wnd--2020-07-01--State GOP calls on 'racist' Democratic Party to change name

Amid the frenzied movement to remove historic symbols of racism and oppression , the Connecticut Republican Party is calling on its chief rival to get rid of the name `` Democratic Party , '' citing in a resolution `` the hundreds of years of racial oppression , violence , and multiple violations of human rights . ''
`` We believe it is vital that every citizen know the truth about the so-called party of inclusion and acceptance , '' said the state GOP Chairman J.R. Romano in a press release reported by Breitbart News .
Roman argued that if Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 500 years years later , `` it is our duty and moral obligation to hold the Democratic Party accountable . ''
He pointed out that a recently as 1977 , the party 's presumptive presidential nominee , Joe Biden , sought the support of segregationists .
TRENDING : Remember the 'racist ' Land O'Lakes logo leftists got removed ?
Turns out it was drawn by a Native American And Biden recently stated in an interview that black people who wo n't vote for him `` ai n't black . ''
`` Statements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of political cartoons like 'Of Course He wants to vote Democrat Ticket , ' '' Romano said .
Connecticut Republicans , the resolution states , `` deem it necessary that the Democratic Party change its name due to the Party 's long tragic legacy denying Americans basic human rights . ''
• Democrats blocked the first attempt to ratify the 13th Amendment in 1863 • Democrats unanimously voted against the 14th Amendment giving former slaves citizenship • Democrats unanimously voted against the 15th Amendment giving former slaves the right to vote • Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states , preventing African Americans the right to vote .
• Democrats held the longest filibuster in U.S. Senate history to block the civil rights act 1957 Romano noted that Democrats `` around the country have been stripping buildings , monuments , and pictures from government halls , yet the atrocities rest with the Democratic Party as a whole . ''
`` To kill the serpent you need to strike at the head , '' he said .
Carol Swain , a professor of political science at Vanderbilt , recounted the `` inconvenient @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a video for Prager U .
She also noted the Republican Party was founded in 1854 as an anti-slavery party .
Its initial aim was to stop the spread of slavery to the Western territories then abolish slavery entirely .
Notably , Swain said , in the 1857 Dred Scott Supreme Court case that declared slaves to be property and not citizens , the seven justices in favor were Democrats while the two who opposed the ruling were Republicans .

Amid the frenzied movement to remove historic symbols of racism and oppression, the Connecticut Republican Party is calling on its chief rival to get rid of the name "Democratic Party," citing in a resolution "the hundreds of years of racial oppression, violence, and multiple violations of human rights."
"We believe it is vital that every citizen know the truth about the so-called party of inclusion and acceptance," said the state GOP Chairman J.R. Romano in a press release reported by Breitbart News.
Roman argued that if Democrats want to hold Christopher Columbus accountable more than 500 years years later, "it is our duty and moral obligation to hold the Democratic Party accountable."
He pointed out that a recently as 1977, the party's presumptive presidential nominee, Joe Biden, sought the support of segregationists.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
And Biden recently stated in an interview that black people who won't vote for him "ain't black."
"Statements like this bring back the ugly imaginary of political cartoons like 'Of Course He wants to vote Democrat Ticket,'" Romano said.
Connecticut Republicans, the resolution states, "deem it necessary that the Democratic Party change its name due to the Party's long tragic legacy denying Americans basic human rights."
The statement recalls:
Are racial oppression and violence embedded in the history of the Democratic Party? 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. 100% (460 Votes) 0% (2 Votes)
Democrats blocked the first attempt to ratify the 13th Amendment in 1863
Democrats unanimously voted against the 14th Amendment giving former slaves citizenship
Democrats unanimously voted against the 15th Amendment giving former slaves the right to vote
Democrats instituted Jim Crow laws across Democrat led states, preventing African Americans the right to vote.
Democrats held the longest filibuster in U.S. Senate history to block the civil rights act 1957
Romano noted that Democrats "around the country have been stripping buildings, monuments, and pictures from government halls, yet the atrocities rest with the Democratic Party as a whole."
"To kill the serpent you need to strike at the head," he said.
Carol Swain, a professor of political science at Vanderbilt, recounted the "inconvenient truth about the Democratic Party" in a video for Prager U.
She also noted the Republican Party was founded in 1854 as an anti-slavery party. Its initial aim was to stop the spread of slavery to the Western territories then abolish slavery entirely.
Notably, Swain said, in the 1857 Dred Scott Supreme Court case that declared slaves to be property and not citizens, the seven justices in favor were Democrats while the two who opposed the ruling were Republicans.
See Carol Swain's presentation for Prager U:


wnd--2020-06-30--Is America a 'failed' experiment?

Is America a 'failed' experiment?

The barbarians are at the gates .
Actually , the barbarians are inside the gates and on the streets .
They are tearing down statues left and right .
As we celebrate our national birthday this week , the Fourth of July , it does n't feel like a celebration .
Harvard professor Dr. Cornel West says that America is basically a failure .
After the death of George Floyd at the hands of a Minneapolis policeman , West noted , `` I think we are witnessing America as a failed social experiment .
… What I mean by that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for over 200 and some years in America has been looking at America 's failure , its capitalist economy could not generate and deliver in such a way people can live lives of decency .
The nation-state , it 's criminal justice system , it 's legal system could not generate protection of rights and liberties . ''
So , is America a `` failed social experiment '' ?
Martin Luther King made a great point : America has not lived up to its creed , that all men are created equal ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Declaration of Independence ) .
But the creed itself is good .
Dr. King 's work was based on a godly foundation .
Take away God , and America will crumble , for everyone , black or white .
No God , no rights .
TRENDING : Remember the 'racist ' Land O'Lakes logo leftists got removed ?
Turns out it was drawn by a Native American Kelly Shackelford , the founder/director of First Liberty Institute , which fights for religious liberty , says : `` If you lose religious freedom , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' When you wipe away the foundation of God , you remove human rights with it .
I am positive that neither you nor I nor professor West would want to live in some future `` utopia '' where God-given rights no longer prevail .
If you doubt that , look to the fate of millions in Marxist countries that have falsely promised foundationless `` equality . ''
Imagine living in fear all the time of the notorious knock on the door at night .
For all its faults and shortcomings , America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rule of law ( based ultimately on `` the laws of nature and of nature 's God , '' i.e.
, natural law ) , • the consent of the governed .
One of the signers of the Declaration of Independence , the document we celebrate each Fourth of July , was James Wilson of Pennsylvania .
He also signed the Constitution and was a Supreme Court justice , appointed by George Washington .
Wilson put America in the context of world history , stating , `` After a period of 6,000 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States exhibited to the world the first instance … of a nation … assembling voluntarily … and deciding calmly concerning that system of government under which they … and their posterity should live . ''
Shamefully , blacks and Native Americans were not initially included in that system .
But the founders set the framework so that they could be included one day , and it was that framework to which Dr. King and the civil rights movement successfully and movingly appealed .
Ronald Reagan observed that ours was `` the greatest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world 's history .
… Every other revolution simply exchanged one set of rulers for another .
But here for the first time in all the thousands of years of man 's relation to man , a little group of the men , the Founding Fathers – for the first time – established the idea that you and I had within ourselves the God-given right and ability to determine our own destiny . ''
We are not perfect , but there is lot to celebrate on the Fourth of July .
Radical rhetoric @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more freedom and prosperity for more people – regardless of skin color .
Dr. Walter Williams , economics professor at George Mason University , says we should remember the great improvements America has made , even in in the lives of African Americans .
He told me in a recent interview : `` In 1865 , neither a slave nor a slave owner would 've believed that kind of progress was possible in just a little over a century .
… That kind of achievement could not have been achieved anywhere on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States of America . ''
Adding the caveat `` we still have a long way to go , '' Williams concludes that that America has a uniquely high level of potential for upward mobility : `` Just because you know where a person ended up in life , you ca n't be sure about where he started .
That is , there is so much mobility , economic mobility in our country that … some of the nation 's richest people started at middle class or either poor , and they just moved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not true anywhere else in the world except the United States . ''
God-given liberty makes the pursuit of happiness a real possibility .
And that possibility exists for people of all backgrounds in America , which , despite all its flaws , is not a failed experiment .
In contrast , the Marxist experiments have failed everywhere , every time …spectacularly .
So happy birthday , America .

The barbarians are at the gates. Actually, the barbarians are inside the gates and on the streets. They are tearing down statues left and right.
As we celebrate our national birthday this week, the Fourth of July, it doesn't feel like a celebration.
Harvard professor Dr. Cornel West says that America is basically a failure. After the death of George Floyd at the hands of a Minneapolis policeman, West noted, "I think we are witnessing America as a failed social experiment. … What I mean by that is that the history of black people for over 200 and some years in America has been looking at America's failure, its capitalist economy could not generate and deliver in such a way people can live lives of decency. The nation-state, it's criminal justice system, it's legal system could not generate protection of rights and liberties."
So, is America a "failed social experiment"? Martin Luther King made a great point: America has not lived up to its creed, that all men are created equal (perhaps the single most important statement in the Declaration of Independence). But the creed itself is good.
Dr. King's work was based on a godly foundation. Take away God, and America will crumble, for everyone, black or white. No God, no rights.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Kelly Shackelford, the founder/director of First Liberty Institute, which fights for religious liberty, says: "If you lose religious freedom, you'll lose all your freedoms."
When you wipe away the foundation of God, you remove human rights with it. I am positive that neither you nor I nor professor West would want to live in some future "utopia" where God-given rights no longer prevail. If you doubt that, look to the fate of millions in Marxist countries that have falsely promised foundationless "equality." Imagine living in fear all the time of the notorious knock on the door at night.
For all its faults and shortcomings, America stands for three things:
One nation under God,
the rule of law (based ultimately on "the laws of nature and of nature's God," i.e., natural law),
the consent of the governed.
One of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, the document we celebrate each Fourth of July, was James Wilson of Pennsylvania. He also signed the Constitution and was a Supreme Court justice, appointed by George Washington.
Wilson put America in the context of world history, stating, "After a period of 6,000 years has elapsed since the creation, the United States exhibited to the world the first instance … of a nation … assembling voluntarily … and deciding calmly concerning that system of government under which they … and their posterity should live."
Shamefully, blacks and Native Americans were not initially included in that system. But the founders set the framework so that they could be included one day, and it was that framework to which Dr. King and the civil rights movement successfully and movingly appealed.
Ronald Reagan observed that ours was "the greatest revolution that has ever taken place in world's history. … Every other revolution simply exchanged one set of rulers for another. But here for the first time in all the thousands of years of man's relation to man, a little group of the men, the Founding Fathers – for the first time – established the idea that you and I had within ourselves the God-given right and ability to determine our own destiny."
We are not perfect, but there is lot to celebrate on the Fourth of July. Radical rhetoric aside, no nation has ever provided more freedom and prosperity for more people – regardless of skin color.
Dr. Walter Williams, economics professor at George Mason University, says we should remember the great improvements America has made, even in in the lives of African Americans. He told me in a recent interview: "In 1865, neither a slave nor a slave owner would've believed that kind of progress was possible in just a little over a century. … That kind of achievement could not have been achieved anywhere on the face of this earth except in United States of America."
Adding the caveat "we still have a long way to go," Williams concludes that that America has a uniquely high level of potential for upward mobility: "Just because you know where a person ended up in life, you can't be sure about where he started. That is, there is so much mobility, economic mobility in our country that … some of the nation's richest people started at middle class or either poor, and they just moved up the economic ladder. That's not true anywhere else in the world except the United States."
God-given liberty makes the pursuit of happiness a real possibility. And that possibility exists for people of all backgrounds in America, which, despite all its flaws, is not a failed experiment. In contrast, the Marxist experiments have failed everywhere, every time …spectacularly. So happy birthday, America.


wnd--2020-06-30--Black sportscaster launches into Black Lives Matter

Discussing a report that the NBA plans to paint `` Black Lives Matter '' on courts and allow social justice messages on jerseys , a black co-host for a Fox Sports 1 show cautioned the league to make room for contrary opinions .
`` I respect your space , I respect what you 're protesting for , '' said Marecellus Wiley , co-host of `` Speak for Yourself . ''
`` But will you respect others who do n't support that same protest ? ''
Wiley explained that there 's a free-speech component to embracing a particular message , wondering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for people who disagree with the objectives of the organization Black Lives Matter .
TRENDING : Remember the 'racist ' Land O'Lakes logo leftists got removed ?
Turns out it was drawn by a Native American He warned that identity politics `` divides and polarizes . ''
Wiley , 45 , wondered how many people have taken the time to examine the mission statement of Black Lives Matters .
He objected to BLM 's aim of eradicating father-led , nuclear families and `` white supremacy . ''
`` I 'm a black man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has mattered since 1974 , '' he said , noting BLM was founded only in 2013 .
`` I 'm proud of you , but I 've been fighting this fight for me and for others a lot longer , '' he said .
Wiley emphasized the importance of the family he grew up in and `` the one I 'm trying to create right now . ''
His mission in life is to be a husband and a father , he said , which is why he ca n't reconcile that with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patriarchal practice '' and `` disrupt the Western-prescribe nuclear family requirement . ''
Wiley cited statistics showing the failure of people who grow up in a single-parent home versus a two-parent home , confirming that failure was reflected in his friends .
He challenged the claim that `` white supremacy '' is a major problem in 2020 , pointing out that he is on a TV show on a major network hosted by two black men .
`` And that 's just one example , '' Wiley said .
A graduate of Columbia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the NFL for four teams .
In a January 2019 interview with WBUR in Boston , he talked about growing up in Compton and South Central Los Angeles in the 1980s .
`` Before it became a song or an album — or before it became a movie — it was just life or death , '' Wiley said of Compton .
`` I had uncles who used to be gang members , and I saw how they were respected and feared in the streets .
But then I saw them come in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tears .
And I saw the weakness , '' he said .
`` They did n't know how this was going to end .
And , unfortunately , two were murdered , and one committed suicide . ''

Discussing a report that the NBA plans to paint "Black Lives Matter" on courts and allow social justice messages on jerseys, a black co-host for a Fox Sports 1 show cautioned the league to make room for contrary opinions.
"I respect your space, I respect what you're protesting for," said Marecellus Wiley, co-host of "Speak for Yourself."
"But will you respect others who don't support that same protest?"
Wiley explained that there's a free-speech component to embracing a particular message, wondering how much "space" is allowed for people who disagree with the objectives of the organization Black Lives Matter.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
He warned that identity politics "divides and polarizes."
Wiley, 45, wondered how many people have taken the time to examine the mission statement of Black Lives Matters.
He objected to BLM's aim of eradicating father-led, nuclear families and "white supremacy."
"I'm a black man, whose been black and my life has mattered since 1974," he said, noting BLM was founded only in 2013.
Is Black Lives Matter helping the plight of black Americans? 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. 1% (9 Votes) 99% (692 Votes)
"I'm proud of you, but I've been fighting this fight for me and for others a lot longer," he said.
Wiley emphasized the importance of the family he grew up in and "the one I'm trying to create right now."
His mission in life is to be a husband and a father, he said, which is why he can't reconcile that with BLM's objective to "dismantle the patriarchal practice" and "disrupt the Western-prescribe nuclear family requirement."
Wiley cited statistics showing the failure of people who grow up in a single-parent home versus a two-parent home, confirming that failure was reflected in his friends.
He challenged the claim that "white supremacy" is a major problem in 2020, pointing out that he is on a TV show on a major network hosted by two black men.
"And that's just one example," Wiley said.
A graduate of Columbia University, Wiley played 10 seasons in the NFL for four teams.
In a January 2019 interview with WBUR in Boston, he talked about growing up in Compton and South Central Los Angeles in the 1980s.
"Before it became a song or an album — or before it became a movie — it was just life or death," Wiley said of Compton.
"I had uncles who used to be gang members, and I saw how they were respected and feared in the streets. But then I saw them come in the house. And I saw the tears. And I saw the weakness," he said.
"They didn't know how this was going to end. And, unfortunately, two were murdered, and one committed suicide."
See the Fox Sports 1 segment:


wnd--2020-06-30--Democratic politicking kills police reform, sustains union power

With all the hot rhetoric about race and police , we would hope that we would be having a sober , serious national discussion on the issue that would shine light , understanding and answers .
But , unfortunately , light and understanding are not what drives Democrats .
And thanks to Democrats , we wo n't see any federal legislation this year dealing with policing .
The Democratic-controlled House passed a bill – the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act – that has no prayer of passing in the Republican-controlled Senate .
The Republican bill sponsored by South Carolina @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Act – was killed by Senate Democrats .
TRENDING : Remember the 'racist ' Land O'Lakes logo leftists got removed ?
Turns out it was drawn by a Native American Sens .
Corey Booker and Kamala Harris write disingenuously in Rolling Stone magazine that the bill was `` voted down . ''
This is false .
The bill was never heard or debated .
It was not `` voted down '' but procedurally blocked by Democrats so it never saw the light of day .
There was enough common ground between the Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and amendments that could have led to legislation being sent to the president .
But politics is more important to Democrats than solving problems , and in this topsy-turvy election year , they did not want any Republican to get credit for weighing in on policing , certainly not a black Republican like Tim Scott .
Booker and Harris write that their bill will `` begin to address and root out deadly systematic bias – and , yes , racism – in policing . ''
Is there `` deadly systematic bias '' resulting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the killing of Black Americans at the hands of law enforcement … again , and again , and again '' ?
Harvard economist Roland G. Fryer Jr. , who happens to be African American , has studied the issue .
He summarized his work and conclusions recently in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece .
`` No matter how we analyzed the data , '' he continues , `` we found no racial differences in shootings overall , in any city in particular , or in any subset of the data . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a shooting might be justified by department standards , are police more likely actually to shoot if the civilian is black ?
… The answer appears to be no . ''
What about nonlethal force ?
Here Fryer does find racial disparities .
According to his work , `` blacks were still significantly more likely to endure police force . ''
Fryer cites other academic studies that draw the same conclusions .
If there is anything systemic going on , it is Democrats systemically misrepresenting the nature of our problem regarding race and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misrepresent the problem ; they misrepresent the solution .
Booker , Harris and other Democratic leaders have criticized Sen. Scott 's bill for not going far enough .
They pretend to go beyond the `` middle ground '' to aggressively make `` real change , '' while , in actuality , they expand federal controls that could actually hamper effective policing .
At the same time , they ignore where a major part of the problem lies .
That is in local governments ' negotiations with police unions .
According to the Wall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ require or permit collective bargaining for police . ''
They cite a Duke Law Journal study that concluded , `` lack of corrective action in cases of systemic officer misconduct is , in part , a consequence of public-employee labor law . ''
`` Derek Chauvin , the officer charged with killing George Floyd , had at least 17 misconduct complaints against him in 18 years , '' the Journal writes .
The officer who stood by and watched had been sued for excessive use of force and settled for $ 25,000 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public they are supposed to serve .
Police unions enable and protect the very behavior we want to stop .
Sure , it 's time for answers and actions .
But there can be neither without honesty .
And , unfortunately , Democrats ' lust for power far exceeds their interest in pursuing honest solutions to our problems .

With all the hot rhetoric about race and police, we would hope that we would be having a sober, serious national discussion on the issue that would shine light, understanding and answers.
But, unfortunately, light and understanding are not what drives Democrats.
And thanks to Democrats, we won't see any federal legislation this year dealing with policing.
The Democratic-controlled House passed a bill – the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act – that has no prayer of passing in the Republican-controlled Senate.
The Republican bill sponsored by South Carolina Republican Sen. Tim Scott – the Justice Act – was killed by Senate Democrats.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Sens. Corey Booker and Kamala Harris write disingenuously in Rolling Stone magazine that the bill was "voted down." This is false. The bill was never heard or debated. It was not "voted down" but procedurally blocked by Democrats so it never saw the light of day.
There was enough common ground between the Republican and Democratic efforts to allow for debate and amendments that could have led to legislation being sent to the president.
But politics is more important to Democrats than solving problems, and in this topsy-turvy election year, they did not want any Republican to get credit for weighing in on policing, certainly not a black Republican like Tim Scott.
It gets worse.
Booker and Harris write that their bill will "begin to address and root out deadly systematic bias – and, yes, racism – in policing."
Is there "deadly systematic bias" resulting, in their words, in "the killing of Black Americans at the hands of law enforcement … again, and again, and again"?
Harvard economist Roland G. Fryer Jr., who happens to be African American, has studied the issue.
He summarized his work and conclusions recently in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece.
"We didn't find racial differences in officer-involved shootings," writes Fryer.
"No matter how we analyzed the data," he continues, "we found no racial differences in shootings overall, in any city in particular, or in any subset of the data."
He sums up saying: "When a shooting might be justified by department standards, are police more likely actually to shoot if the civilian is black? … The answer appears to be no."
What about nonlethal force? Here Fryer does find racial disparities. According to his work, "blacks were still significantly more likely to endure police force."
Fryer cites other academic studies that draw the same conclusions.
If there is anything systemic going on, it is Democrats systemically misrepresenting the nature of our problem regarding race and police behavior.
Not only do Democrats misrepresent the problem; they misrepresent the solution.
Booker, Harris and other Democratic leaders have criticized Sen. Scott's bill for not going far enough. They pretend to go beyond the "middle ground" to aggressively make "real change," while, in actuality, they expand federal controls that could actually hamper effective policing. At the same time, they ignore where a major part of the problem lies.
That is in local governments' negotiations with police unions.
According to the Wall Street Journal, "Some 40 states require or permit collective bargaining for police." They cite a Duke Law Journal study that concluded, "lack of corrective action in cases of systemic officer misconduct is, in part, a consequence of public-employee labor law."
"Derek Chauvin, the officer charged with killing George Floyd, had at least 17 misconduct complaints against him in 18 years," the Journal writes. The officer who stood by and watched had been sued for excessive use of force and settled for $25,000.
Public employee unions shield public servants from the public they are supposed to serve. Police unions enable and protect the very behavior we want to stop.
Maybe disproportionate union contributions to Democrats conveniently produce a blind eye.
Sure, it's time for answers and actions. But there can be neither without honesty. And, unfortunately, Democrats' lust for power far exceeds their interest in pursuing honest solutions to our problems.


wnd--2020-07-02--Republicans told to unite behind Trump or face 'radicalized future'

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics . ]
It ’ s time for all Republican lawmakers to unite behind President Trump unequivocally , especially as it is clearer than ever that the radical left poses an existential threat to our society that can only be defeated by a unified political movement this November .
While most establishment politicians get nervous around big elections , Donald Trump is not the type of leader who will compromise on his principles because of opinion polls and focus groups .
For the past 3 ½ years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can to empower American workers — and that is exactly what he will continue doing for four more years .
The upcoming election is even more important than the historic 2016 campaign — this is a moment in history when we must all unite behind our courageous president or face the catastrophic consequences of a Washington controlled by radical socialists running a new “ cultural revolution.
” The left is calling to “ unify ” as well .
However , having seen the slow evolution of the left ’ s planning and implementation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , higher education , and even seminary training , its unity call is ephemeral and elusive .
It is close to nihilism , but it is not .
It has content .
The left ’ s ideology is consistently aimed at destroying the Judeo-Christian West .
No religion , philosophy , or system of ethics is supported by the left .
It does not even call on the authority of Martin Luther King Jr. , who unified conservatives and liberals based on our shared theological truth .
“ Let us not wallow in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to you today , my friends .
And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow , I still have a dream , ” MLK famously said .
“ It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream .
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed : ‘ We hold these truths to be self-evident , that all men are created equal.
’ '' MLK of course had a Ph.D. in theology , and he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ words that would indeed bring us all together .
God was his ultimate foundation .
He built in hard times and his foundation still stands — but it is under attack .
In the space of just a few short years , the Democrat Party has shifted further to the left than ever before , desperate to replace President Trump ’ s common-sense policies with a radical ideological agenda that would bankrupt taxpayers , dismantle the economy , and erode individual liberties .
To make matters worse , many Democrats have openly embraced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conflicts in cities across America , in some cases even refusing to protect their own constituents .
Some prominent Democrats , including Reps. Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , have even embraced the radical demand to defund police departments — an idea so radical that the Democratic Party billionaire establishment class opposes .
But these elites were too late in getting to The New York Times , CNN , and MSNBC before those outlets made it clear they were fully on board and sufficiently woke .
Even former President Obama recently admitted that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left in recent years , observing that the progressive platform he himself campaigned on would be out of place in the contemporary Democrat Party .
“ [ I ] f I were running today , I wouldn ’ t run the same race , or have the same platform as I did in 2008 , ” Obama said in April , adding that “ Joe [ Biden ] already has what is the most progressive platform of any major party nominee in history.
” As the Democrats have shifted to the left , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many of the moderate voters who once supported them , particularly blue-collar workers whose interests are directly threatened by the big-government , pro-China , billionaire agenda offered by politicians such as Biden .
The resulting civil war between those who want to bring the party back to its roots and those who demand radical change is threatening to tear the liberal electoral coalition apart at the seams .
Luckily , Republican voters are already unified behind the president to an unprecedented degree — poll after poll shows that a vast majority of GOP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election .
“ Wow !
96 % Approval Rating in the Republican Party ( and I believe this was before the “ GREAT ” Jobs Numbers yesterday ) .
Thank you !
” President Trump tweeted in early June .
The reason there ’ s so much unity among Republican voters is obvious — President Trump has delivered on the promises he made in 2016 , uplifting Americans who had previously been abandoned by their own representatives in Washington .
He continues to stand with those formerly forgotten Americans today .
Unfortunately , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the president ’ s style and are not as determined as he is to fight the radical left each and every day .
The left is currently taking real estate in Seattle , the University of Chicago , and Kentucky .
The conservative movement is putting out white papers that theoretically show the left has contradicted itself .
Well , DUH !
China is leading a cultural revolution at home and abroad .
It has separated its own people from free speech , religion , family , history , and their own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left ’ s messaging here , which seeks to accomplish the same .
There ’ s no time for equivocation .
We need all hands on deck because Donald Trump is the only force that stands between limited government , small business , and the protection of our individual liberties and a radical shift to the left with high taxes , more regulations , and the end of MLK ’ s dream with their assault on our God-given freedoms .
This may in fact be our last chance to save this great republic @

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics.]
By Dave Brat
Real Clear Politics
It’s time for all Republican lawmakers to unite behind President Trump unequivocally, especially as it is clearer than ever that the radical left poses an existential threat to our society that can only be defeated by a unified political movement this November.
While most establishment politicians get nervous around big elections, Donald Trump is not the type of leader who will compromise on his principles because of opinion polls and focus groups. For the past 3 ½ years, this president has done everything he can to empower American workers — and that is exactly what he will continue doing for four more years.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
The upcoming election is even more important than the historic 2016 campaign — this is a moment in history when we must all unite behind our courageous president or face the catastrophic consequences of a Washington controlled by radical socialists running a new “cultural revolution.”
The left is calling to “unify” as well. However, having seen the slow evolution of the left’s planning and implementation of its ideology in the K-12 system, higher education, and even seminary training, its unity call is ephemeral and elusive. It is close to nihilism, but it is not. It has content. The left’s ideology is consistently aimed at destroying the Judeo-Christian West. No religion, philosophy, or system of ethics is supported by the left. It does not even call on the authority of Martin Luther King Jr., who unified conservatives and liberals based on our shared theological truth.
“Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends. And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream,” MLK famously said. “It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’"
MLK of course had a Ph.D. in theology, and he studied and believed and thundered down the words that would indeed bring us all together. God was his ultimate foundation. He built in hard times and his foundation still stands — but it is under attack.
In the space of just a few short years, the Democrat Party has shifted further to the left than ever before, desperate to replace President Trump’s common-sense policies with a radical ideological agenda that would bankrupt taxpayers, dismantle the economy, and erode individual liberties. To make matters worse, many Democrats have openly embraced the recent riots and looting and armed conflicts in cities across America, in some cases even refusing to protect their own constituents.
Some prominent Democrats, including Reps. Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have even embraced the radical demand to defund police departments — an idea so radical that the Democratic Party billionaire establishment class opposes. But these elites were too late in getting to The New York Times, CNN, and MSNBC before those outlets made it clear they were fully on board and sufficiently woke.
Even former President Obama recently admitted that the political landscape has tilted to the left in recent years, observing that the progressive platform he himself campaigned on would be out of place in the contemporary Democrat Party.
“[I]f I were running today, I wouldn’t run the same race, or have the same platform as I did in 2008,” Obama said in April, adding that “Joe [Biden] already has what is the most progressive platform of any major party nominee in history.”
As the Democrats have shifted to the left, of course, they’ve alienated many of the moderate voters who once supported them, particularly blue-collar workers whose interests are directly threatened by the big-government, pro-China, billionaire agenda offered by politicians such as Biden. The resulting civil war between those who want to bring the party back to its roots and those who demand radical change is threatening to tear the liberal electoral coalition apart at the seams.
Luckily, Republican voters are already unified behind the president to an unprecedented degree — poll after poll shows that a vast majority of GOP voters back Donald Trump in the upcoming election.
“Wow! 96% Approval Rating in the Republican Party (and I believe this was before the “GREAT” Jobs Numbers yesterday). Thank you!” President Trump tweeted in early June.
The reason there’s so much unity among Republican voters is obvious — President Trump has delivered on the promises he made in 2016, uplifting Americans who had previously been abandoned by their own representatives in Washington. He continues to stand with those formerly forgotten Americans today.
Unfortunately, some Republicans on Capitol Hill are unnerved by the president’s style and are not as determined as he is to fight the radical left each and every day. The left is currently taking real estate in Seattle, the University of Chicago, and Kentucky. The conservative movement is putting out white papers that theoretically show the left has contradicted itself. Well, DUH! China is leading a cultural revolution at home and abroad. It has separated its own people from free speech, religion, family, history, and their own culture. It is happy with the left’s messaging here, which seeks to accomplish the same.
There’s no time for equivocation. We need all hands on deck because Donald Trump is the only force that stands between limited government, small business, and the protection of our individual liberties and a radical shift to the left with high taxes, more regulations, and the end of MLK’s dream with their assault on our God-given freedoms. This may in fact be our last chance to save this great republic.


wnd--2020-07-02--ACLU sues to insist accused students be found guilty

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics . ]
The American Civil Liberties Union has been deservedly criticized for its May 14 lawsuit indirectly attacking the civil liberties of students accused of sexual assault , who have since 2011 been subjected to grotesquely unfair campus proceedings that effectively presume their guilt .
It ’ s true , as the ACLU claims -- after years of shameful silence during the Obama administration campaign to force ( all too willing ) universities to rig their processes against accused males – that its lawsuit against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attack all of the procedural-fairness reforms in its recently adopted Title IX rules .
But the lawsuit does insist that accused students be found guilty even if the evidence of innocence is almost as strong as the evidence of guilt .
It also argues for a far more sweeping definition of sexual harassment than the one in the DeVos regulations ( which parallels the definition adopted by the Supreme Court ) .
And its central legal theory — that it was illegal for the Education Department to make the rules for universities processing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less accuser-friendly than those for race-based , national origin-based , and disability-based harassment and assault — would logically lead to invalidation of all of the new rules .
Other writers have detailed the above points and criticized three other legal challenges so far to the new regulations filed by a total of 19 Democratic state attorneys general , along with the National Women ’ s Law Center , which are even more sweeping than the ACLU ’ s lawsuit .
The ACLU filed its complaint on behalf of four organizations : Know Your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Advocates Inc. , Girls for Gender Equity , and Stop Sexual Assault in Schools .
The latter three groups have played a minimal , or nonexistent , role in the contentious debate about due process and campus sexual assault .
Know Your IX , however , was dubbed the “ death star ” by one lawyer who frequently represents accused students .
As such , it represents an odd partner to a civil liberties organization .
Know Your IX was co-founded by Amherst graduate Dana Bolger and Yale graduate Alexandra Brodsky .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of which could be deemed a hotbed of men ’ s rights activism , had mishandled their claims of sexual assault . )
The group was one of several active during the Obama years arguing that campus Title IX procedures — which routinely denied accused students basic rights , such as access to evidence or cross-examination — were actually biased against accusers .
Nearly 600 lawsuits from accused students -- generating more than 170 favorable rulings in court , and more than 100 pre-decision settlements -- exposed the folly of this portrayal of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , most of the Obama-era organizations have fallen by the wayside .
Know Your IX , however , soldiers on , funded by Advocates for Youth , with a staff of nearly 20 .
None of its current employees identify as male .
The Know Your IX website proclaims that “ sexual and dating violence are manifestations of systemic gender oppression , which can not be separated from all other forms of oppression , including but not limited to imperialism , racism , classism , homophobia , transphobia , and ableism.
” Its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the latest trends in intersectionality-based talking points .
While linking Title IX tribunals to imperialism seems like a stretch , misogyny remains a powerful force in American society .
But the data makes university undergraduate populations — the focus of Know Your IX ’ s efforts — an unusual example for demonstrating “ systemic gender oppression.
” Women comprise about 56 % of student bodies .
Many universities feature female-only scholarships , programs , student and faculty awards , STEM camps , gym hours , and other opportunities that are off-limits to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might not , be welcome programs , but their existence surely cuts against a “ systemic gender oppression ” interpretation of college life . )
And while any amount of sexual violence on campus is deplorable , the most comprehensive data suggests that about one in 40 women is sexually assaulted in college , not the one in five suggested by various dubious surveys .
To co-founder Bolger , however , male students are inherently dangerous .
In 2015 , she told Yahoo News that the four Vanderbilt football players who collaborated in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s passed-out girlfriend were typical of male undergraduates , “ particularly [ at ] ‘ elite ’ institutions.
” She also stereotyped male students as having “ a certain arrogance and entitlement , whether to a desired grade in a classroom , or to women ’ s bodies.
” At the same time , Bolger portrayed the Title IX process as designed , at least in part , to achieve the “ justice ” that criminal trials deny in rape cases .
During her time helming Know Your IX , she maintained that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ survivors ” because “ police disbelieve victims ” and “ juries buy into the rape myths that saturate our society and acquit perpetrators.
” But if the Title IX system substitutes for the criminal justice system , any argument against meaningful procedural protections for the accused is unsustainable .
For the most part , the organization has downplayed such extreme rhetoric .
Showing a political savvy that other accusers ’ rights activists lacked , Know Your IX presents the group ’ s agenda as seemingly balanced .
It purports to reject “ the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tension with fair procedural protections for accused students , ” and therefore commits to “ fight for fair processes both for survivors , and for accused students.
” These are admirable goals , though scant evidence exists Know Your IX has ever implemented them .
The organization has neither filed an amicus brief nor publicly supported even one accused student lawsuit , despite myriad complaints detailing obviously unfair procedures .
Bolger even rejoiced at the expulsion of an Amherst College student victimized by the most procedurally unfair of these campus processes .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the student . )
Co-founder Brodsky even unconvincingly maintained that Obama-era policies should be interpreted as favorable to the due process rights of accused students .
The differing approaches the ACLU and Know Your IX took to comments addressing the draft regulations further highlight the awkward alignment between the two organizations .
The ACLU , while previewing many of the troubling themes from its later lawsuit , at least accurately described the relevant case law .
Know Your IX , by contrast , misrepresented two of the most important federal court wins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DeVos rules were partly based .
In one passage , Know Your IX suggested that the 2018 decision of the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals , in Doe v. Baum , did not say what it plainly held : that a public university “ must give the accused student or his agent an opportunity to cross-examine the accuser and adverse witnesses in the presence of a neutral fact-finder ” in all cases in which credibility is an issue .
In another section of its comment , Know Your IX wrongly asserted that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is sex discrimination for a school to use unfair procedures to impose discipline had been rejected by the courts .
False .
The comment relied on a federal district court decision that had already been overruled by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals .
That court declared in 2016 that a university “ that adopts , even temporarily , a policy of bias favoring one sex over another in a disciplinary dispute ... has practiced sex discrimination.
” In one key area , Know Your IX hasn ’ t had to reverse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alliance with the ACLU — though here its position reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the Title IX disciplinary process .
The lawsuit faults the regulations for giving schools the choice of using either the preponderance of the evidence standard ( 50.01 % ) or the clear and convincing standard ( around 75 % ) in determining an accused student ’ s guilt .
Colleges have had this choice since 2017 and none has elected to use the higher standard , so this option is more rhetorical than real .
In its comment , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear and convincing standard — which many due process advocates see as critical in the Title IX process because university procedures are so tilted against the accused in so many other ways — was “ lopsided.
” It suggested that the harm done to an innocent male who is wrongly found to be a rapist is no greater than the harm done to a rape victim whose assailant is wrongly found not guilty .
Know Your IX ’ s argument might have made sense if schools primarily used restorative justice programs designed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ non-punitive way .
Yet the Title IX disciplinary process is just that — a disciplinary process .
The only person whom the college can punish as part of the process is the accused student .
The idea that procedural protections for the accused in such a situation are “ lopsided ” is curious .
Few , if any , journalists have done better work in detailing the injustices faced by accused college students than Emily Yoffe .
Her succession of meticulously accurate and fair articles in Slate , the Atlantic , Politico , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by white and black students , in public and private institutions .
Brodsky ’ s reaction , during her tenure at the helm of Know Your IX ?
“ There is a special place in hell , ” she tweeted , “ for women who are Emily Yoffe.
” That the ACLU has chosen to team with a group co-founded by such a figure , targeting regulations that advance campus due process more than anything for a generation , speaks volumes of the organization ’ s decline as a leader in the protection @ @ @ @

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics.]
By KC Johnson & Stuart Taylor Jr.
Real Clear Politics
The American Civil Liberties Union has been deservedly criticized for its May 14 lawsuit indirectly attacking the civil liberties of students accused of sexual assault, who have since 2011 been subjected to grotesquely unfair campus proceedings that effectively presume their guilt.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
It’s true, as the ACLU claims -- after years of shameful silence during the Obama administration campaign to force (all too willing) universities to rig their processes against accused males – that its lawsuit against the Betsy DeVos Education Department does not directly attack all of the procedural-fairness reforms in its recently adopted Title IX rules.
But the lawsuit does insist that accused students be found guilty even if the evidence of innocence is almost as strong as the evidence of guilt. It also argues for a far more sweeping definition of sexual harassment than the one in the DeVos regulations (which parallels the definition adopted by the Supreme Court). And its central legal theory — that it was illegal for the Education Department to make the rules for universities processing student-on-student claims of sexual harassment and assault less accuser-friendly than those for race-based, national origin-based, and disability-based harassment and assault — would logically lead to invalidation of all of the new rules.
Other writers have detailed the above points and criticized three other legal challenges so far to the new regulations filed by a total of 19 Democratic state attorneys general, along with the National Women’s Law Center, which are even more sweeping than the ACLU’s lawsuit.
The ACLU filed its complaint on behalf of four organizations: Know Your IX, Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates Inc., Girls for Gender Equity, and Stop Sexual Assault in Schools. The latter three groups have played a minimal, or nonexistent, role in the contentious debate about due process and campus sexual assault. Know Your IX, however, was dubbed the “death star” by one lawyer who frequently represents accused students. As such, it represents an odd partner to a civil liberties organization.
Know Your IX was co-founded by Amherst graduate Dana Bolger and Yale graduate Alexandra Brodsky. (Both claimed that their institutions, neither of which could be deemed a hotbed of men’s rights activism, had mishandled their claims of sexual assault.) The group was one of several active during the Obama years arguing that campus Title IX procedures — which routinely denied accused students basic rights, such as access to evidence or cross-examination — were actually biased against accusers.
Nearly 600 lawsuits from accused students -- generating more than 170 favorable rulings in court, and more than 100 pre-decision settlements -- exposed the folly of this portrayal of campus tribunals. And in recent years, most of the Obama-era organizations have fallen by the wayside. Know Your IX, however, soldiers on, funded by Advocates for Youth, with a staff of nearly 20. None of its current employees identify as male.
The Know Your IX website proclaims that “sexual and dating violence are manifestations of systemic gender oppression, which cannot be separated from all other forms of oppression, including but not limited to imperialism, racism, classism, homophobia, transphobia, and ableism.” Its Twitter feed is similarly filled with paeans to the latest trends in intersectionality-based talking points.
While linking Title IX tribunals to imperialism seems like a stretch, misogyny remains a powerful force in American society. But the data makes university undergraduate populations — the focus of Know Your IX’s efforts — an unusual example for demonstrating “systemic gender oppression.” Women comprise about 56% of student bodies. Many universities feature female-only scholarships, programs, student and faculty awards, STEM camps, gym hours, and other opportunities that are off-limits to males. (These might, or might not, be welcome programs, but their existence surely cuts against a “systemic gender oppression” interpretation of college life.) And while any amount of sexual violence on campus is deplorable, the most comprehensive data suggests that about one in 40 women is sexually assaulted in college, not the one in five suggested by various dubious surveys.
To co-founder Bolger, however, male students are inherently dangerous. In 2015, she told Yahoo News that the four Vanderbilt football players who collaborated in the horrifying rape of one player’s passed-out girlfriend were typical of male undergraduates, “particularly [at] ‘elite’ institutions.” She also stereotyped male students as having “a certain arrogance and entitlement, whether to a desired grade in a classroom, or to women’s bodies.” At the same time, Bolger portrayed the Title IX process as designed, at least in part, to achieve the “justice” that criminal trials deny in rape cases. During her time helming Know Your IX, she maintained that the “criminal justice process revictimizes rape survivors” because “police disbelieve victims” and “juries buy into the rape myths that saturate our society and acquit perpetrators.” But if the Title IX system substitutes for the criminal justice system, any argument against meaningful procedural protections for the accused is unsustainable.
For the most part, the organization has downplayed such extreme rhetoric. Showing a political savvy that other accusers’ rights activists lacked, Know Your IX presents the group’s agenda as seemingly balanced. It purports to reject “the notion that justice for survivors is in tension with fair procedural protections for accused students,” and therefore commits to “fight for fair processes both for survivors, and for accused students.” These are admirable goals, though scant evidence exists Know Your IX has ever implemented them. The organization has neither filed an amicus brief nor publicly supported even one accused student lawsuit, despite myriad complaints detailing obviously unfair procedures. Bolger even rejoiced at the expulsion of an Amherst College student victimized by the most procedurally unfair of these campus processes. (The college later settled a lawsuit filed by the student.) Co-founder Brodsky even unconvincingly maintained that Obama-era policies should be interpreted as favorable to the due process rights of accused students.
The differing approaches the ACLU and Know Your IX took to comments addressing the draft regulations further highlight the awkward alignment between the two organizations. The ACLU, while previewing many of the troubling themes from its later lawsuit, at least accurately described the relevant case law. Know Your IX, by contrast, misrepresented two of the most important federal court wins for accused students, on which the DeVos rules were partly based. In one passage, Know Your IX suggested that the 2018 decision of the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, in Doe v. Baum, did not say what it plainly held: that a public university “must give the accused student or his agent an opportunity to cross-examine the accuser and adverse witnesses in the presence of a neutral fact-finder” in all cases in which credibility is an issue.
In another section of its comment, Know Your IX wrongly asserted that the Education Department’s presumption that it is sex discrimination for a school to use unfair procedures to impose discipline had been rejected by the courts. False. The comment relied on a federal district court decision that had already been overruled by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. That court declared in 2016 that a university “that adopts, even temporarily, a policy of bias favoring one sex over another in a disciplinary dispute ... has practiced sex discrimination.”
In one key area, Know Your IX hasn’t had to reverse earlier practice as part of its new alliance with the ACLU — though here its position reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the Title IX disciplinary process. The lawsuit faults the regulations for giving schools the choice of using either the preponderance of the evidence standard (50.01%) or the clear and convincing standard (around 75%) in determining an accused student’s guilt. Colleges have had this choice since 2017 and none has elected to use the higher standard, so this option is more rhetorical than real.
In its comment, Know Your IX argued that using the clear and convincing standard — which many due process advocates see as critical in the Title IX process because university procedures are so tilted against the accused in so many other ways — was “lopsided.” It suggested that the harm done to an innocent male who is wrongly found to be a rapist is no greater than the harm done to a rape victim whose assailant is wrongly found not guilty.
Know Your IX’s argument might have made sense if schools primarily used restorative justice programs designed to address allegations of sexual assault in a non-punitive way. Yet the Title IX disciplinary process is just that — a disciplinary process. The only person whom the college can punish as part of the process is the accused student. The idea that procedural protections for the accused in such a situation are “lopsided” is curious.
Few, if any, journalists have done better work in detailing the injustices faced by accused college students than Emily Yoffe. Her succession of meticulously accurate and fair articles in Slate, the Atlantic, Politico, and Reason have exposed unfair procedures faced by white and black students, in public and private institutions. Brodsky’s reaction, during her tenure at the helm of Know Your IX? “There is a special place in hell,” she tweeted, “for women who are Emily Yoffe.”
That the ACLU has chosen to team with a group co-founded by such a figure, targeting regulations that advance campus due process more than anything for a generation, speaks volumes of the organization’s decline as a leader in the protection of civil liberties.


wnd--2020-07-02--Voters say gender, race shouldn't be factors in Biden's VP choice

Voters by a large majority – 73 % – say Joe Biden should pick the most qualified person to be his vice presidential candidate , regardless of race or gender , according to a new poll .
The Just the News Daily Poll with Scott Rasmussen found 55 % of Democrats said the same .
Overall , 15 % of U.S. voters believe Biden should pick a woman of color , 10 % say a woman and 2 % would like a person of color .
Some 26 % of blacks said they would prefer a woman of color , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % say a woman of color .
The national survey of 1,200 registered voters was conducted June 25-27 .
Meanwhile , an Economist/YouGov found only 32 % of voters support picking a black vice president , 21 % do n't and 47 % were `` not sure , '' reported Paul Bedard in his Washington Secrets column .
`` Despite calls for Joe Biden to pick a woman of color as his running mate , most of the American public does n't agree or are unsure , and only 51 % of black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ African American , according to a new 2020 survey , '' he reported .
Among those defining themselves as `` liberal , '' 50 % said Biden should select an African-American .
The poll found 39 % want him to pick a woman , 20 % do not and 41 % are unsure .
`` The survey tested approval ratings of several of the women being considered by Biden for his running mate , and it found that Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren , a white person , had the highest rating among blacks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ' or 'somewhat ' favorable opinion of her , '' the report said .
Next was California Sen. Kamala Harris , whose parents are from India and Jamaica and who identifies as black .
Some 57 % of blacks view her favorably .

Voters by a large majority – 73% – say Joe Biden should pick the most qualified person to be his vice presidential candidate, regardless of race or gender, according to a new poll.
The Just the News Daily Poll with Scott Rasmussen found 55% of Democrats said the same.
Overall, 15% of U.S. voters believe Biden should pick a woman of color, 10% say a woman and 2% would like a person of color.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Some 26% of blacks said they would prefer a woman of color, 16% say a woman and 3% say a woman of color.
The national survey of 1,200 registered voters was conducted June 25-27.
Meanwhile, an Economist/YouGov found only 32% of voters support picking a black vice president, 21% don't and 47% were "not sure," reported Paul Bedard in his Washington Secrets column.
"Despite calls for Joe Biden to pick a woman of color as his running mate, most of the American public doesn't agree or are unsure, and only 51% of black people said the Democrat should select an African American, according to a new 2020 survey," he reported.
Among those defining themselves as "liberal," 50% said Biden should select an African-American.
The poll found 39% want him to pick a woman, 20% do not and 41% are unsure.
"The survey tested approval ratings of several of the women being considered by Biden for his running mate, and it found that Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a white person, had the highest rating among blacks. Some 58% had a 'very' or 'somewhat' favorable opinion of her," the report said.
Next was California Sen. Kamala Harris, whose parents are from India and Jamaica and who identifies as black. Some 57% of blacks view her favorably.


wnd--2020-07-02--Fair officials give up fight to ban gun show

Board members of a California fair have stopped trying to ban a gun show at their facility , settling a lawsuit brought by the Second Amendment Foundation on behalf of gun-show organizers .
`` This is a victory for the First Amendment as well as the Second , '' said Alan M. Gottlieb , a founder of the Second Amendment Foundation .
`` We 're delighted the 22nd District Agricultural Association and fairgrounds board decided against prolonging a legal action . ''
At the time of the settlement , it appeared that the Del Mar Fairgrounds in San Diego County @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The case was filed by SAF , the California Rifle & Pistol Association , B & L Productions , Inc. , Crossroads of the West , South Bay Rod and Gun Club , Maximum Wholesale/Ammo Brothers and five private citizens .
`` The gun culture belongs on Main Street and that is what this lawsuit was all about , '' he said .
Gottlieb argued gun shows are considered a First Amendment activity as well as a Second Amendment event .
`` Unfortunately , due to the COVID-19 outbreak , we haven ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held at the fairgrounds , but we ’ re looking forward to hearing from the gun show promoter that a date is set for another gathering sometime this year , hopefully , '' he said .
The settlement , following a preliminary injunction against the fairgrounds moratorium , requires the defendant to pay SAF 's attorney fees and costs , Kilmer said .
Last year , U.S. District Judge Cathy Bencivengo issued a temporary order to stop the Del Mar Fair Board from enforcing a moratorium on gun shows .
Disputes over gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which grants Americans the right `` to keep and bear arms . ''
This case , however , focused on the First .
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in San Diego shortly after the restriction was adopted at the beginning of 2019 .
At the time , Gottlieb called the fairground board 's action as `` an attempt to marginalize gun owners and exclude them from the public square . ''
He said he suspected it was an effort to drive gun shows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alleged the fair was placing `` overly burdensome requirements '' on those who want to hold gun shows there , imposing an unreasonable restriction on speech .
It alleged the fair purposefully violated the free speech rights of the plaintiffs and its actions constituted prior restraint on speech .
At the time , Gottlieb explained : `` Crossroads has operated popular gun shows in California , including at the Del Mar Fairgrounds .
These gatherings are more than just an opportunity to exhibit , buy and sell firearms , they are opportunities for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safety , firearms politics and current or proposed firearms laws and regulations . ''
The `` defendants are government actors who have discriminated against and intend to discriminate in the future against plaintiffs by denying them the same access to this public space as other lawful businesses .
This discrimination is based on irrational public policies that are based on flawed reasoning and dubious conclusions relating to gun show operations , '' the complaint said .

Board members of a California fair have stopped trying to ban a gun show at their facility, settling a lawsuit brought by the Second Amendment Foundation on behalf of gun-show organizers.
"This is a victory for the First Amendment as well as the Second," said Alan M. Gottlieb, a founder of the Second Amendment Foundation.
"We're delighted the 22nd District Agricultural Association and fairgrounds board decided against prolonging a legal action."
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
At the time of the settlement, it appeared that the Del Mar Fairgrounds in San Diego County was headed for a court loss.
The case was filed by SAF, the California Rifle & Pistol Association, B&L Productions, Inc., Crossroads of the West, South Bay Rod and Gun Club, Maximum Wholesale/Ammo Brothers and five private citizens.
SAF was represented by attorney Don Kilmer.
"The gun culture belongs on Main Street and that is what this lawsuit was all about," he said.
Gottlieb argued gun shows are considered a First Amendment activity as well as a Second Amendment event.
"Unfortunately, due to the COVID-19 outbreak, we haven’t been able to see a show held at the fairgrounds, but we’re looking forward to hearing from the gun show promoter that a date is set for another gathering sometime this year, hopefully," he said.
The settlement, following a preliminary injunction against the fairgrounds moratorium, requires the defendant to pay SAF's attorney fees and costs, Kilmer said.
Last year, U.S. District Judge Cathy Bencivengo issued a temporary order to stop the Del Mar Fair Board from enforcing a moratorium on gun shows.
Disputes over gun rights typically center on the Second Amendment, which grants Americans the right "to keep and bear arms." This case, however, focused on the First.
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in San Diego shortly after the restriction was adopted at the beginning of 2019. At the time, Gottlieb called the fairground board's action as "an attempt to marginalize gun owners and exclude them from the public square."
He said he suspected it was an effort to drive gun shows from public venues altogether.
The complaint alleged the fair was placing "overly burdensome requirements" on those who want to hold gun shows there, imposing an unreasonable restriction on speech.
It alleged the fair purposefully violated the free speech rights of the plaintiffs and its actions constituted prior restraint on speech.
At the time, Gottlieb explained: "Crossroads has operated popular gun shows in California, including at the Del Mar Fairgrounds. These gatherings are more than just an opportunity to exhibit, buy and sell firearms, they are opportunities for like-minded citizens to meet and discuss gun safety, firearms politics and current or proposed firearms laws and regulations."
The "defendants are government actors who have discriminated against and intend to discriminate in the future against plaintiffs by denying them the same access to this public space as other lawful businesses. This discrimination is based on irrational public policies that are based on flawed reasoning and dubious conclusions relating to gun show operations," the complaint said.


wnd--2020-07-01--Hundreds of George W. Bush staffers launch pro-Biden SuperPac

Citing a priority of personal temperament and demeanor over `` policies , '' hundreds of former staffers from George W. Bush ’ s administration have formed a SuperPac to help elect Vice President Joe Biden .
The group , 43 Alumni for Biden , said Wednesday it aims to `` unite and mobilize a community of historically Republican voters who are dismayed and disappointed by the damage done to our nation . ''
The committee 's director , Karen Kirksey , said in a press release the former staffers have watched `` in grave concern as the party we loved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that little resembles the Party of Lincoln and Reagan . ''
She explained they `` endorse Joe Biden not necessarily in full support of his political agenda but rather in full agreement with the urgent need to restore the soul of this nation . ''
Many in the group do n't agree with Biden 's policies , explained member Jennifer Millikin in an interview with The Hill .
But they like Biden because of his temperament and demeanor .
`` We as a group have policy differences with him .
We 're just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who will stand up and act like a leader , '' she said .
`` We can debate the differences in the way we think about policies , we can have a robust debate , that ’ s what America ’ s for .
But that ’ s not happening now , and we feel it will definitely happen with Joe Biden in office . ''
Some of the SuperPac 's high-profile supporters will speak out in the coming weeks , with testimonials targeted at swing states .
NPR reported that by announcing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group avoids disclosing its donors until mid-October , just three weeks before the election .
It the group had been announced the day before , it would have been required to file a list of donors with the Federal Election Commission by mid-July .

Citing a priority of personal temperament and demeanor over "policies," hundreds of former staffers from George W. Bush’s administration have formed a SuperPac to help elect Vice President Joe Biden.
The group, 43 Alumni for Biden, said Wednesday it aims to "unite and mobilize a community of historically Republican voters who are dismayed and disappointed by the damage done to our nation."
The committee's director, Karen Kirksey, said in a press release the former staffers have watched "in grave concern as the party we loved has morphed into a cult of personality that little resembles the Party of Lincoln and Reagan."
She explained they "endorse Joe Biden not necessarily in full support of his political agenda but rather in full agreement with the urgent need to restore the soul of this nation."
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Many in the group don't agree with Biden's policies, explained member Jennifer Millikin in an interview with The Hill.
But they like Biden because of his temperament and demeanor.
"We as a group have policy differences with him. We're just looking to have someone in the office who will stand up and act like a leader," she said.
"We can debate the differences in the way we think about policies, we can have a robust debate, that’s what America’s for. But that’s not happening now, and we feel it will definitely happen with Joe Biden in office."
Are George W. Bush staffers true Republicans? 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. 2% (2 Votes) 98% (109 Votes)
Some of the SuperPac's high-profile supporters will speak out in the coming weeks, with testimonials targeted at swing states.
NPR reported that by announcing its formation on July 1, the group avoids disclosing its donors until mid-October, just three weeks before the election.
It the group had been announced the day before, it would have been required to file a list of donors with the Federal Election Commission by mid-July.


wnd--2020-07-01--So now celebrating Independence Day is white supremacy?

It 's admittedly somewhat dispiriting – the idea that we 're going into the 244th anniversary of Independence Day with so little to celebrate in the context of our nation 's current status and future .
For some , our annual Independence Day celebrations may have been just another day off of work , but for many more , it was a day in which we could spend time with friends and family , taking stock of our blessings and our gratitude for living in the greatest nation humanity had ever established .
Due to restrictions arising from the COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ celebrations this year have either been canceled , scaled back or mutated into something we 'd just as soon pass up .
Due to a spike in coronavirus cases , several states are reinstating restrictions that had been lifted earlier , which will certainly put an additional damper on festivities .
As July 4 approaches , we 're also seeing a new form of exploitation of the racial tension that has plagued America since May 25 , when a black man was killed by a police officer in Minneapolis in the clearest case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on video .
As we know , this tragic occurrence has been taken advantage of by communists and anarchists in a dedicated effort to catalyze a socialist revolution .
As people begin to forget who George Floyd even was , leftists have nevertheless become emboldened and are revealing more and more of their true agenda .
Most readers of this column will be aware that this has nothing to do with justice for George Floyd , racism or police reform .
These are simply pretexts for burning `` the system '' down .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ treated to violent demonstrations in our major cities , with subversive thugs taking over entire sections thereof .
Despite ostensibly protesting police brutality against blacks , quite often the video footage depicting these protests does n't show one black face in the crowd .
We have inarticulate affirmative action university professors claiming that all whites are racists , and Civil War statues being pulled down irrespective of whether the individual represented fought for the Union or the Confederacy .
More recently , one perennially mouthy activist declared that statues of Jesus Christ represent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the University of Wisconsin now want a statue of Abraham Lincoln removed from their campus .
Despite having ended slavery , apparently Lincoln was n't `` woke '' enough .
The new form of exploitation to which I refer is that of the political left claiming that Independence Day celebrations support white supremacy , presumably because the men who founded our nation were all white and , of course , deeply racist , genocidal maniacs .
Although it 's indisputable that much of the current frenzy to incite domestic unrest in America has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for removing President Donald Trump from office ( via the ballot box or otherwise ) , the exploitation of racial tension we 're seeing is in fact being driven by socialists globally and includes powerful interests worldwide .
As reported recently , the Twitter account of Black Lives Matter U.K. is now tweeting in support of Palestine , bashing Zionism and excoriating members of the Jewish community in Britain .
What does police brutality in Minnesota have to do with the U.K. or Palestine ?
Absolutely nothing .
Are there racist police officers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ No , but as we should be well-aware at this juncture , none of this is about racism – it 's about subverting the predominant paradigm .
As the left sees it , that is represented by anything white , Judeo-Christian , straight , male or possesses any hint of traditional values or normalcy .
Black Lives Matter having an interest in policy in the U.K. makes about as much sense as Londoners demonstrating against Donald Trump – unless one realizes that we 're witnessing a global effort to leverage the civil unrest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to obliterate anything that smacks of the Western democratic process .
As preposterous as the left 's charges and proposed remedies are , the real danger lies in Americans ' proclivity for capitulating to all manner of imprudent public-policy measures , as we 've repeatedly done in recent years , particularly when failure to do so would result in being called a racist , a homophobe or some other invective .
Given the vigorous ( if craven and disgusting ) virtue signaling being undertaken by so many individuals and organizations , this obviously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy is formed in America .
While some conservative commentators have pointed out that the radical fringe seeking to destabilize the U.S. and install a hard-line socialist regime is a distinct minority , it is worth mentioning that those who sought independence from Britain in 1776 were also a distinct minority – and they were n't fortunate enough to essentially own half the members of the British parliament at that time .

It's admittedly somewhat dispiriting – the idea that we're going into the 244th anniversary of Independence Day with so little to celebrate in the context of our nation's current status and future. For some, our annual Independence Day celebrations may have been just another day off of work, but for many more, it was a day in which we could spend time with friends and family, taking stock of our blessings and our gratitude for living in the greatest nation humanity had ever established.
Due to restrictions arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, of course many Independence Day celebrations this year have either been canceled, scaled back or mutated into something we'd just as soon pass up. Due to a spike in coronavirus cases, several states are reinstating restrictions that had been lifted earlier, which will certainly put an additional damper on festivities.
As July 4 approaches, we're also seeing a new form of exploitation of the racial tension that has plagued America since May 25, when a black man was killed by a police officer in Minneapolis in the clearest case of police brutality we've ever seen on video. As we know, this tragic occurrence has been taken advantage of by communists and anarchists in a dedicated effort to catalyze a socialist revolution.
As people begin to forget who George Floyd even was, leftists have nevertheless become emboldened and are revealing more and more of their true agenda. Most readers of this column will be aware that this has nothing to do with justice for George Floyd, racism or police reform. These are simply pretexts for burning "the system" down.
In recent weeks, we've been treated to violent demonstrations in our major cities, with subversive thugs taking over entire sections thereof. Despite ostensibly protesting police brutality against blacks, quite often the video footage depicting these protests doesn't show one black face in the crowd. We have inarticulate affirmative action university professors claiming that all whites are racists, and Civil War statues being pulled down irrespective of whether the individual represented fought for the Union or the Confederacy. More recently, one perennially mouthy activist declared that statues of Jesus Christ represent white supremacy, and some students at the University of Wisconsin now want a statue of Abraham Lincoln removed from their campus. Despite having ended slavery, apparently Lincoln wasn't "woke" enough.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
The new form of exploitation to which I refer is that of the political left claiming that Independence Day celebrations support white supremacy, presumably because the men who founded our nation were all white and, of course, deeply racist, genocidal maniacs.
Although it's indisputable that much of the current frenzy to incite domestic unrest in America has to do with the left's imperative for removing President Donald Trump from office (via the ballot box or otherwise), the exploitation of racial tension we're seeing is in fact being driven by socialists globally and includes powerful interests worldwide. As reported recently, the Twitter account of Black Lives Matter U.K. is now tweeting in support of Palestine, bashing Zionism and excoriating members of the Jewish community in Britain.
What does police brutality in Minnesota have to do with the U.K. or Palestine? Absolutely nothing. Are there racist police officers in the U.K. abusing black people? No, but as we should be well-aware at this juncture, none of this is about racism – it's about subverting the predominant paradigm. As the left sees it, that is represented by anything white, Judeo-Christian, straight, male or possesses any hint of traditional values or normalcy.
Black Lives Matter having an interest in policy in the U.K. makes about as much sense as Londoners demonstrating against Donald Trump – unless one realizes that we're witnessing a global effort to leverage the civil unrest we're experiencing into a worldwide campaign to obliterate anything that smacks of the Western democratic process.
As preposterous as the left's charges and proposed remedies are, the real danger lies in Americans' proclivity for capitulating to all manner of imprudent public-policy measures, as we've repeatedly done in recent years, particularly when failure to do so would result in being called a racist, a homophobe or some other invective. Given the vigorous (if craven and disgusting) virtue signaling being undertaken by so many individuals and organizations, this obviously remains a significant factor in how public policy is formed in America.
While some conservative commentators have pointed out that the radical fringe seeking to destabilize the U.S. and install a hard-line socialist regime is a distinct minority, it is worth mentioning that those who sought independence from Britain in 1776 were also a distinct minority – and they weren't fortunate enough to essentially own half the members of the British parliament at that time.


wnd--2020-07-01--Obama's book delayed, my Obama book on schedule

To google `` Obama memoir release date '' is to get a good sense of the way Google 's algorithms work to protect its chosen candidates .
The first headlines date from May 2019 .
Virtually all articles follow the same formula as USA Today .
Obama 's book would not be released in 2019 as expected , which raises `` the likelihood that the highly anticipated book will drop during the 2020 campaign . ''
Nowhere near the top of the queue are the most recent and relevant articles , such as this June 29 article from the Daily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barack Obama 's book will NOT be published before the election as ex-president tells donors he is ' p***ed off by Donald a Trump calling COVID 'kung flu . '
'' Obama fans need not fret .
They can learn all they need to know about President Obama by reading my book , `` Unmasking Obama : The Fight to Tell the True Story of a Failed Presidency , '' which is on schedule for its Aug. 18 release .
In that I prefer to tell positive stories , I focus on those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at every turn to reveal the truth about the laughably `` scandal-free '' Obama presidency .
Indeed , the media protected Obama from scandal even before he became a candidate .
One such scandal centered on his unearned reputation as a literary genius .
As in the past , Obama defenders will trot out all the usual excuses to explain their man 's delay .
`` The former president has been writing the book himself , '' USA Today insists with a straight face , `` handwriting a first draft on legal pads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ numerous White House speeches and his first bestseller , 'Dreams From My Father . '
'' No , Obama has n't written any of his books himself and likely none of his speeches .
In September 2008 , I introduced the thesis that terrorist emeritus Bill Ayers played a major role in crafting `` Dreams . ''
The major media did not want to see my evidence .
Nor did they want to see mainstream biographer Christopher Andersen 's .
Andersen confirmed Ayers 's involvement in his Obama-friendly 2009 book , `` Barack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Marriage . ''
Andersen 's sources in Obama 's Hyde Park neighborhood told him that Obama found himself deeply in debt and `` hopelessly blocked . ''
At `` Michelle 's urging , '' Obama `` sought advice from his friend and Hyde Park neighbor Bill Ayers . ''
What attracted the Obamas , Andersen continues , were `` Ayers 's proven abilities as a writer '' as evident in his 1993 book , `` To Teach . ''
In fact , Ayers himself took credit for Dreams on multiple occasions , usually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wink and a nod .
A frequent New York Times bestseller , Andersen was more difficult to ignore than I was .
In fact at least 50 publications reviewed Andersen 's book .
It is just that not a one of them mentioned the six pages he spent on the book 's most newsworthy revelation .
Relentless Obama defender Chris Matthews interviewed Andersen on MSNBC 's `` Hardball '' and did not address the authorship issue .
Said Matthews at the end of the interview , `` You 're amazing , successful guy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
If Matthews did not read the book , which is likely , someone on his staff surely must have but chose not to notice the damning Ayers revelation .
That 's the way the media rolled for Obama .
From the moment of Obama 's emergence in 2004 , journalists , mainstream and left , have relentlessly disgraced their profession and betrayed the American people .
The histories they write will not be worth reading .
Nor will Obama 's memoir .
A media that still refuses to cover Obama 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of any presidency in memory will not fault Obama for covering up the same .
That brings us to the real reason for the delay , the anticipated report from U.S. Attorney John Durham .
A Trump win in November means that Obama will at least have to mention the sinister plot to dethrone his successor .
If the Democratic candidate wins – whoever that may be – Obama can do with the Russian collusion plot as he did with the IRS sabotage of the tea parties or Fast and Furious or Benghazi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never happened .

To google "Obama memoir release date" is to get a good sense of the way Google's algorithms work to protect its chosen candidates.
The first headlines date from May 2019. Virtually all articles follow the same formula as USA Today. Obama's book would not be released in 2019 as expected, which raises "the likelihood that the highly anticipated book will drop during the 2020 campaign."
Nowhere near the top of the queue are the most recent and relevant articles, such as this June 29 article from the Daily Mail with the lemonade-out-of-lemons headline, "Barack Obama's book will NOT be published before the election as ex-president tells donors he is 'p***ed off by Donald a Trump calling COVID 'kung flu.'"
Obama fans need not fret. They can learn all they need to know about President Obama by reading my book, "Unmasking Obama: The Fight to Tell the True Story of a Failed Presidency," which is on schedule for its Aug. 18 release.
In that I prefer to tell positive stories, I focus on those independent journalists who fought the major media at every turn to reveal the truth about the laughably "scandal-free" Obama presidency.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Indeed, the media protected Obama from scandal even before he became a candidate. One such scandal centered on his unearned reputation as a literary genius.
As in the past, Obama defenders will trot out all the usual excuses to explain their man's delay. "The former president has been writing the book himself," USA Today insists with a straight face, "handwriting a first draft on legal pads, the same technique he used for numerous White House speeches and his first bestseller, 'Dreams From My Father.'"
No, Obama hasn't written any of his books himself and likely none of his speeches. In September 2008, I introduced the thesis that terrorist emeritus Bill Ayers played a major role in crafting "Dreams."
The major media did not want to see my evidence. Nor did they want to see mainstream biographer Christopher Andersen's. Andersen confirmed Ayers's involvement in his Obama-friendly 2009 book, "Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage."
Andersen's sources in Obama's Hyde Park neighborhood told him that Obama found himself deeply in debt and "hopelessly blocked." At "Michelle's urging," Obama "sought advice from his friend and Hyde Park neighbor Bill Ayers."
What attracted the Obamas, Andersen continues, were "Ayers's proven abilities as a writer" as evident in his 1993 book, "To Teach." In fact, Ayers himself took credit for Dreams on multiple occasions, usually, but not always, with a wink and a nod.
A frequent New York Times bestseller, Andersen was more difficult to ignore than I was. In fact at least 50 publications reviewed Andersen's book. It is just that not a one of them mentioned the six pages he spent on the book's most newsworthy revelation.
Relentless Obama defender Chris Matthews interviewed Andersen on MSNBC's "Hardball" and did not address the authorship issue.
Said Matthews at the end of the interview, "You're amazing, successful guy. You have a winning streak here."
If Matthews did not read the book, which is likely, someone on his staff surely must have but chose not to notice the damning Ayers revelation. That's the way the media rolled for Obama.
From the moment of Obama's emergence in 2004, journalists, mainstream and left, have relentlessly disgraced their profession and betrayed the American people. The histories they write will not be worth reading.
Nor will Obama's memoir. A media that still refuses to cover Obama's increasingly obvious role in the greatest scandal of any presidency in memory will not fault Obama for covering up the same.
That brings us to the real reason for the delay, the anticipated report from U.S. Attorney John Durham. A Trump win in November means that Obama will at least have to mention the sinister plot to dethrone his successor.
If the Democratic candidate wins – whoever that may be – Obama can do with the Russian collusion plot as he did with the IRS sabotage of the tea parties or Fast and Furious or Benghazi.
Skip over it as though it never happened.


wnd--2020-07-01--Seriously? Study claims riots SLOW spread of coronavirus

A new study finds , contrary to conventional wisdom , that the Black Lives Matter protests may have slowed the overall spread of the coronavirus in many American cities .
While bringing thousands of people together , the protests may have caused many more people to stay home , concluded the research team , the Colorado Sun reported .
The study , which has not been peer-reviewed , was published by the National Bureau of Economic Research .
In the introduction , however , the authors note the views are their own .
The authors are Dhaval M. Dave , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joseph J. Sabia and Samuel Safford .
`` While it is almost certain that the protests caused a decrease in social distancing behavior among protest attendees , we demonstrate that effect of the protests on the social distancing behavior of the entire population residing in counties with large urban protests was positive , '' they write .
Friedson , a University of Colorado at Denver professor , said the protests may have slowed the overall spread of the coronavirus in cities where there were large demonstrations .
`` We think that what ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the people who are not going to protest are staying away , '' he told the Sun .
`` The overall effect for the entire city is more social distancing because people are avoiding the protests . ''
Friedson , whose specialty is economics , said the team used official coronavirus case counts and various other streams of data .
He told the paper the nation needs such information to make decisions .
Many state and local officials have been requiring people – or at least pleading with them – to avoid large @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and church services .
But many of those same officials have been fully in support of the protests .
And they are concerned that COVID-19 cases are spiking in some places .
Ian Dickson of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment told the Sun the state has seen increases in cases recently .
But there 's no apparent link between the protests and coronavirus case numbers , he said .
The review examined data from about 315 American cities with populations of at least 100,000 .
There were protests or riots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The researchers found that protests correlated with a net increase in overall stay-at-home behavior in cities where they occurred — and the increase was larger in cities that saw more sustained protests or reports of violence , '' the report said .
While the COVID case growth `` slowed '' where there were protests , the results are not statistically significant , the Sun reported .
Friedman pointed that that if the protests help reduce the COVID cases because people `` decided to avoid '' the public , there 's still a concern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their way to avoid other events or large gatherings .

A new study finds, contrary to conventional wisdom, that the Black Lives Matter protests may have slowed the overall spread of the coronavirus in many American cities.
While bringing thousands of people together, the protests may have caused many more people to stay home, concluded the research team, the Colorado Sun reported.
The study, which has not been peer-reviewed, was published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. In the introduction, however, the authors note the views are their own.
The authors are Dhaval M. Dave, Andrew I. Friedson, Kyutaro Matsuzawa, Joseph J. Sabia and Samuel Safford.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
"While it is almost certain that the protests caused a decrease in social distancing behavior among protest attendees, we demonstrate that effect of the protests on the social distancing behavior of the entire population residing in counties with large urban protests was positive," they write.
Friedson, a University of Colorado at Denver professor, said the protests may have slowed the overall spread of the coronavirus in cities where there were large demonstrations.
"We think that what’s going on is it’s the people who are not going to protest are staying away," he told the Sun. "The overall effect for the entire city is more social distancing because people are avoiding the protests."
Friedson, whose specialty is economics, said the team used official coronavirus case counts and various other streams of data.
Do riots slow the spread of 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. 6% (17 Votes) 94% (264 Votes)
He told the paper the nation needs such information to make decisions.
Many state and local officials have been requiring people – or at least pleading with them – to avoid large gatherings such as sporting events, concerts and church services. But many of those same officials have been fully in support of the protests.
And they are concerned that COVID-19 cases are spiking in some places.
Ian Dickson of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment told the Sun the state has seen increases in cases recently. But there's no apparent link between the protests and coronavirus case numbers, he said.
The review examined data from about 315 American cities with populations of at least 100,000. There were protests or riots in 281 of those cities.
"The researchers found that protests correlated with a net increase in overall stay-at-home behavior in cities where they occurred — and the increase was larger in cities that saw more sustained protests or reports of violence," the report said.
While the COVID case growth "slowed" where there were protests, the results are not statistically significant, the Sun reported.
Friedman pointed that that if the protests help reduce the COVID cases because people "decided to avoid" the public, there's still a concern, because people don't go out of their way to avoid other events or large gatherings.