's name on the back of his helmet during the first game of the season , the Steelers center said in a statement on Instagram that he `` inadvertently supported a cause of which I did not fully comprehend the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And so , he wore the name of slain Pittsburgh police officer Eric Kelly instead on Sunday : Kelly , a black police officer , was killed during a 2009 standoff after responding to a call for backup after working an overnight shift .
Officers Paul Sciullo and Stephen Mayhle had already been killed by Richard Poplawski while responding to a domestic disturbance .
According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette , Kelly , a 14-year veteran of the force , left behind a wife and three children .
Inasmuch as either could be declared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more claim to it than Rose .
According to The New York Times , Poplawski had an extensive history of bigotry online , including a detestation of blacks , race-mixing and the `` Zionist occupation . ''
And something that would have hit home for Pouncey : After the Steelers won the Super Bowl in 2008 , Poplawski posted about how football itself was little more than `` negroball . ''
He was sentenced to death in 2011 .
Pouncey was n't the only Steelers player who decided against wearing Rose 's name @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sunday 's game against the Denver Broncos , although none of the other players chose Eric Kelly .
Running back Benny Snell chose Breonna Taylor , while defensive end Stephon Tuitt and wide receiver James Washington left the space reserved for names blank .
Tackle Alejandro Villanueva -- the former Army Ranger who made news during the 2017 spate of anthem-kneeling in the NFL by being the only Steeler to stand for `` The Star-Spangled Banner '' during the one week in which the whole league decided it was woker than Colin Kaepernick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ name during the first week of games and replaced it with Alwyn Cashe , an Army sergeant and Medal of Honor candidate killed in Afghanistan back in 2005 .
He continued that in the second week .
The rest of the team , however , continued to go with Rose .
That , in part , seems to be because the decision was made for them .
Vince Williams , a linebacker , had said there was no vote taken .
So why Rose ?
Safety Minkah Fitzpatrick said that was the idea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And that 's really the ticket here : the idea that getting woke finally does n't mean going broke .
This time , the American people really want sociopolitical messages thrown in their faces when they sit down to watch a sports game .
Let 's just make sure they 're the right ones .
Unarmed black teenager on the back of all the team 's helmets ?
It sounds great to the `` people upstairs , '' provided no one does their due diligence .
However , you do n't even need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't in the mix .
In fact , the only real courage here is honoring a slain police officer when that 's become terminally unfashionable -- even though he 's the only real victim of racism here .
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal .

It is, of course, a scene as common to professional sports post-George Floyd as a high-five or a screaming coach: names or phrases associated with liberal causes célèbres.
What this achieves is unclear. It's obvious those names and phrases have been chosen upstairs.
In the case of the NBA, the league didn't even make any pretense that the phrases that appeared on the back of player jerseys originated anywhere but from a league-approved effort, with 29 messages officially vetted by league officials.
Never mind that some of them were so generic as to be useless ("Vote," "Ally," "Justice") and some of them barely made sense ("Love Us" and "Listen to Us," some of the most adored and listened to people on Earth were apparently saying).
In the NFL, meanwhile, the entire league put "End Racism" on the back of the end zone. (Thank heavens someone had the good sense to come out against racism. It's high time, I say.)
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
On a more personal level, the league also decided to honor what it called victims of racism by letting each player pick one "victim" to put on the back of their helmet.
This led to one of the more misguided efforts to virtue-signal on the team level, that of the Pittsburgh Steelers to put the name of Antwon Rose Jr. on the back of their helmets for the entire season.
And yet, in this effort came one of the few instances of personal bravery -- the decision of Steelers offensive captain Maurkice Pouncey to take the name of Rose off the back of his helmet and replace it with that of a slain police officer.
On the surface level, the decision to honor Rose seemed so easy. An unarmed black 17-year-old, he was shot and killed as he was running away from East Pittsburgh police after fleeing a traffic stop in 2018. The story put forth by the Steelers was that they wanted to be "unified" about who to choose -- and so the decision was made to go with Rose.
There were problems with this choice from the outset, however.
First, while Rose may have been unarmed, there was plenty of reason for police to potentially assume Rose was dangerous. He was in a vehicle that was suspected of having been used in a drive-by shooting earlier in the day, and police said there was "ballistic damage to the rear window," according to the Philadelphia Tribune.
While Rose was unarmed, two guns were recovered from the vehicle and Rose himself had gunshot residue on his hand, although prosecutors would eventually conclude another one of the teens committed the shooting. (Zaijuan Hester would plead guilty to the charges.)
Meanwhile, the officer who was charged with Rose's death was acquitted.
Pouncey is a supporter of police causes. While he put Rose's name on the back of his helmet during the first game of the season, the Steelers center said in a statement on Instagram that he "inadvertently supported a cause of which I did not fully comprehend the entire background of the case."
And so, he wore the name of slain Pittsburgh police officer Eric Kelly instead on Sunday:
Maurkice Pouncey honors fallen police officer Eric Kelly for Steelers game against Broncos https://t.co/1OClG9t76F pic.twitter.com/FT5WC5jFa9 — 🗣dubvLIVE.com🇺🇲➡🌎🔊 (@dubvNOW) September 20, 2020
Kelly, a black police officer, was killed during a 2009 standoff after responding to a call for backup after working an overnight shift. Officers Paul Sciullo and Stephen Mayhle had already been killed by Richard Poplawski while responding to a domestic disturbance. According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Kelly, a 14-year veteran of the force, left behind a wife and three children.
Inasmuch as either could be declared a victim of racism, Kelly had more claim to it than Rose. According to The New York Times, Poplawski had an extensive history of bigotry online, including a detestation of blacks, race-mixing and the "Zionist occupation."
And something that would have hit home for Pouncey: After the Steelers won the Super Bowl in 2008, Poplawski posted about how football itself was little more than "negroball."
He was sentenced to death in 2011.
Pouncey wasn't the only Steelers player who decided against wearing Rose's name on the back of his helmet for Sunday's game against the Denver Broncos, although none of the other players chose Eric Kelly.
Running back Benny Snell chose Breonna Taylor, while defensive end Stephon Tuitt and wide receiver James Washington left the space reserved for names blank.
Tackle Alejandro Villanueva -- the former Army Ranger who made news during the 2017 spate of anthem-kneeling in the NFL by being the only Steeler to stand for "The Star-Spangled Banner" during the one week in which the whole league decided it was woker than Colin Kaepernick -- had already taped over Rose's name during the first week of games and replaced it with Alwyn Cashe, an Army sergeant and Medal of Honor candidate killed in Afghanistan back in 2005. He continued that in the second week.
The rest of the team, however, continued to go with Rose.
That, in part, seems to be because the decision was made for them. Vince Williams, a linebacker, had said there was no vote taken. So why Rose? Safety Minkah Fitzpatrick said that was the idea of the "people upstairs."
And that's really the ticket here: the idea that getting woke finally doesn't mean going broke.
This time, the American people really want sociopolitical messages thrown in their faces when they sit down to watch a sports game. Let's just make sure they're the right ones. Unarmed black teenager on the back of all the team's helmets? It sounds great to the "people upstairs," provided no one does their due diligence.
However, you don't even need to think about why Eric Kelly wasn't in the mix. In fact, the only real courage here is honoring a slain police officer when that's become terminally unfashionable -- even though he's the only real victim of racism here.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.


wnd--2020-09-23--'Deplorable display of racism': Party City under fire for Halloween costumes

( FOX NEWS ) -- A party supply chain is facing criticism after one of its stores in Virginia stocked @ @ @ @ @ children ’ s Halloween costumes this year , according to reports .
Caroline Eames Brasler @ @ @ @ @ two young Black daughters , first sounded the alarm when she went shopping at a @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Crossroads , Va. , just outside of Arlington .
She shared photos of @ @ @ @ @ One was labeled “ Confederate Officer , ” and showed a young boy with a @ @ @ @ @ uniform , complete with a Confederate flag on his hat .
Another costume labeled Confederate @ @ @ @ @ another boy with a fake sword and dressed in boots , a uniform with a @ @ @ @ @ as well as a fake beard .

(FOX NEWS) -- A party supply chain is facing criticism after one of its stores in Virginia stocked its shelves with Confederate soldier children’s Halloween costumes this year, according to reports.
Caroline Eames Brasler, the adoptive mother to two young Black daughters, first sounded the alarm when she went shopping at a Party City store in Bailey’s Crossroads, Va., just outside of Arlington. She shared photos of the costumes on Facebook.
One was labeled “Confederate Officer,” and showed a young boy with a fake sword and dressed in uniform, complete with a Confederate flag on his hat. Another costume labeled Confederate General Robert E. Lee showed another boy with a fake sword and dressed in boots, a uniform with a Confederate flag on his hat as well as a fake beard.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-09-23--Ginsburg death sets up Trump nominee for 'vitriolic hearings'

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics . ]
Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s life in the law cast a long shadow .
In death , she casts a long shadow , too .
Since Justice Ginsburg was both historic figure and reliable liberal vote on the United States Supreme Court , replacing her was always going to be contentious .
After all , the court ’ s direction for years to come is at stake .
Candidate Donald Trump made the “ activist federal courts ” a major campaign issue in 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have delivered on that issue .
They have confirmed over 200 new judges , almost all of them strenuously opposed by Democrats .
Now , he has been given his third opportunity to nominate a Supreme Court justice .
His first appointment replaced the late conservative icon , Antonio Scalia , with another conservative , Neil Gorsuch .
His second replaced Anthony Kennedy , a moderate conservative and occasional swing vote , with Brett Kavanaugh , a more consistent conservative vote .
TRENDING : 'Greater shakings ' : Jonathan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even more Replacing any Supreme Court justice is important , but substituting a conservative for a liberal giant like Ginsburg or the 82-year-old Justice Stephen Breyer , when he retires , would be far more consequential .
That ’ s why the fight over the Ginsburg ’ s vacant seat will be so fierce , worse even than the brawl over Kavanaugh , who was smeared by multiple , last-minute allegations of sexual assault , none of which were substantiated .
That fight was so toxic that several senior Democrats openly rejected the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ innocent until proven guilty , ” a bedrock assumption of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence for over a thousand years .
The Democrats ’ immediate demand is for Ginsburg ’ s seat to be left vacant until a new Senate and president can fill it .
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer made that demand Friday night , shortly after Ginsburg ’ s death was announced .
All other Democrats will follow .
They will pointedly add that the Republicans , who controlled in the Senate in 2016 , refused to give Merrick Garland a hearing or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fill Scalia ’ s seat .
Republicans said then that nine months was too close to the election .
It would be grossly unfair , Democrats say , for those same Republicans to move forward with their own nomination now .
McConnell has already rejected that argument , promising to fill every vacancy on every federal court during the current Congress .
He is saying that the current situation is different since the presidency and Senate are now controlled by the same party .
He will quote Democrats ’ statements in 2016 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fill the Supreme Court vacancy .
All of them are hypocrites .
They have flipped their positions , and their justifications ( then and now ) are nothing more than cloaks for political advantage .
They don ’ t care about consistency or even logic .
They are fighting to win control of the Supreme Court and defeat the other side in November .
They will say whatever helps their cause and hope voters forget whatever they said last time .
For the upcoming election , the main point is that Justice Ginsburg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judicial appointments , especially those for the Supreme Court .
That probably helps Democrats , at least a little , because Republicans were already highly motivated about that issue .
Any extra motivation will be on the Democratic side .
Expect them to emphasize the court ’ s importance for reproductive rights , hoping that argument resonates with female suburban voters .
Even before this fight , America was slogging through a prolonged constitutional crisis , compounded by an erosion of trust in all our institutions .
Another nasty , high-profile battle like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pain .
Both parties have become much more ideological , less willing to compromise , more willing to treat their adversaries as “ the enemy , ” not as the loyal opposition .
On issue after issue , Democrats and Republicans are promoting starkly different visions of America ’ s history , the role that should be played by federal bureaucracies and the courts , and our country ’ s path forward .
These long-simmering disputes boiled over during the Trump presidency .
The very leitmotif of his presidency has been this sustained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frenzied , relentless attacks on Trump and Democrats attribute to a rogue president , unfettered by traditional norms and constitutional restraints .
Or so each side says , and keeps repeating .
Democratic Party activists and elected leaders not only consider Trump dangerous , many have refused to accept him as the legitimately elected president .
The mainstream media mostly went along for the ride , promoting the Trump-Russia collaboration line for three years until the Mueller Report basically killed it .
During all that time , Rep. Adam Schiff , chairman head @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he had damning , incontrovertible evidence Trump had colluded with Russia .
He never produced it .
Even now , senior officials from James Comey ’ s FBI say Trump is somehow controlled by the Kremlin .
Again , they offer no evidence .
These charges are not the traditional back-and-forth between two parties that alternate governance in a constitutional democracy .
They are something different , something more sinister .
This dark vision drove the Democrats ’ effort to remove Trump before the 2020 election .
When their charges of Russia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drive to impeach Trump over Ukraine .
Again , they failed on party-line votes .
The Ukraine charges were so threadbare that Democrats hardly mentioned them at their convention a few months later .
President Trump has punched back ferociously , as he always does .
His populist rhetoric and nationalist policies go well beyond attacks on Democrats .
They attack Washington ’ s “ permanent government , ” its entrenched ecosystem of lobbyists , think tanks , bureaucrats , and media bullhorns .
Voters in the District of Columbia knew Trump was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Almost none of them voted for Trump then , and very few will vote for him now .
Trump returns the love .
His opposition to the “ Washington swamp ” has been his driving theme for four years , and he has not eased off the gas .
These conflicts have hardened into nasty and irreconcilable differences between the two major political parties , not just in Washington but across the country .
Both parties have become more ideological , with activists imposing purity tests in primary contests .
Again , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ similar tests in its newsrooms .
The predictable result is less public confidence that stories are reported fairly and accurately .
Trump has aggressively exploited this mistrust .
He constantly damns the “ fake news , ” and his crowds cheer him on .
Their mistrust now extends to social media companies , which were once neutral platforms .
These bitter differences , amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic , the cratered economy , and the breakdown of law and order , form the backdrop for the current dispute over the Supreme Court vacancy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extremely high , and they are right .
Trump has apparently decided to nominate a new justice quickly , rather than wait until after the election .
That decision , like so much of his presidency , is risky and unconventional .
Why risky ?
Because it instantly changes the focus of the campaign , away from the economy and law and order , which had been Trump ’ s strongest issues .
It ’ s also risky because it could jeopardize Senate Republicans running in purple states , especially if Trump makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real problems for Sens .
Martha McSally ( Arizona ) , Cory Gardner ( Colorado ) , Thom Tillis ( North Carolina ) , and Susan Collins ( Maine ) .
If Trump tries to protect them , his nominee will be less conservative than he prefers .
He may face another constraint because the Republicans ’ Senate majority is so thin .
To confirm a nominee , he needs votes from centrists like Collins , Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski , and Utah Sen. Mitt Romney .
Collins and Murkowski have already said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Romney ’ s mindset can be deduced by his vote to convict the president of impeachable offenses .
There is a risk for Democrats , too , if they go over the top in opposing a qualified nominee and spew bilious , unsupported charges , as they did in the Kavanaugh hearings .
For Trump , the upside of moving quickly is that it forces Democrats to declare themselves and puts pressure on Joe Biden to say who he would nominate , or at least propose a list , something he has so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it forces Biden , vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris , and Chuck Schumer to say whether they will pack the Supreme Court with additional seats if they win the White House and Senate .
Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey , faithfully representing the Democrats ’ left wing , already declared his willingness to pack the court .
The Constitution does not limit the court to nine justices .
Long-standing norms do .
So far , Schumer has not yet declared himself , but his veiled threat that “ everything is on the table @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaders may try to duck the issue until the election , fearing Americans don ’ t want to see another constitutional norm shredded .
Meanwhile , Trump and the Republicans will pound them on it anyway , hoping it helps them retain the Senate .
To pack the high court , Schumer would not only need a Democratic president , he would need to eliminate the Senate filibuster .
Changing that rule would be a huge step -- and a very controversial one -- because it would permanently change the way Congress operates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it will be gone forever .
The Senate would then resemble the House , where the minority is powerless and the majority can ram through any bills it chooses .
Such a change would significantly alter the Founders ’ framework , which establishes multiple “ veto points ” on government action .
Without the Senate ’ s ability to pump the breaks with a filibuster , a Biden White House could swiftly pass major Democratic initiatives on tax rates , immigration laws , health care , the Green New Deal , and more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new , presumably reliably Democratic states : the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico , hoping to lock in their party ’ s control of the Senate for years to come .
They could choose to pack the Supreme Court with additional justices .
Their argument : The Republicans had acted illegitimately by replacing Ginsburg , so they are only offsetting that maneuver and “ rebalancing ” the court .
( Of course , there would be nothing to prevent a future Republican president and Senate from adding still more justices . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the minority would have no say at all unless it controlled the presidency or one house of Congress .
Democrats would have no incentive to abolish the filibuster if Trump is reelected .
But they could still force a constitutional crisis if they won the Senate and resolved to block Trump ’ s judicial and Cabinet nominees .
As the new majority leader , Schumer and his Democratic colleagues would have to decide if they wish to go that far since it would incite a national crisis of confidence in government .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington work at all ?
” Whatever the election outcome , Trump ’ s nominee for the Supreme Court will face vitriolic hearings and an up-or-down vote this year .
The anger about the Supreme Court , urban policing , COVID closures , economic revival , and more could spill into the streets if the election is close and the loser doesn ’ t acknowledge a fair outcome .
We are sailing in very dangerous waters and have been for several years .
The death of Justice Ginsburg makes those waters even more @ @

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics.]
By Charles Lipson
Real Clear Politics
Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s life in the law cast a long shadow. In death, she casts a long shadow, too.
Since Justice Ginsburg was both historic figure and reliable liberal vote on the United States Supreme Court, replacing her was always going to be contentious. After all, the court’s direction for years to come is at stake. Candidate Donald Trump made the “activist federal courts” a major campaign issue in 2016. As president, he and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have delivered on that issue. They have confirmed over 200 new judges, almost all of them strenuously opposed by Democrats. Now, he has been given his third opportunity to nominate a Supreme Court justice. His first appointment replaced the late conservative icon, Antonio Scalia, with another conservative, Neil Gorsuch. His second replaced Anthony Kennedy, a moderate conservative and occasional swing vote, with Brett Kavanaugh, a more consistent conservative vote.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Replacing any Supreme Court justice is important, but substituting a conservative for a liberal giant like Ginsburg or the 82-year-old Justice Stephen Breyer, when he retires, would be far more consequential. That’s why the fight over the Ginsburg’s vacant seat will be so fierce, worse even than the brawl over Kavanaugh, who was smeared by multiple, last-minute allegations of sexual assault, none of which were substantiated. That fight was so toxic that several senior Democrats openly rejected the idea that Kavanaugh should be presumed “innocent until proven guilty,” a bedrock assumption of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence for over a thousand years.
The Democrats’ immediate demand is for Ginsburg’s seat to be left vacant until a new Senate and president can fill it. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer made that demand Friday night, shortly after Ginsburg’s death was announced. All other Democrats will follow. They will pointedly add that the Republicans, who controlled in the Senate in 2016, refused to give Merrick Garland a hearing or vote after President Obama nominated him to fill Scalia’s seat. Republicans said then that nine months was too close to the election. It would be grossly unfair, Democrats say, for those same Republicans to move forward with their own nomination now.
McConnell has already rejected that argument, promising to fill every vacancy on every federal court during the current Congress. He is saying that the current situation is different since the presidency and Senate are now controlled by the same party. He will quote Democrats’ statements in 2016, when they insisted on voting immediately to fill the Supreme Court vacancy.
All of them are hypocrites. They have flipped their positions, and their justifications (then and now) are nothing more than cloaks for political advantage. They don’t care about consistency or even logic. They are fighting to win control of the Supreme Court and defeat the other side in November. They will say whatever helps their cause and hope voters forget whatever they said last time.
For the upcoming election, the main point is that Justice Ginsburg’s death elevates the importance of judicial appointments, especially those for the Supreme Court. That probably helps Democrats, at least a little, because Republicans were already highly motivated about that issue. Any extra motivation will be on the Democratic side. Expect them to emphasize the court’s importance for reproductive rights, hoping that argument resonates with female suburban voters.
Even before this fight, America was slogging through a prolonged constitutional crisis, compounded by an erosion of trust in all our institutions. Another nasty, high-profile battle like this deepens existing cleavages and prolongs the pain. Both parties have become much more ideological, less willing to compromise, more willing to treat their adversaries as “the enemy,” not as the loyal opposition. On issue after issue, Democrats and Republicans are promoting starkly different visions of America’s history, the role that should be played by federal bureaucracies and the courts, and our country’s path forward.
These long-simmering disputes boiled over during the Trump presidency. The very leitmotif of his presidency has been this sustained constitutional crisis, which Republicans attribute to frenzied, relentless attacks on Trump and Democrats attribute to a rogue president, unfettered by traditional norms and constitutional restraints. Or so each side says, and keeps repeating.
Democratic Party activists and elected leaders not only consider Trump dangerous, many have refused to accept him as the legitimately elected president. The mainstream media mostly went along for the ride, promoting the Trump-Russia collaboration line for three years until the Mueller Report basically killed it. During all that time, Rep. Adam Schiff, chairman head of the House Intelligence Committee, insisted that he had damning, incontrovertible evidence Trump had colluded with Russia. He never produced it. Even now, senior officials from James Comey’s FBI say Trump is somehow controlled by the Kremlin. Again, they offer no evidence. These charges are not the traditional back-and-forth between two parties that alternate governance in a constitutional democracy. They are something different, something more sinister.
This dark vision drove the Democrats’ effort to remove Trump before the 2020 election. When their charges of Russia collusion failed, they quickly launched a drive to impeach Trump over Ukraine. Again, they failed on party-line votes. The Ukraine charges were so threadbare that Democrats hardly mentioned them at their convention a few months later.
President Trump has punched back ferociously, as he always does. His populist rhetoric and nationalist policies go well beyond attacks on Democrats. They attack Washington’s “permanent government,” its entrenched ecosystem of lobbyists, think tanks, bureaucrats, and media bullhorns. Voters in the District of Columbia knew Trump was attacking their company town in 2016. Almost none of them voted for Trump then, and very few will vote for him now. Trump returns the love. His opposition to the “Washington swamp” has been his driving theme for four years, and he has not eased off the gas.
These conflicts have hardened into nasty and irreconcilable differences between the two major political parties, not just in Washington but across the country. Both parties have become more ideological, with activists imposing purity tests in primary contests. Again, the mainstream media has followed suit, imposing similar tests in its newsrooms. The predictable result is less public confidence that stories are reported fairly and accurately. Trump has aggressively exploited this mistrust. He constantly damns the “fake news,” and his crowds cheer him on. Their mistrust now extends to social media companies, which were once neutral platforms.
These bitter differences, amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic, the cratered economy, and the breakdown of law and order, form the backdrop for the current dispute over the Supreme Court vacancy. Both parties believe the stakes are extremely high, and they are right.
Trump has apparently decided to nominate a new justice quickly, rather than wait until after the election. That decision, like so much of his presidency, is risky and unconventional. Why risky? Because it instantly changes the focus of the campaign, away from the economy and law and order, which had been Trump’s strongest issues. It’s also risky because it could jeopardize Senate Republicans running in purple states, especially if Trump makes a controversial nomination. That would pose real problems for Sens. Martha McSally (Arizona), Cory Gardner (Colorado), Thom Tillis (North Carolina), and Susan Collins (Maine). If Trump tries to protect them, his nominee will be less conservative than he prefers. He may face another constraint because the Republicans’ Senate majority is so thin. To confirm a nominee, he needs votes from centrists like Collins, Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, and Utah Sen. Mitt Romney. Collins and Murkowski have already said they won’t go along and Romney’s mindset can be deduced by his vote to convict the president of impeachable offenses. There is a risk for Democrats, too, if they go over the top in opposing a qualified nominee and spew bilious, unsupported charges, as they did in the Kavanaugh hearings.
For Trump, the upside of moving quickly is that it forces Democrats to declare themselves and puts pressure on Joe Biden to say who he would nominate, or at least propose a list, something he has so far refused to do. Equally important, it forces Biden, vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris, and Chuck Schumer to say whether they will pack the Supreme Court with additional seats if they win the White House and Senate. Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey, faithfully representing the Democrats’ left wing, already declared his willingness to pack the court. The Constitution does not limit the court to nine justices. Long-standing norms do. So far, Schumer has not yet declared himself, but his veiled threat that “everything is on the table” is hard to ignore. Party leaders may try to duck the issue until the election, fearing Americans don’t want to see another constitutional norm shredded. Meanwhile, Trump and the Republicans will pound them on it anyway, hoping it helps them retain the Senate.
To pack the high court, Schumer would not only need a Democratic president, he would need to eliminate the Senate filibuster. Changing that rule would be a huge step -- and a very controversial one -- because it would permanently change the way Congress operates. Once the filibuster is gone, it will be gone forever. The Senate would then resemble the House, where the minority is powerless and the majority can ram through any bills it chooses. Such a change would significantly alter the Founders’ framework, which establishes multiple “veto points” on government action.
Without the Senate’s ability to pump the breaks with a filibuster, a Biden White House could swiftly pass major Democratic initiatives on tax rates, immigration laws, health care, the Green New Deal, and more. They could choose to add two new, presumably reliably Democratic states: the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, hoping to lock in their party’s control of the Senate for years to come. They could choose to pack the Supreme Court with additional justices. Their argument: The Republicans had acted illegitimately by replacing Ginsburg, so they are only offsetting that maneuver and “rebalancing” the court. (Of course, there would be nothing to prevent a future Republican president and Senate from adding still more justices.) In a country that is evenly split, the minority would have no say at all unless it controlled the presidency or one house of Congress.
Democrats would have no incentive to abolish the filibuster if Trump is reelected. But they could still force a constitutional crisis if they won the Senate and resolved to block Trump’s judicial and Cabinet nominees. As the new majority leader, Schumer and his Democratic colleagues would have to decide if they wish to go that far since it would incite a national crisis of confidence in government. The overriding question would be “Can Washington work at all?”
Whatever the election outcome, Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court will face vitriolic hearings and an up-or-down vote this year. The anger about the Supreme Court, urban policing, COVID closures, economic revival, and more could spill into the streets if the election is close and the loser doesn’t acknowledge a fair outcome. We are sailing in very dangerous waters and have been for several years. The death of Justice Ginsburg makes those waters even more treacherous.


wnd--2020-09-23--Question facing Congress: To compromise or fail again!

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics . ]
An extraordinary example of Congress ’ s partisan dysfunction has been playing out this summer .
The Republican-led Senate and Democratic-led House have been pushing their own COVID-19 relief packages with virtually no consideration of whether they could actually become law .
All this time , their constituents desperately needed help , and still do .
Millions of Americans face the loss of their apartments , cars , jobs , health insurance and more , thanks to the pandemic and the expiration of earlier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1,200-per-person check and enhanced unemployment benefits ) .
A late-July article in the “ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ” projected that 35 million small-business jobs would be lost if the pandemic lasts six months , which it already has .
The Chamber of Commerce says more than half of all U.S. small businesses worry about having to close permanently .
So enacting a new relief package seemed like a political no-brainer .
Yet , congressional leaders and conservative and liberal lawmakers once again stuck with their ideological fringes and refused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : 'Greater shakings ' : Jonathan Cahn foresaw 2020 trouble , warns of even more On Sept. 10 , The Washington Post reported that stalemated negotiations had left Republicans and Democrats “ without a clear path forward to approve new economic stimulus before the November elections.
” But then , on September 15 , things changed , thanks to the bipartisan House Problem Solvers Caucus stepping up with a compromise $ 1.5 trillion proposal .
It bridged the divide on many key issues , calling for $ 120 billion in unemployment aid , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ families and individuals , $ 100 billion for coronavirus testing and health care , and more .
“ The Problem Solvers proposal could show the way , ” The Washington Post editorialized .
A New York Post editorial said , “ In a crisis , statesmen find a way to compromise , ” and it praised the Problem Solvers for seeking “ to end the latest impasse over coronavirus relief ” and “ deliver the aid that both sides agree is needed.
” Perhaps you ’ re not familiar with the 50-member Problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 25 Democrats , it has been active for years , often toiling to do the essential but thankless work of bipartisan governing .
Sadly , political reporters , pundits and activists rarely find sexiness in no-nonsense , results-oriented work across party lines .
That ’ s unfortunate , because the political and mathematical reality in Congress is that nothing big can get done without bipartisan collaboration .
Neither party can muster the supermajorities it would need to move legislation through the House and Senate alone .
Predictably , some political groups on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ proposal for supposedly doing too much or not enough .
But here is the reality .
While many members of Congress spent this summer pushing partisan talking points about a COVID relief bill , the Problem Solvers were working to fashion what is , thus far , the only bipartisan compromise on the table .
And the Problem Solvers , to their credit , seem determined to press their leaders and not let their work go to waste .
Rep. Kendra Horn ( D-Okla. ) called it “ unacceptable that congressional leadership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are closing , Americans are out of work , and families need help.
” Rep. Abigail Spanberger ( D-Va. ) said , “ My conviction is to actually do my goddamn job and come up with a solution for the American people.
” Congress has always had its show horses , sprinting from one news camera to the next , and its workhorses , who try to sort out problems and find feasible solutions .
Not terribly long ago , the workhorses generally came out on top .
With some hiccups , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chores of debating and passing budgets on time , maintaining the nation ’ s infrastructure , and keeping the government open even amid fierce debates over taxes and spending .
But this results-oriented approach has given way to ideologically driven agendas of the left and right .
American voters ( and non-voters ) bear some blame , as too many encourage or tolerate elected officials who vow not to compromise with the other party .
The inevitable result is stalemate .
This behavior was troubling enough in good times , but now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s utterly unacceptable .
As New York Rep. Tom Reed , Republican co-chairman of the Problem Solvers , said this week : “ We represent the voices of 50 million Americans screaming out to Congress , ‘ Do your job !
’ ” He ’ s right .
The Problem Solvers are showing the way to a bipartisan deal that can help families , save small businesses and keep Americans safe from COVID-19 .
It ’ s time for other members of Congress to join them .

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics.]
By Nancy Jacobson
Real Clear Politics
An extraordinary example of Congress’s partisan dysfunction has been playing out this summer. The Republican-led Senate and Democratic-led House have been pushing their own COVID-19 relief packages with virtually no consideration of whether they could actually become law. All this time, their constituents desperately needed help, and still do.
Millions of Americans face the loss of their apartments, cars, jobs, health insurance and more, thanks to the pandemic and the expiration of earlier federal relief (which included a $1,200-per-person check and enhanced unemployment benefits). A late-July article in the “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences” projected that 35 million small-business jobs would be lost if the pandemic lasts six months, which it already has. The Chamber of Commerce says more than half of all U.S. small businesses worry about having to close permanently.
So enacting a new relief package seemed like a political no-brainer. Yet, congressional leaders and conservative and liberal lawmakers once again stuck with their ideological fringes and refused to find a middle ground.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
On Sept. 10, The Washington Post reported that stalemated negotiations had left Republicans and Democrats “without a clear path forward to approve new economic stimulus before the November elections.” But then, on September 15, things changed, thanks to the bipartisan House Problem Solvers Caucus stepping up with a compromise $1.5 trillion proposal. It bridged the divide on many key issues, calling for $120 billion in unemployment aid, $316 billion in direct assistance to families and individuals, $100 billion for coronavirus testing and health care, and more.
“The Problem Solvers proposal could show the way,” The Washington Post editorialized. A New York Post editorial said, “In a crisis, statesmen find a way to compromise,” and it praised the Problem Solvers for seeking “to end the latest impasse over coronavirus relief” and “deliver the aid that both sides agree is needed.”
Perhaps you’re not familiar with the 50-member Problem Solvers Caucus. Comprising 25 Republicans and 25 Democrats, it has been active for years, often toiling to do the essential but thankless work of bipartisan governing. Sadly, political reporters, pundits and activists rarely find sexiness in no-nonsense, results-oriented work across party lines.
That’s unfortunate, because the political and mathematical reality in Congress is that nothing big can get done without bipartisan collaboration. Neither party can muster the supermajorities it would need to move legislation through the House and Senate alone.
Predictably, some political groups on the hard-left and hard-right condemned the Problem Solvers’ proposal for supposedly doing too much or not enough. But here is the reality. While many members of Congress spent this summer pushing partisan talking points about a COVID relief bill, the Problem Solvers were working to fashion what is, thus far, the only bipartisan compromise on the table.
And the Problem Solvers, to their credit, seem determined to press their leaders and not let their work go to waste. Rep. Kendra Horn (D-Okla.) called it “unacceptable that congressional leadership is not at the table when businesses are closing, Americans are out of work, and families need help.” Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.) said, “My conviction is to actually do my goddamn job and come up with a solution for the American people.”
Congress has always had its show horses, sprinting from one news camera to the next, and its workhorses, who try to sort out problems and find feasible solutions. Not terribly long ago, the workhorses generally came out on top. With some hiccups, to be sure, Congress did its basic chores of debating and passing budgets on time, maintaining the nation’s infrastructure, and keeping the government open even amid fierce debates over taxes and spending.
But this results-oriented approach has given way to ideologically driven agendas of the left and right. American voters (and non-voters) bear some blame, as too many encourage or tolerate elected officials who vow not to compromise with the other party. The inevitable result is stalemate. This behavior was troubling enough in good times, but now, amid a once-in-a-century pandemic, it’s utterly unacceptable.
As New York Rep. Tom Reed, Republican co-chairman of the Problem Solvers, said this week: “We represent the voices of 50 million Americans screaming out to Congress, ‘Do your job!’”
He’s right. The Problem Solvers are showing the way to a bipartisan deal that can help families, save small businesses and keep Americans safe from COVID-19. It’s time for other members of Congress to join them.


wnd--2020-09-23--Trump calls on U.N. to hold China accountable for coronavirus

In a pre-recorded speech delivered Tuesday to a virtual United Nations General Assembly , President Trump demanded the global body hold China accountable for the COVID-19 pandemic .
`` Seventy-five years after the end of World War II and the founding of the United Nations , we are once again engaged in a great global struggle , '' Trump said , referring to the battle against the `` invisible enemy , the China virus . ''
`` The United Nations must hold China accountable for their actions , '' he said .
TRENDING : 'Greater shakings ' : Jonathan Cahn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more WND reported a top Chinese virologist who has fled Hong Kong fearing for her life contends the Chinese Communist Party manufactured and intentionally released the virus that has led to massive economic shutdowns and more than 970,000 recorded deaths around the world .
Trump accused China of permitting infected people to leave the country during the early stage of the pandemic and lying about it , Politico reported .
The president said the World Health Organization contributed to the disinformation .
He did n't address Trump 's comments but stated that no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whatever it likes and be the hegemon , bully or boss of the world . ''
The Guardian 's Julian Borger said that comment was `` a bit rich given China 's military buildup in the South China Sea and its aggressive posture on the border with India , not to mention its mass incarceration of Muslims . ''
Trump touted the U.S.-brokered deals between Israel and two Arab nations , talks to end the Afghanistan War and an agreement between Serbia and Kosovo .
But he focused on the pandemic .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most aggressive mobilization , since the Second World War .
We rapidly produced a record supply of ventilators creating a surplus that allowed us to share them with friends and partners all around the globe .
We pioneered lifesaving treatments , reducing our fatality rate 85 percent since April , '' Trump said .
`` Thanks to our efforts , three vaccines are in the final stage of clinical trials .
We are mass producing them in advance so they can be delivered immediately upon arrival , '' Trump said .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will defeat the virus .
We will end the pandemic .
And we will enter a new era of unprecedented prosperity , cooperation , and peace . ''
He said that when the pandemic began , China locked down travel domestically while `` allowing flights to leave China – and infect the world . ''
`` The Chinese government and the World Health Organization , which is virtually controlled by China , falsely declared that there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission .
Later they falsely said people without symptoms would not spread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hold China accountable for their actions , '' he said .
The Washington Examiner reported Secretary of State Mike Pompeo confirmed there will be additional U.S. sanctions of China if Beijing allows arms sales to Iran .
`` We 're going to go after every violation that we can muster the resources to respond to , '' Pompeo told the Examiner .
`` That will be [ the case ] , whether it 's Chinese violations or violations from the Russians , arms or economic sales ; these U.N. Security Council resolutions are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the administration returned to the United Nations Security Council to restore earlier sanctions against Iran .
`` Having Chinese tanks , or Chinese air defense systems , or defensive missile systems in Iran , in the first instance threatens the people of Iran , in the second instance , threatens the people of the Middle East , and the next people who come under threat are the people who live in Europe , ” he told the Examiner .
`` The real exposure is to European national security from these missile systems @ @ @ @ @ @

In a pre-recorded speech delivered Tuesday to a virtual United Nations General Assembly, President Trump demanded the global body hold China accountable for the COVID-19 pandemic.
"Seventy-five years after the end of World War II and the founding of the United Nations, we are once again engaged in a great global struggle," Trump said, referring to the battle against the "invisible enemy, the China virus."
"The United Nations must hold China accountable for their actions," he said.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
WND reported a top Chinese virologist who has fled Hong Kong fearing for her life contends the Chinese Communist Party manufactured and intentionally released the virus that has led to massive economic shutdowns and more than 970,000 recorded deaths around the world.
Trump accused China of permitting infected people to leave the country during the early stage of the pandemic and lying about it, Politico reported.
The president said the World Health Organization contributed to the disinformation.
Chinese President Xi Jinping spoke shortly after Trump.
He didn't address Trump's comments but stated that no country should "be allowed to do whatever it likes and be the hegemon, bully or boss of the world."
The Guardian's Julian Borger said that comment was "a bit rich given China's military buildup in the South China Sea and its aggressive posture on the border with India, not to mention its mass incarceration of Muslims."
Trump touted the U.S.-brokered deals between Israel and two Arab nations, talks to end the Afghanistan War and an agreement between Serbia and Kosovo.
But he focused on the pandemic.
"In the United States, we launched the most aggressive mobilization, since the Second World War. We rapidly produced a record supply of ventilators creating a surplus that allowed us to share them with friends and partners all around the globe. We pioneered lifesaving treatments, reducing our fatality rate 85 percent since April," Trump said.
"Thanks to our efforts, three vaccines are in the final stage of clinical trials. We are mass producing them in advance so they can be delivered immediately upon arrival," Trump said. "We will distribute a vaccine. We will defeat the virus. We will end the pandemic. And we will enter a new era of unprecedented prosperity, cooperation, and peace."
He said that when the pandemic began, China locked down travel domestically while "allowing flights to leave China – and infect the world."
"The Chinese government and the World Health Organization, which is virtually controlled by China, falsely declared that there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission. Later they falsely said people without symptoms would not spread the disease. The United Nations must hold China accountable for their actions," he said.
The Washington Examiner reported Secretary of State Mike Pompeo confirmed there will be additional U.S. sanctions of China if Beijing allows arms sales to Iran.
"We're going to go after every violation that we can muster the resources to respond to," Pompeo told the Examiner. "That will be [the case], whether it's Chinese violations or violations from the Russians, arms or economic sales; these U.N. Security Council resolutions are serious business."
He mentioned sanctions as the administration returned to the United Nations Security Council to restore earlier sanctions against Iran.
"Having Chinese tanks, or Chinese air defense systems, or defensive missile systems in Iran, in the first instance threatens the people of Iran, in the second instance, threatens the people of the Middle East, and the next people who come under threat are the people who live in Europe,” he told the Examiner. "The real exposure is to European national security from these missile systems, air defense systems."


wnd--2020-09-22--Coronavirus deaths 75% lower in nations using hydroxychloroquine!

With media solemnly spotlighting the passing of the 200,000 mark in deaths attributed to COVID-19 in the United States , a physicians assocation has a question .
`` Why is the death rate about 75 percent lower in many countries ? ''
asked Dr. Jane Orient , executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons .
The reference is to a country-based analysis updated Sept. 20 that shows a gap between countries that treat COVID-19 early or prophylactically with hydroxychloroquine and those that , like the U.S. , discourage or prohibit its use .
The answer to Orient @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white paper published by the Economic Standard this month titled `` Hydroxychloroquine and the Burden of Proof : An Urgent Call to Depoliticize Medicine in the COVID-19 Pandemic . ''
TRENDING : 'Greater shakings ' : Jonathan Cahn foresaw 2020 trouble , warns of even more '' The COVID-19 pandemic struck America nine months before a presidential election , turning basic medical activities like testing and treatment into partisan battlegrounds , '' writes Economic Standard Editor-in-Chief Erik Sass in the overview .
`` No subject has been more distorted than hydroxychloroquine ( HCQ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that has treated hundreds of millions of people for numerous diseases for seven decades . ''
Sass notes the paper was written in close collaboration with practicing physicians and infectious disease specialists in the United States and around the world .
Most Americans became aware of the drug in March , when President Trump mentioned it during a press conference , saying it showed `` very , very encouraging early results '' and `` could be a game changer . ''
However , `` political opponents defied longstanding scientific and medical consensus to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a mortal danger to public health , '' Sass writes .
`` Flawed and even falsified studies were published and promoted by media outlets eager to discredit Trump , while positive studies were impugned or ignored . ''
`` This campaign persists even as evidence of HCQ ’ s benefit against COVID-19 grows – including scores of observational controlled trials showing therapeutic effect when administered early in disease progression . ''
The paper points out that hundreds of drugs have been approved for both indication-specific and general usage on the basis of similar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in large numbers and subject to careful meta-analysis . ''
`` The U.S. is an international outlier on HCQ , '' says Sass .
`` Right now , doctors around the world are prescribing HCQ to treat COVID-19 outside of hospitals , as well as prophylactically to prevent infection among healthcare workers and vulnerable populations . ''
The paper argues that hydroxychloroquine `` has met the appropriate burden of proof and urges members of the U.S. news media , public health community , and regulatory agencies to stop politicizing the use of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of lives still hang in the balance . ''
Some of the key lessons : • Flawed and even falsified studies were published and promoted by media outlets eager to discredit Trump , while positive studies were impugned or ignored .
• HCQ is commonly prescribed for at least 25 indications in addition to malaria .
• The drug 's prolongation of the QT interval is in the mid-range of 30 commonly used drugs .
• Hundreds of drugs have been approved without radomized controlled trials , including the tetanus vaccine , insulin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prednisone , Keflex and high-dose penicillin for neurosyphilis .
• Only 8.5 % of the American Heart Association 's guidelines are supported by ramdomized controlled trials .

With media solemnly spotlighting the passing of the 200,000 mark in deaths attributed to COVID-19 in the United States, a physicians assocation has a question.
"Why is the death rate about 75 percent lower in many countries?" asked Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.
The reference is to a country-based analysis updated Sept. 20 that shows a gap between countries that treat COVID-19 early or prophylactically with hydroxychloroquine and those that, like the U.S., discourage or prohibit its use.
The answer to Orient's question can be found in a white paper published by the Economic Standard this month titled "Hydroxychloroquine and the Burden of Proof: An Urgent Call to Depoliticize Medicine in the COVID-19 Pandemic."
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
"The COVID-19 pandemic struck America nine months before a presidential election, turning basic medical activities like testing and treatment into partisan battlegrounds," writes Economic Standard Editor-in-Chief Erik Sass in the overview. "No subject has been more distorted than hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), a safe, versatile medicine that has treated hundreds of millions of people for numerous diseases for seven decades."
Sass notes the paper was written in close collaboration with practicing physicians and infectious disease specialists in the United States and around the world.
Most Americans became aware of the drug in March, when President Trump mentioned it during a press conference, saying it showed "very, very encouraging early results" and "could be a game changer."
Should hydroxychloroquine be used to help battle coronavirus? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 99% (946 Votes) 1% (9 Votes)
However, "political opponents defied longstanding scientific and medical consensus to portray HCQ as harmful and Trump as a mortal danger to public health," Sass writes. "Flawed and even falsified studies were published and promoted by media outlets eager to discredit Trump, while positive studies were impugned or ignored."
"This campaign persists even as evidence of HCQ’s benefit against COVID-19 grows – including scores of observational controlled trials showing therapeutic effect when administered early in disease progression."
The paper points out that hundreds of drugs have been approved for both indication-specific and general usage on the basis of similar observational trials, "especially when conducted in large numbers and subject to careful meta-analysis."
"The U.S. is an international outlier on HCQ," says Sass. "Right now, doctors around the world are prescribing HCQ to treat COVID-19 outside of hospitals, as well as prophylactically to prevent infection among healthcare workers and vulnerable populations."
The paper argues that hydroxychloroquine "has met the appropriate burden of proof and urges members of the U.S. news media, public health community, and regulatory agencies to stop politicizing the use of this medicine."
"Tens of thousands of lives still hang in the balance."
Some of the key lessons: