wnd--2020-10-14--'Good reason to be concerned' over Dems' questions on religion

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Policy . ]
“ This is going to be a long , contentious week , ” Chairman Lindsey Graham ( R-SC ) noted dryly at the opening of yesterday ’ s hearing for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett .
His only request for the Senate Judiciary Committee was “ to the extent possible , let ’ s make it respectable , let ’ s make it challenging , let ’ s remember the world is watching.
” Although Senate Democrats used their opening statements to focus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Senator Josh Hawley ( R. , Mo . )
forewarned Democrats not to “ bring back religious tests ” for judicial nominees .
There is good reason to be concerned .
Chairman Graham should be keenly alert to questions challenging Barrett ’ s religious faith , and use his gavel to keep the hearings focused squarely on the Constitution .
During Barrett ’ s 2017 judicial confirmation hearing for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals , Senator Dianne Feinstein ( D-Calif. ) confronted Barrett : “ Whatever a religion is , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is totally different .
And I think in your case , professor , when you read your speeches , the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you .
And that ’ s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country.
” Richard Durbin ( D-Ill. ) , also of the Judiciary Committee and himself Catholic , asked more directly : “ Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic ?
” To oppose Judge Barrett because of her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political mistake .
It is religious bigotry , and perhaps unconstitutional .
And it undermines one of the most important principles of American liberty .
Before the American Revolution , the assumption was that every territory ’ s ruler determined the religion of its people .
If the king of England was one religion , then so were his subjects .
This intensified domestic religious persecution by justifying each religion in its efforts to forcefully convert or eliminate other believers in the same nation .
Dissenting groups moved from one country to another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their form of faith .
Sixteenth-century England had seen some of history ’ s worst religious persecution .
After King Henry VIII broke away from the Church of Rome and ransacked Catholic churches and monasteries , his daughter Mary tried to restore the Catholic faith by punishing and executing reformers , only to be followed by Queen Elizabeth , who punished and executed Catholics ( and many others , such as the Puritans ) in order to suppress all religions except the reformed Church of England .
Catholic France and Spain launched plots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overthrow her , but all they accomplished was to reinforce her determination .
In the 17th and 18th centuries — after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England — there was some easing of the harshest persecutions but Test Acts were instituted to exclude anyone not a member of the Church of England — the official state religion — from holding government office , notably Catholics and `` nonconforming '' Protestants .
One such Act , not repealed until 1829 , required officials specifically to disavow the doctrine of transubstantiation , a central @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communities — Congregationalists , Presbyterians , and Baptists as well as Jews and Catholics — looked across the Atlantic for empty lands where they could worship God as they wished without fear of political oppression .
And so , they came to America .
With all this fresh in their minds , the American Founders sought to prevent the return of Test Acts by adding a simple clause to Article VI of the Constitution : “ no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the new idea in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom : “ proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument , unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion , is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which , in common with his fellow citizens , he has a natural right.
” The ban on formal religious tests removes a key mechanism by which religious denominations may control the state — or by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Overlooked in the First Amendment ’ s dominance of religious jurisprudence , the Religious Test Clause is the Constitution ’ s most powerful structural guarantor of religious liberty .
What the Constitution does require — and the Judiciary Committee has an obligation to assure — is that “ all executive and judicial Officers , both of the United States and of the several States , shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation , to support this Constitution.
” Just as Senators must not be grand inquisitors , so judges must not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uphold the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof .
Instead of a religious test , the American founders included a constitutional test to assure that the Constitution would be “ the supreme Law of the Land.
” Thus the standard of measure for a Supreme Court Justice — and the primary means , setting aside questions about pending cases , by which the Judiciary Committee aids the Senate in providing its advice and consent — is the nominee ’ s understanding of the Constitution and the constitutional rule of law .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ attack Judge Barrett for being faithful to the Constitution , they present her religion as evidence of an irrational dogmatism that prevents her from being able to uphold their “ living ” Constitution — continually evolving to include the various penumbras and emanations by which liberal justices can find anything in the Constitution .
Let ’ s not miss the point here : questioning the seriousness of Judge Barrett ’ s religion is a pretext for protecting liberalism ’ s own unwavering faith in abortion and the doctrines of cultural progressivism — despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who require as a qualification for office that Judge Barrett renounce her religious faith in order to uphold their political theology are , to my mind , applying their own religious test .
Senate Democrats rightly suspect Judge Barrett of being unfaithful to their elastic constitutionalism and loyal to the original Constitution .
Guilty as charged .
The problem is that modern liberalism holds that fidelity to the old Constitution , like faith in religious truth , is unreasonable and unacceptable .
Using religion as cover to attack a Supreme Court nomination — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 1916 ( Louis Brandeis ) or a Roman Catholic nominated by a Republican in 2020 — is reprehensible .
It is unacceptable , and ought to be roundly condemned on both sides of the political aisle , and in the aisles of every house of worship .
It should also be unacceptable to make religious faith a stigma in order to advance a political agenda .
As the first American president in 1790 famously wrote to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport , Rhode Island , the American Constitution “ which gives to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assistance , requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens , in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.
” Matthew Spalding is the Dean of the Van Andel Graduate School of Government at Hillsdale College ’ s Washington , D.C. campus .
[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Policy . ]

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Policy.]
By Matthew Spalding
Real Clear Policy
“This is going to be a long, contentious week,” Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) noted dryly at the opening of yesterday’s hearing for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett. His only request for the Senate Judiciary Committee was “to the extent possible, let’s make it respectable, let’s make it challenging, let’s remember the world is watching.”
Although Senate Democrats used their opening statements to focus on policy outcomes rather than judicial decision-making, Senator Josh Hawley (R., Mo.) forewarned Democrats not to “bring back religious tests” for judicial nominees. There is good reason to be concerned.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Chairman Graham should be keenly alert to questions challenging Barrett’s religious faith, and use his gavel to keep the hearings focused squarely on the Constitution.
During Barrett’s 2017 judicial confirmation hearing for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) confronted Barrett: “Whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different. And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you. And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country.”
Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), also of the Judiciary Committee and himself Catholic, asked more directly: “Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?”
To oppose Judge Barrett because of her religious faith would not only be a political mistake. It is religious bigotry, and perhaps unconstitutional. And it undermines one of the most important principles of American liberty.
Before the American Revolution, the assumption was that every territory’s ruler determined the religion of its people. If the king of England was one religion, then so were his subjects. This intensified domestic religious persecution by justifying each religion in its efforts to forcefully convert or eliminate other believers in the same nation. Dissenting groups moved from one country to another in search of communities that would accept their form of faith.
Sixteenth-century England had seen some of history’s worst religious persecution. After King Henry VIII broke away from the Church of Rome and ransacked Catholic churches and monasteries, his daughter Mary tried to restore the Catholic faith by punishing and executing reformers, only to be followed by Queen Elizabeth, who punished and executed Catholics (and many others, such as the Puritans) in order to suppress all religions except the reformed Church of England. Catholic France and Spain launched plots against Elizabeth and sent naval forces to overthrow her, but all they accomplished was to reinforce her determination.
In the 17th and 18th centuries — after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England — there was some easing of the harshest persecutions but Test Acts were instituted to exclude anyone not a member of the Church of England — the official state religion — from holding government office, notably Catholics and "nonconforming" Protestants. One such Act, not repealed until 1829, required officials specifically to disavow the doctrine of transubstantiation, a central sacramental teaching of Roman Catholicism.
Long-suffering communities — Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and Baptists as well as Jews and Catholics — looked across the Atlantic for empty lands where they could worship God as they wished without fear of political oppression. And so, they came to America.
With all this fresh in their minds, the American Founders sought to prevent the return of Test Acts by adding a simple clause to Article VI of the Constitution: “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Thomas Jefferson voiced the new idea in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom: “proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right.”
The ban on formal religious tests removes a key mechanism by which religious denominations may control the state — or by which the state may persecute religious denominations. Overlooked in the First Amendment’s dominance of religious jurisprudence, the Religious Test Clause is the Constitution’s most powerful structural guarantor of religious liberty.
What the Constitution does require — and the Judiciary Committee has an obligation to assure — is that “all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.” Just as Senators must not be grand inquisitors, so judges must not be legislators. Their sworn duty is to uphold the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof.
Instead of a religious test, the American founders included a constitutional test to assure that the Constitution would be “the supreme Law of the Land.” Thus the standard of measure for a Supreme Court Justice — and the primary means, setting aside questions about pending cases, by which the Judiciary Committee aids the Senate in providing its advice and consent — is the nominee’s understanding of the Constitution and the constitutional rule of law.
Since Democrat’s can’t attack Judge Barrett for being faithful to the Constitution, they present her religion as evidence of an irrational dogmatism that prevents her from being able to uphold their “living” Constitution — continually evolving to include the various penumbras and emanations by which liberal justices can find anything in the Constitution.
Let’s not miss the point here: questioning the seriousness of Judge Barrett’s religion is a pretext for protecting liberalism’s own unwavering faith in abortion and the doctrines of cultural progressivism — despite the founder’s Constitution. Senators who require as a qualification for office that Judge Barrett renounce her religious faith in order to uphold their political theology are, to my mind, applying their own religious test.
Senate Democrats rightly suspect Judge Barrett of being unfaithful to their elastic constitutionalism and loyal to the original Constitution. Guilty as charged. The problem is that modern liberalism holds that fidelity to the old Constitution, like faith in religious truth, is unreasonable and unacceptable.
Using religion as cover to attack a Supreme Court nomination — whether a Jew nominated by a Democrat in 1916 (Louis Brandeis) or a Roman Catholic nominated by a Republican in 2020 — is reprehensible. It is unacceptable, and ought to be roundly condemned on both sides of the political aisle, and in the aisles of every house of worship. It should also be unacceptable to make religious faith a stigma in order to advance a political agenda.
As the first American president in 1790 famously wrote to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island, the American Constitution “which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.”
Matthew Spalding is the Dean of the Van Andel Graduate School of Government at Hillsdale College’s Washington, D.C. campus.
[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Policy.]


wnd--2020-10-14--Justice Anthony Kennedy's niece hopes her movie undoes Roe v. Wade

With Democrats making the fate of Roe v. Wade an issue in the confirmation hearings for Amy Coney Barrett , the producer of a pro-life movie suggesting the landmark abortion decision can be overturned is speaking out .
Elizabeth Kennedy-Ryzewicz , the producer of `` Divided Hearts of America , '' is the niece of former Justice Anthony Kennedy , who was the swing vote in upholding Roe in the1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision .
The movie recounts Kennedy retiring and being replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 .
`` Nothing could prepare the nation for the ramifications @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says the film 's narrator , former New England Patriots tight end Benjamin Watson .
Newsweek reported the movie has been available for several months on the Salem Now streaming platform , but Kennedy-Ryzewicz did not promote it until she spoke to Newsweek .
She noted it was a surprise when `` Uncle Tony '' joined the liberal members of the Supreme Court , as he was nominated by President Ronald Reagan .
The possibility of Roe being overturned could increase if Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her effort to move more Americans to the pro-life side , Kennedy-Ryzewicz is lengthening the 80-minute movie , and negotiating for a theatrical release and more streaming platforms .
`` We have so many beautiful interviews , '' Kennedy-Ryzewicz told Newsweek .
`` Dr. Ben Carson , for example , gave us one of the longest , most overtly pro-life interviews of his career , but we cut it down to a few moments . ''
See the `` Divided Hearts of America '' : Another interviews is of Melissa Ohden , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Newsweek said .
`` We 're actually called 'the dreaded complication of abortion , ' '' she said , noting her grandmother argued for her to be left to die , but nurses saved her life .
Kennedy-Ryzewicz said New York state 's legalization of late-stage abortions prompted her to make the movie .
The film `` gives an unapologetically pro-life perspective that boldly tells the truth without any pretense of shame for pre-abortive or post-abortive women , '' she said .
`` There are things in our movie that the mainstream @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you to know . ''
She hopes her film will influence the November election .
`` Every American , if they want to make an informed decision on November 3 , either needs to do several months of devoted research on this topic or see our film , '' she said .

With Democrats making the fate of Roe v. Wade an issue in the confirmation hearings for Amy Coney Barrett, the producer of a pro-life movie suggesting the landmark abortion decision can be overturned is speaking out.
Elizabeth Kennedy-Ryzewicz, the producer of "Divided Hearts of America," is the niece of former Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was the swing vote in upholding Roe in the1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision.
The movie recounts Kennedy retiring and being replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018.
"Nothing could prepare the nation for the ramifications of the 2016 presidential election," says the film's narrator, former New England Patriots tight end Benjamin Watson.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Newsweek reported the movie has been available for several months on the Salem Now streaming platform, but Kennedy-Ryzewicz did not promote it until she spoke to Newsweek.
She noted it was a surprise when "Uncle Tony" joined the liberal members of the Supreme Court, as he was nominated by President Ronald Reagan.
The possibility of Roe being overturned could increase if Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died Sept. 18.
In her effort to move more Americans to the pro-life side, Kennedy-Ryzewicz is lengthening the 80-minute movie, and negotiating for a theatrical release and more streaming platforms.
Will Roe v. Wade ever be overturned? 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. 86% (103 Votes) 14% (17 Votes)
"We have so many beautiful interviews," Kennedy-Ryzewicz told Newsweek. "Dr. Ben Carson, for example, gave us one of the longest, most overtly pro-life interviews of his career, but we cut it down to a few moments."
See the "Divided Hearts of America":
Another interviews is of Melissa Ohden, who was born alive after an abortion procedure, Newsweek said.
"We're actually called 'the dreaded complication of abortion,'" she said, noting her grandmother argued for her to be left to die, but nurses saved her life.
Kennedy-Ryzewicz said New York state's legalization of late-stage abortions prompted her to make the movie.
The film "gives an unapologetically pro-life perspective that boldly tells the truth without any pretense of shame for pre-abortive or post-abortive women," she said.
"There are things in our movie that the mainstream media and pop culture don't want you to know."
She hopes her film will influence the November election.
"Every American, if they want to make an informed decision on November 3, either needs to do several months of devoted research on this topic or see our film," she said.


wnd--2020-10-14--Senator actually goes there: Asks Barrett if she ever sexually assaulted anyone

Hawaii Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono grilled Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett on Tuesday about whether she had ever @ @ @ @ @ she became an adult , that is .
A blogger at the Twitter aggregating news @ @ @ @ @ is `` not going back into Barrett 's high school days as they did with @ @ @ @ @ said she asks every nominee to a federal appointment the same thing .
`` Since @ @ @ @ @ , have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or @ @ @ @ @ a sexual nature ? ''
Second question : `` Have you ever faced discipline or @ @ @ @ @ on those issues ?
Barrett : `` No '' and `` No . ''
Political @ @ @ @ @ Dan Bongino called Hirono one of `` the dumbest members to ever sit in the @ @ @ @ @ '' Another Twitter user pointed out Barrett already has been vetted twice by the FBI @

Hawaii Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono grilled Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett on Tuesday about whether she had ever sexually assaulted someone.
After she became an adult, that is.
A blogger at the Twitter aggregating news site Twitchy said Hirono apparently is "not going back into Barrett's high school days as they did with Brett Kavanaugh."
The Daily Caller posted Hirono's grilling online:
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Sen. Mazie Hirono asks ACB "since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?" pic.twitter.com/6JgLkoIXIF — Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) October 13, 2020
Hirono said she asks every nominee to a federal appointment the same thing.
"Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?"
Is asking Supreme Court nominees about their sexual-assault history appropriate? 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. 10% (40 Votes) 90% (346 Votes)
Second question: "Have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement" on those issues?
Barrett: "No" and "No."
Political commentator and Bongino Report creator Dan Bongino called Hirono one of "the dumbest members to ever sit in the US Capitol. Ever."
Another Twitter user pointed out Barrett already has been vetted twice by the FBI.


wnd--2020-10-14--'Two and a Half Men' actress dead

'Two and a Half Men' actress dead

On Monday afternoon , Conchata Ferrell of `` Two and a Half Men '' fame passed away from complications following a cardiac arrest .
She was 77 .
Several months prior , she went into a long-term care facility after experiencing cardiac arrest , and passed away at Sherman Oaks Hospital in Sherman Oaks , California , according to Deadline .
The actress was born in Charleston , West Virginia , on March 28 , 1943 , as Conchata Galen Ferrell .
She attended both West Virginia University and Marshall University , where she received a social studies in education @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she may be best known for playing Berta , the housekeeper on CBS ' `` Two and a Half Men , '' she appeared in a variety of other productions , both on the screen and on the stage .
She had parts in many television shows , including `` Good Times , '' `` Grace and Frankie , '' `` E/R '' and `` Buffy the Vampire Slayer . ''
She also appeared in films such as `` Mystic Pizza , '' `` Heartland , '' `` Erin Brockovich , '' `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Her work earned her a total of three Emmy nominations , two of which were for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Comedy Series ( 2005 and 2007 ) , and one for the role she played on `` L.A. Law '' ( 1992 ) .
Ferrell enjoyed a variety of awards for her presence on stage , as well .
She was the proud holder of a Drama Desk Award , an Obie Award for Best Actress and a Theatre World Award .
For several years , Ferrell taught about acting for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Los Angeles .
Her passing has elicited some beautiful words from her fellow actors who took some time to remember her character and friendship .
`` She was a beautiful human , '' Jon Cryer , also from `` Two and a Half Men , '' tweeted .
`` Berta ’ s gruff exterior was an invention of the writers . ''
`` Chatty ’ s warmth and vulnerability were her real strengths .
I ’ m crying for the woman I ’ ll miss , and the joy she brought so many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a consummate pro ... a genuine friend , '' Charlie Sheen tweeted .
`` Berta , your housekeeping was a tad suspect , your 'people ' keeping was perfect . ''
`` Conchata Ferrell was exactly the kind of artist for whom we created our theater -- a deeply honest performer who would inspire our playwrights to create roles for her , '' said Marshall W. Mason , founding artistic director of Circle Repertory Theatre , where Ferrell was an original member , according to Deadline .
`` She was our first home-grown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both her husband , Arnie Anderson , and her daughter , Samantha .
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal .

On Monday afternoon, Conchata Ferrell of "Two and a Half Men" fame passed away from complications following a cardiac arrest. She was 77.
Several months prior, she went into a long-term care facility after experiencing cardiac arrest, and passed away at Sherman Oaks Hospital in Sherman Oaks, California, according to Deadline.
The actress was born in Charleston, West Virginia, on March 28, 1943, as Conchata Galen Ferrell. She attended both West Virginia University and Marshall University, where she received a social studies in education degree, according to IMDb.
While she may be best known for playing Berta, the housekeeper on CBS' "Two and a Half Men," she appeared in a variety of other productions, both on the screen and on the stage.
She had parts in many television shows, including "Good Times," "Grace and Frankie," "E/R" and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." She also appeared in films such as "Mystic Pizza," "Heartland," "Erin Brockovich," "Edward Scissorhands" and "Network."
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Her work earned her a total of three Emmy nominations, two of which were for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Comedy Series (2005 and 2007), and one for the role she played on "L.A. Law" (1992).
Ferrell enjoyed a variety of awards for her presence on stage, as well. She was the proud holder of a Drama Desk Award, an Obie Award for Best Actress and a Theatre World Award.
For several years, Ferrell taught about acting for television at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Her passing has elicited some beautiful words from her fellow actors who took some time to remember her character and friendship.
She was a beautiful human Berta’s gruff exterior was an invention of the writers. Chatty’s warmth and vulnerability were her real strengths. I’m crying for the woman I’ll miss, and the joy she brought so many. https://t.co/SucL6gFaAR — Jon Cryer (@MrJonCryer) October 13, 2020
"She was a beautiful human," Jon Cryer, also from "Two and a Half Men," tweeted. "Berta’s gruff exterior was an invention of the writers."
"Chatty’s warmth and vulnerability were her real strengths. I’m crying for the woman I’ll miss, and the joy she brought so many."
an absolute sweetheart
a consummate pro
a genuine friend
a shocking and painful loss. Berta,
your housekeeping
was a tad suspect,
your "people"keeping was perfect. 💕©💕 pic.twitter.com/cJMK8APgQV — Charlie Sheen (@charliesheen) October 13, 2020
"An absolute sweetheart ... a consummate pro ... a genuine friend," Charlie Sheen tweeted. "Berta, your housekeeping was a tad suspect, your 'people' keeping was perfect."
"Conchata Ferrell was exactly the kind of artist for whom we created our theater -- a deeply honest performer who would inspire our playwrights to create roles for her," said Marshall W. Mason, founding artistic director of Circle Repertory Theatre, where Ferrell was an original member, according to Deadline.
"She was our first home-grown star."
Ferrell is survived by both her husband, Arnie Anderson, and her daughter, Samantha.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.


wnd--2020-10-13--CDC: 85% of COVID patients 'always' or 'often' wore a mask

A study by the Centers for Disease Control indicates that Americans are adhering to mask mandates , but they do n't appear to have slowed or stopped the spread of the coronavirus .
And further , mask-wearing has negative effects .
In its survey of symptomatic COVID-19 patients , the CDC found that 70.6 % reported `` always '' wearing a mask .
An additional 14.4 % say they `` often '' wear one , investigative journalist Jordan Schachtel reported .
That means 85 % of infected COVID-19 patients reported they regularly wear a mask .
Only 3.9 % said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ covering .
`` The study offers insight into the reality that tens of thousands of Americans are acquiring COVID-19 on a daily basis despite overwhelming adherence to mask wearing , '' Schachtel said .
And it counters the claim of White House coronavirus member Dr. Anthony Fauci and others that Americans are not following the CDC guidance on wearing masks .
The spreadsheet below shows the results of the study 's symptomatic group on the left and the control group on the right are similar : Schachtel noted that the survey also contradicts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a recent hearing that a cloth mask is `` more guaranteed to protect me against COVID than when I take a COVID vaccine . ''
Mark Changizi , a theoretical cognitive scientist researcher , noted on Twitter the study showed that usage of a face mask leads to : • Increase in Co2 in the blood • Hypoxemia , which is an abnormal decrease in the partial pressure of oxygen in the arterial blood • A hypercapnia , which is an increase in the pressure of Co2 in the blood Changizi also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by impairing sight downward .
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons has compiled a page of `` Mask Facts '' that explains the basic science behind mask wearing and summarizes a variety of studies .
It shows that the consensus prior to the coronavirus pandemic was that the effectiveness of mask-wearing by the general public in slowing the spread of a virus is unproven , and there 's evidence it does more harm than good .
On April 6 , the World Health Organization said the `` wide use of masks by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not supported by current evidence and carries uncertainties and critical risks . ''
Just two months , later , however , as the pandemic surged , the WHO changed its stance without providing any evidence with radomized controlled trials .
On March 5 , the Centers for Disease Control said masks `` are usually not recommended in `` non-health care settings . ''
But on Aug. 7 , the CDC said it `` recommends that people wear masks in public settings and when around people who do n't live in your household , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difficult to maintain . ''

A study by the Centers for Disease Control indicates that Americans are adhering to mask mandates, but they don't appear to have slowed or stopped the spread of the coronavirus.
And further, mask-wearing has negative effects.
In its survey of symptomatic COVID-19 patients, the CDC found that 70.6% reported "always" wearing a mask. An additional 14.4% say they "often" wear one, investigative journalist Jordan Schachtel reported.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
That means 85% of infected COVID-19 patients reported they regularly wear a mask.
Only 3.9% said they "never" wear a face covering.
"The study offers insight into the reality that tens of thousands of Americans are acquiring COVID-19 on a daily basis despite overwhelming adherence to mask wearing," Schachtel said.
And it counters the claim of White House coronavirus member Dr. Anthony Fauci and others that Americans are not following the CDC guidance on wearing masks.
Is wearing a face mask effective in stopping the spread of COVID-19? 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. 5% (43 Votes) 95% (784 Votes)
The spreadsheet below shows the results of the study's symptomatic group on the left and the control group on the right are similar:
Schachtel noted that the survey also contradicts the claim of CDC Director Robert Redfield in a recent hearing that a cloth mask is "more guaranteed to protect me against COVID than when I take a COVID vaccine."
Mark Changizi, a theoretical cognitive scientist researcher, noted on Twitter the study showed that usage of a face mask leads to:
Increased rebreathing of expelled carbon dioxide
Significant increase in respiration, increased respiratory rate, and hyperventilation
Increased heart rate
Increase in Co2 in the blood
Hypoxemia, which is an abnormal decrease in the partial pressure of oxygen in the arterial blood
A hypercapnia, which is an increase in the pressure of Co2 in the blood
General cognitive decline
Greater difficulty in psychomotor tasks
Changizi also noted masks increase the risk of injury by impairing sight downward.
Confirmed by other studies
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons has compiled a page of "Mask Facts" that explains the basic science behind mask wearing and summarizes a variety of studies.
It shows that the consensus prior to the coronavirus pandemic was that the effectiveness of mask-wearing by the general public in slowing the spread of a virus is unproven, and there's evidence it does more harm than good.
On April 6, the World Health Organization said the "wide use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not supported by current evidence and carries uncertainties and critical risks."
Just two months, later, however, as the pandemic surged, the WHO changed its stance without providing any evidence with radomized controlled trials.
On March 5, the Centers for Disease Control said masks "are usually not recommended in "non-health care settings."
But on Aug. 7, the CDC said it "recommends that people wear masks in public settings and when around people who don't live in your household, especially when other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain."


wnd--2020-10-13--WATCH: In stunning campaign ad, challenger to Maxine Waters spotlights her $6 million mansion

The Republican challenger to 15-term Rep. Maxine Waters , D-Calif. , is drawing national attention with a viral ad that shows him in front of Waters ' $ 6 million mansion , which is not in her South Los Angeles district .
Joe Collins III , a Navy veteran who does live in the district , told Fox News `` The Ingraham Angle '' Monday that his opponent has no substantive record of accomplishments .
In the ad , Collins cites rises in crime since Waters was first elected in 1991 .
He emphasizes the Democrat `` does not drink @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our air and while she sits here , in her mansion , our district is in ruins . ''
`` I was one of the kids left behind by Maxine Waters , '' Collins says in the ad .
`` I 'm going to fight for safety and dignity for South L.A. '' Collins told Ingraham that anyone who lives in South Los Angeles knows `` the conditions of the district and they 're not normal . ''
`` The people are ready for a change , '' he said .
`` She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she has no record , and so the only thing she can say to try and dissuade voters is 'he 's a Trump puppet , ' '' the candidate said .
He said Trump `` has done an incredible job creating policies that we can use to build , but he 's done a great job with our economy . ''
`` I prefer to be a Trump puppet than someone who supports Maxine Waters or be Maxine Waters any day , '' Collins said .
Collins warned South L.A. will only get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` We can see from homelessness already , it 's been skyrocketing since 2009 , '' he told Ingraham .
`` And Maxine , she 's a legislator .
She has the power to create or remove legislation and affect positive change and brings value to our lives and she has failed to do that for the amount of time that she spent in Congress as well as the [ California ] state Senate and the state Assembly . ''
If the district does n't start electing new people to office , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to continue to see a downslide in our communities , economic decline in our communities and violence is going to get worse . ''

The Republican challenger to 15-term Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., is drawing national attention with a viral ad that shows him in front of Waters' $6 million mansion, which is not in her South Los Angeles district.
Joe Collins III, a Navy veteran who does live in the district, told Fox News "The Ingraham Angle" Monday that his opponent has no substantive record of accomplishments.
In the ad, Collins cites rises in crime since Waters was first elected in 1991.
He emphasizes the Democrat "does not drink our water, she does not breathe our air and while she sits here, in her mansion, our district is in ruins."
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
"I was one of the kids left behind by Maxine Waters," Collins says in the ad. "I'm going to fight for safety and dignity for South L.A."
Collins told Ingraham that anyone who lives in South Los Angeles knows "the conditions of the district and they're not normal."
"The people are ready for a change," he said.
Ingraham noted Waters has called Collins a "Trump puppet."
Will Maxine Waters be re-elected to Congress this year? 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. 19% (31 Votes) 81% (136 Votes)
"She can't talk about her record because she has no record, and so the only thing she can say to try and dissuade voters is 'he's a Trump puppet,'" the candidate said.
He said Trump "has done an incredible job creating policies that we can use to build, but he's done a great job with our economy."
"I prefer to be a Trump puppet than someone who supports Maxine Waters or be Maxine Waters any day," Collins said.
See Joe Collins' interview with Laura Ingraham:
Collins warned South L.A. will only get worse if Waters remains in office.
"We can see from homelessness already, it's been skyrocketing since 2009," he told Ingraham. "And Maxine, she's a legislator. She has the power to create or remove legislation and affect positive change and brings value to our lives and she has failed to do that for the amount of time that she spent in Congress as well as the [California] state Senate and the state Assembly."
If the district doesn't start electing new people to office, the Republican candidate said, "we are going to continue to see a downslide in our communities, economic decline in our communities and violence is going to get worse."


wnd--2020-10-13--Doing the math: If the Democrats pack the Supreme Court

Attention readers : Dennis Prager co-authored this column with Tim Groseclose , a professor of economics at George Mason University , where he holds the Adam Smith Chair at the Mercatus Center .
Exponential growth .
It 's why plagues are so dangerous and compound interest is so wonderful .
It 's also why the Democrats ' flirting with court packing could destroy the Supreme Court and , with it , America as we know it .
The following is a reasonable scenario : Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court , which gives conservatives a 6-3 advantage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice John Roberts has essentially become a swing vote ) .
Then , in January , having retained the Democrat-majority House , a President Joe Biden and a newly Democrat-controlled Senate decide to undo the advantage .
Congress passes and Biden signs a new law expanding the Court to 15 members .
Biden appoints six new liberal justices , handing the left a 9-6 majority – a 60 % advantage .
What happens when the Republicans regain power and they want a 60 % conservative advantage ?
As a bit of algebra shows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advantage , they 'd have to expand the Court by 7.5 members .
Of course , they ca n't nominate half a justice , so they 'd probably round up to eight .
Regardless , the Republicans , to gain a 60 % advantage , must expand the Court by more than the Democrats did – by eight , as opposed to six .
The parties would surely continue to insist upon a 60 % advantage , meaning that , with each switch in power , they 'd have to expand the Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ key thing to note is that they would have to expand the court not by a constant number but by a constant percentage .
This is what would cause exponential growth .
If , for example , one side insisted on a 65 % advantage and the other followed suit , they 'd have to expand the Court by 86 % at each switch in power .
How often would such switches in power occur ?
One occurred in 1992 , when Democrats won the House , Senate and presidency .
Others occurred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And if the polls are right , another will occur in 2020 .
Such power switches occur about every eight years , perhaps slightly more frequently .
Let 's err on the side of being less alarmist and assume that the switch would only occur every 10 years .
Let 's similarly assume that the parties would only insist upon a 60 % advantage .
Under these minimal parameters , the Court would expand by 50 % every 10 years .
In 100 years , the Court would grow by a factor of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power of 10 ) , and instead of nine justices , the Supreme Court would consist of 522 justices .
Surely , one would be tempted to think , voters and the two parties would see these problems , and accordingly , such growth would n't continue .
But why not ?
Imagine the following scenario : In the year 2120 , the Court comprises 522 justices ( 313 conservatives and 209 liberals ) .
That November , the Democrats retake the House , Senate and presidency .
Following precedent , they decide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court to 783 justices ( 470 liberals and 313 conservatives ) .
Some voters might say , `` Enough is enough . ''
However , Democrats could reasonably counter that 1 ) `` It 's what the Republicans did last time .
It 's our turn now '' ; 2 ) `` Is 783 really that much larger than 522 ?
`` ; 3 ) `` Only by expanding the Court can we do things such as guarantee a woman 's right to choose and ensure racial and social justice .
Do we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to keep the Court a smaller size ? ''
Further , in such a scenario , no voter would be able to remember when the Court was smaller than 40 justices , much less just nine .
Would they really care if it were expanded a little more ?
Of course , the scenario would continue to repeat .
In other words , if the Democrats do as many of their leading members want them to do ( including Gov .
Jay Inslee , Sen. Elizabeth Warren , Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Mayor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ urges them to do , as vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris told The New York Times she is `` absolutely open to , '' and as at least one New York Times columnist advocates , we will no longer have a legislature and a supreme judicial branch .
We will essentially have two legislatures ( at least when Democratic appointees – justices willing to read left-wing political and social goals into the Constitution – hold the majority of seats ) .
It will be the end of the Supreme Court as we know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of power among the three branches of government and , therefore , the end of America as we know it .
Would the Democrats do it ?
Given the left 's record of destroying whatever it touches – most obviously , the universities , high schools and journalism , and most recently , sports and the sciences – if you are a betting person , you should bet on it .
This is yet another reason everything is at stake in this election .

Attention readers: Dennis Prager co-authored this column with Tim Groseclose, a professor of economics at George Mason University, where he holds the Adam Smith Chair at the Mercatus Center.
Exponential growth. It's why plagues are so dangerous and compound interest is so wonderful.
It's also why the Democrats' flirting with court packing could destroy the Supreme Court and, with it, America as we know it.
The following is a reasonable scenario:
Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court, which gives conservatives a 6-3 advantage (or 5-4, given that Chief Justice John Roberts has essentially become a swing vote).
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Then, in January, having retained the Democrat-majority House, a President Joe Biden and a newly Democrat-controlled Senate decide to undo the advantage. Congress passes and Biden signs a new law expanding the Court to 15 members. Biden appoints six new liberal justices, handing the left a 9-6 majority – a 60% advantage.
What happens when the Republicans regain power and they want a 60% conservative advantage? As a bit of algebra shows, to reverse the Democrats' 9-6 advantage, they'd have to expand the Court by 7.5 members. Of course, they can't nominate half a justice, so they'd probably round up to eight. Regardless, the Republicans, to gain a 60% advantage, must expand the Court by more than the Democrats did – by eight, as opposed to six.
The parties would surely continue to insist upon a 60% advantage, meaning that, with each switch in power, they'd have to expand the Court's size by 50%. The key thing to note is that they would have to expand the court not by a constant number but by a constant percentage. This is what would cause exponential growth. If, for example, one side insisted on a 65% advantage and the other followed suit, they'd have to expand the Court by 86% at each switch in power.
How often would such switches in power occur? One occurred in 1992, when Democrats won the House, Senate and presidency. Others occurred in 2000, 2008 and 2016. And if the polls are right, another will occur in 2020. Such power switches occur about every eight years, perhaps slightly more frequently.
Let's err on the side of being less alarmist and assume that the switch would only occur every 10 years. Let's similarly assume that the parties would only insist upon a 60% advantage.
Under these minimal parameters, the Court would expand by 50% every 10 years. In 100 years, the Court would grow by a factor of approximately 58 (1.5 raised to the power of 10), and instead of nine justices, the Supreme Court would consist of 522 justices.
Surely, one would be tempted to think, voters and the two parties would see these problems, and accordingly, such growth wouldn't continue. But why not? Imagine the following scenario: In the year 2120, the Court comprises 522 justices (313 conservatives and 209 liberals). That November, the Democrats retake the House, Senate and presidency. Following precedent, they decide to regain their advantage and expand the Court to 783 justices (470 liberals and 313 conservatives).
Some voters might say, "Enough is enough." However, Democrats could reasonably counter that 1) "It's what the Republicans did last time. It's our turn now"; 2) "Is 783 really that much larger than 522?"; 3) "Only by expanding the Court can we do things such as guarantee a woman's right to choose and ensure racial and social justice. Do we really want to sacrifice those goals just to keep the Court a smaller size?"
Further, in such a scenario, no voter would be able to remember when the Court was smaller than 40 justices, much less just nine. Would they really care if it were expanded a little more?
Of course, the scenario would continue to repeat.
In other words, if the Democrats do as many of their leading members want them to do (including Gov. Jay Inslee, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Mayor Pete Buttigieg), as The Atlantic urges them to do, as vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris told The New York Times she is "absolutely open to," and as at least one New York Times columnist advocates, we will no longer have a legislature and a supreme judicial branch. We will essentially have two legislatures (at least when Democratic appointees – justices willing to read left-wing political and social goals into the Constitution – hold the majority of seats).
It will be the end of the Supreme Court as we know it, the end of the balance of power among the three branches of government and, therefore, the end of America as we know it.
Would the Democrats do it? Given the left's record of destroying whatever it touches – most obviously, the universities, high schools and journalism, and most recently, sports and the sciences – if you are a betting person, you should bet on it.
This is yet another reason everything is at stake in this election.


wnd--2020-10-14--Why Democrats hate Amy Coney Barrett

Why Democrats hate Amy Coney Barrett

This week , Democrats struggled to explain why Judge Amy Coney Barrett should not be confirmed to serve on the Supreme Court .
They trotted out hackneyed arguments , suggesting that some political norm had been broken by a Republican president nominating a judge to be confirmed as a justice by a Republican Senate in an election year .
There have been 19 times where a seat became vacant in an election year and both the presidency and Senate were controlled by the same party , resulting in 17 judicial confirmations .
They suggested that Ruth Bader Ginsburg 's dying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Democrat takes power represented a sort of binding legal commitment .
They fumed that Barrett refuses to pledge fealty to their political priorities .
They fumed that Barrett has stated that the role of the judiciary is not to achieve moral ends but to enforce the law .
They fumed that Barrett had the temerity to state that `` courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life , '' that `` the policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done her utmost to `` reach the result required by the law , '' whatever her preferences might be .
That 's because , in the view of the political left , the court ought to be merely another weapon in its political arsenal .
Conservatives see the judiciary as Alexander Hamilton characterized it in `` Federalist No .
78 '' : as the `` least dangerous '' branch , capable of `` neither force nor will , but merely judgment , '' an institution whose legitimacy rests on its unwillingness to `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Liberals see the court as a super-legislature , designed to act as moral arbiters on behalf of progressive values .
That 's why former President Barack Obama stated that judges ought to be selected for the quality of `` empathy , of understanding and identifying with people 's hopes and struggles , as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes . ''
Critical legal theorists have suggested that conservatives are fibbing – that their view of the judiciary as relegated to judgment alone is merely cover for the reinforcement of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggest otherwise .
During the 2019 Supreme Court term , for example , out of some 67 decisions , the four justices appointed by Democrats voted together 51 times ; Republican appointees only voted together 37 times .
As Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute has pointed out , `` it 's the ( Ruth Bader ) Ginsburg Four that represent a bloc geared toward progressive policy outcomes . ''
Republican appointees , in other words , are politically heterodox significantly more often than Democratic appointees .
That 's because , on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – and the constitutional separation of powers – seriously .
Democrats do not .
That 's why they see as the glories of the Supreme Court those moments in which the Supreme Court seized power on behalf of progressive ideals .
Roe v. Wade has become holy writ on the political left , specifically because it robbed the American people of their right to vote on the issue of abortion .
Democrats see nothing but glory in Supreme Court justices seizing authority to protect abortion on behalf of defining `` one 's own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the universe , and of the mystery of human life '' ( Planned Parenthood v. Casey , 1992 ) .
They see nothing but wonder in Supreme Court justices declaring that the judiciary has been delegated enforcement of `` a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning '' ( Obergefell v. Hodges , 2015 ) .
They see nothing but cause for celebration in the Supreme Court cramming down on the American people their own sense of our `` evolving standards of decency '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or the importance of never-before-defined `` emanations '' and `` penumbras '' ( Griswold v. Connecticut , 1965 ) .
They want the court to act as an oligarchy .
And they are angry that Barrett 's nomination has moved the court away from that progressive , oligarchic rule .
That 's why they 're threatening to pack the court – because they wish to restore that oligarchy to power .
And that 's just another reason why , for all the talk about Donald Trump 's threats to core American institutions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even mainstream Democratic willingness to trash checks and balances on behalf of power .

This week, Democrats struggled to explain why Judge Amy Coney Barrett should not be confirmed to serve on the Supreme Court. They trotted out hackneyed arguments, suggesting that some political norm had been broken by a Republican president nominating a judge to be confirmed as a justice by a Republican Senate in an election year. There have been 19 times where a seat became vacant in an election year and both the presidency and Senate were controlled by the same party, resulting in 17 judicial confirmations. They suggested that Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dying wish to leave her seat open until a Democrat takes power represented a sort of binding legal commitment.
And they fumed.
They fumed that Barrett refuses to pledge fealty to their political priorities. They fumed that Barrett has stated that the role of the judiciary is not to achieve moral ends but to enforce the law. They fumed that Barrett had the temerity to state that "courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life," that "the policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches" and that she has done her utmost to "reach the result required by the law," whatever her preferences might be.
That's because, in the view of the political left, the court ought to be merely another weapon in its political arsenal. Conservatives see the judiciary as Alexander Hamilton characterized it in "Federalist No. 78": as the "least dangerous" branch, capable of "neither force nor will, but merely judgment," an institution whose legitimacy rests on its unwillingness to "exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT." Liberals see the court as a super-legislature, designed to act as moral arbiters on behalf of progressive values. That's why former President Barack Obama stated that judges ought to be selected for the quality of "empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes."
Critical legal theorists have suggested that conservatives are fibbing – that their view of the judiciary as relegated to judgment alone is merely cover for the reinforcement of their political priorities. But the data suggest otherwise. During the 2019 Supreme Court term, for example, out of some 67 decisions, the four justices appointed by Democrats voted together 51 times; Republican appointees only voted together 37 times. As Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute has pointed out, "it's the (Ruth Bader) Ginsburg Four that represent a bloc geared toward progressive policy outcomes." Republican appointees, in other words, are politically heterodox significantly more often than Democratic appointees. That's because, on a fundamental level, they take their job – and the constitutional separation of powers – seriously.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Democrats do not. That's why they see as the glories of the Supreme Court those moments in which the Supreme Court seized power on behalf of progressive ideals. Roe v. Wade has become holy writ on the political left, specifically because it robbed the American people of their right to vote on the issue of abortion. Democrats see nothing but glory in Supreme Court justices seizing authority to protect abortion on behalf of defining "one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life" (Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992). They see nothing but wonder in Supreme Court justices declaring that the judiciary has been delegated enforcement of "a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning" (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015). They see nothing but cause for celebration in the Supreme Court cramming down on the American people their own sense of our "evolving standards of decency" (Trop v. Dulles, 1958) or the importance of never-before-defined "emanations" and "penumbras" (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965). They want the court to act as an oligarchy.
And they are angry that Barrett's nomination has moved the court away from that progressive, oligarchic rule. That's why they're threatening to pack the court – because they wish to restore that oligarchy to power. And that's just another reason why, for all the talk about Donald Trump's threats to core American institutions, he can't hold a candle to even mainstream Democratic willingness to trash checks and balances on behalf of power.


wnd--2020-10-15--Texas girl, 17, breaks Guinness record for world's longest legs

( FOX NEWS ) -- No pulling legs — this teen ’ s got the world ’ s longest gams @ @ @ @ @ into history as the new record holder for the world 's longest female legs and @ @ @ @ @ , Guinness World Records reports .
The 17-year-old from Cedar Park , Texas , is @ @ @ @ @ , and the record-keeping authority announced her titles this week .
According to Guinness , @ @ @ @ @ measures 52.874 inches , while her left leg is slightly longer at 53.255 inches .

(FOX NEWS) -- No pulling legs — this teen’s got the world’s longest gams.
Maci Currin has sashayed into history as the new record holder for the world's longest female legs and longest legs on a teenager, Guinness World Records reports.
The 17-year-old from Cedar Park, Texas, is 6 feet, 10 inches, and the record-keeping authority announced her titles this week. According to Guinness, Currin’s right leg measures 52.874 inches, while her left leg is slightly longer at 53.255 inches.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-10-15--'Disgusted': NBC employees lash out after network announces Trump town hall

( FOX NEWS ) -- NBC employees are lashing out at their own network after it was announced the network @ @ @ @ @ with President Trump Thursday night airing directly opposite an ABC town hall with Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ Debates scrapped its second debate between the two candidates on Oct. 15 after it unilaterally @ @ @ @ @ event into a virtual debate , prompting Trump to back out as he was still @ @ @ @ @ Biden quickly landed a televised town hall moderated by ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos .
@ @ @ @ @ it too will be hosting a town hall with the president moderated by `` Today @ @ @ @ @

(FOX NEWS) -- NBC employees are lashing out at their own network after it was announced the network is presenting a town hall with President Trump Thursday night airing directly opposite an ABC town hall with Joe Biden.
The Commission on Presidential Debates scrapped its second debate between the two candidates on Oct. 15 after it unilaterally changed the in-person town hall event into a virtual debate, prompting Trump to back out as he was still recovering from the coronavirus. Biden quickly landed a televised town hall moderated by ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos.
NBC revealed on Wednesday that it too will be hosting a town hall with the president moderated by "Today" co-anchor Savannah Guthrie.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-10-15--U.S. destroyer crosses Taiwan Strait, risking Chinese anger

( AFP ) -- A US battleship crossed the Taiwan Strait on Wednesday , the US Navy said , risking @ @ @ @ @ sovereignty over the maritime thoroughfare .
The guided-missile destroyer USS Barry conducted a `` routine @ @ @ @ @ ( local time ) in accordance with international law , '' Seventh Fleet spokeswoman Reann @ @ @ @ @ .
`` The ship 's transit through the Taiwan Strait demonstrates the US commitment to @ @ @ @ @ , '' she added .

(AFP) -- A US battleship crossed the Taiwan Strait on Wednesday, the US Navy said, risking angering China, which claims sovereignty over the maritime thoroughfare.
The guided-missile destroyer USS Barry conducted a "routine Taiwan Strait transit Oct 14 (local time) in accordance with international law," Seventh Fleet spokeswoman Reann Mommsen said in a statement.
"The ship's transit through the Taiwan Strait demonstrates the US commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific," she added.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-10-15--California will begin housing male inmates in women's prisons to 'respect' gender identities

Biological males who find themselves on the wrong side of the California justice system will now be given the choice to serve their sentence in either a men 's or a women 's prison .
Under a new law , a prisoner 's claimed gender identity will determine what type of facility they end up at .
Prison officials will be forced to address inmates by their chosen pronoun and `` honorific '' title .
Worse yet , authorities will seemingly be stripped of any real power to stop these transfers .
The Transgender Respect , Agency and Dignity Act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gives state inmates this new power , was signed into law by California Gov .
Gavin Newsom on Sept. 26 .
The provisions of the law go into effect Jan. 1 , 2021 , according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation .
The law allows prisoners to choose from a `` broad and inclusive '' pool of gender identities , including male , female , `` two-spirit , '' `` mahu '' and everything in between .
Incoming inmates will be asked about their identity during processing , and those already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corrections officers to their claimed gender at any time .
The identity will determine how prisoners are addressed and even how searches are performed on them .
Most importantly , the new law mandates that inmates be `` housed at a correctional facility designated for men or women based on the individual ’ s preference , including , if eligible , at a residential program for individuals under the jurisdiction of the department . ''
Although officials can interrupt this process , the bill places heavy restrictions on any response .
Officials denying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a written `` specific and articulable '' reason for the refusal .
The law mandates that a prisoner 's anatomy , genitalia or physical appearance can not be used as grounds to deny a transfer .
The sexual orientation of inmates is also not considered a valid reason for denial .
With those constraints , it 's unclear how lawmakers intend prison officials to realistically combat exploitation of the new system .
Despite the confusion , the CDCR is moving ahead with the implementation of policies and procedures for handling transgender inmates .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the new act would not weaken anti-rape laws already in effect across the prison system .
`` No one deserves to be treated disrespectfully because of their gender identity or expression .
And it is our sworn duty to protect people from sexual assault and violence , '' Diaz said in a news release .
`` Senate Bill 132 will bolster our ongoing efforts to address the inequalities and complex needs the incarcerated transgender , non-binary and intersex community faces and codify our policies for the screening , treatment , and housing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prison Rape Elimination Act . ''
This devastatingly progressive bill only serves as the latest example of the leftism in California that is driving a mass exodus from the state .
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal .

Biological males who find themselves on the wrong side of the California justice system will now be given the choice to serve their sentence in either a men's or a women's prison.
Under a new law, a prisoner's claimed gender identity will determine what type of facility they end up at.
Prison officials will be forced to address inmates by their chosen pronoun and "honorific" title. Worse yet, authorities will seemingly be stripped of any real power to stop these transfers.
The Transgender Respect, Agency and Dignity Act (S.B. 132), which gives state inmates this new power, was signed into law by California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sept. 26. The provisions of the law go into effect Jan. 1, 2021, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
The law allows prisoners to choose from a "broad and inclusive" pool of gender identities, including male, female, "two-spirit," "mahu" and everything in between.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Incoming inmates will be asked about their identity during processing, and those already behind bars will be allowed to alert corrections officers to their claimed gender at any time.
The identity will determine how prisoners are addressed and even how searches are performed on them.
Most importantly, the new law mandates that inmates be "housed at a correctional facility designated for men or women based on the individual’s preference, including, if eligible, at a residential program for individuals under the jurisdiction of the department."
Although officials can interrupt this process, the bill places heavy restrictions on any response.
Officials denying the rehousing of an inmate must submit a written "specific and articulable" reason for the refusal.
The law mandates that a prisoner's anatomy, genitalia or physical appearance cannot be used as grounds to deny a transfer. The sexual orientation of inmates is also not considered a valid reason for denial.
With those constraints, it's unclear how lawmakers intend prison officials to realistically combat exploitation of the new system.
Despite the confusion, the CDCR is moving ahead with the implementation of policies and procedures for handling transgender inmates.
CDCR Secretary Ralph Diaz assured the public that the new act would not weaken anti-rape laws already in effect across the prison system.
"No one deserves to be treated disrespectfully because of their gender identity or expression. And it is our sworn duty to protect people from sexual assault and violence," Diaz said in a news release.
"Senate Bill 132 will bolster our ongoing efforts to address the inequalities and complex needs the incarcerated transgender, non-binary and intersex community faces and codify our policies for the screening, treatment, and housing of this population as required by the Prison Rape Elimination Act."
This devastatingly progressive bill only serves as the latest example of the leftism in California that is driving a mass exodus from the state.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.


wnd--2020-10-15--China 'ready to work with Russia' to resist U.S. global dominance

( SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST ) -- China will work with Russia to defend multilateralism and resist US attempts at @ @ @ @ @ the message Beijing ’ s ambassador to Moscow , Zhang Hanhui , delivered in an @ @ @ @ @ “ History and practice have proven that multilateralism is the right path to take .
@ @ @ @ @ international relations is not only the choice for China , but also the choice for @ @ @ @ @ , ” Zhang said , according to a transcript of the interview posted on the @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday .

(SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST) -- China will work with Russia to defend multilateralism and resist US attempts at global dominance.
That was the message Beijing’s ambassador to Moscow, Zhang Hanhui, delivered in an interview with Russian media.
“History and practice have proven that multilateralism is the right path to take. Upholding multilateralism and democratisation of international relations is not only the choice for China, but also the choice for most countries in the world,” Zhang said, according to a transcript of the interview posted on the embassy’s website on Tuesday.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-10-15--Poll: Support for Barrett confirmation turns into landslide as hearings continue

A new poll shows that support for confirming Judge Amy Coney Barrett continues to increase , as the Senate Judiciary Committee is currently concluding hearings with the Supreme Court nominee .
A Morning Consult/Politico poll released on Wednesday , the third day of hearings with Barrett , found that support for the judge ’ s confirmation has increased by two percentage points among registered voters who participated in a survey conducted between Oct. 9-11 .
Since Sept. 26 , when Barrett was nominated by President Donald Trump following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , support for her conformation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now sits at 48 percent .
In a survey conducted from Oct. 2-4 , support among all voters was at 46 percent .
Meanwhile , only 31 percent of all respondents said they opposed her confirmation .
Of course , those more likely to approve of Barrett ’ s confirmation identified as either Republican or independent .
Support from Republicans in the Oct. 9-11 poll has maintained steady at 77 percent since Oct. 4 , with seven percent of Republican respondents saying they oppose the confirmation .
Thirty-eight percent of independents , meanwhile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two points from Oct. 4 , and up 10 points from Sept. 26 .
But surprisingly , support for Barrett has increased the most among Democrats .
On Sept. 26 , a mere 14 percent of Democrats supported her confirmation , while support from Democrats polled from Oct. 2-4 rose by ten points to 24 percent .
In the latest survey , 27 percent of Democrats now support confirming Barrett , while another 19 percent said they had no opinion one way or the other on the matter .
Only 55 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ latest survey oppose Barrett ’ s confirmation , which means the party ’ s voters are essentially split on a key issue which is supposed to galvanize them to turn out and vote next month .
That number is huge , and it does n't bode well for Democrats who might be hoping to use the death of Ginsburg to bolster their election chances .
It ’ s important to note that the latest survey was conducted from Oct. 9 - 11 , which was before the country got a chance to watch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ park when being examined by the Judiciary Committee .
Barrett has proved to be bright , composed , knowledgable and charismatic when interacting with both Senate Democrats and Republicans in this week 's hearings .
Seeing as Barrett has demonstrated she is supremely qualified for a spot on the high court , it ’ s difficult to imagine support for her confirmation won ’ t increase further , as it has trended upward since Morning Consult first polled registered voters about her nomination last month .
Morning Consult also had somewhat of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toward obstructing Barrett ’ s confirmation through procedural means .
The pollster concluded , “ Turning to more recent trends , the latest poll provides another warning sign for Senate Democrats — process arguments about when the chamber should hold a vote on Barrett ’ s nomination have yet to sway public opinion .
“ By an 8-point margin , voters say that the Senate should vote on Barrett ’ s nomination as soon as possible , rather than wait to see if the president can defeat Democratic nominee Joe Biden on Election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett could face a final confirmation vote in the Senate the week of Oct. 26 , which is roughly one week before the election .
All indications are that Senate Republicans will have the votes needed to confirm Barrett , barring any unforeseen roadblocks .
The Morning Consult poll surveyed roughly 2,000 registered voters and had a margin of error listed at +/- 2 percentage points .
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal .

A new poll shows that support for confirming Judge Amy Coney Barrett continues to increase, as the Senate Judiciary Committee is currently concluding hearings with the Supreme Court nominee.
A Morning Consult/Politico poll released on Wednesday, the third day of hearings with Barrett, found that support for the judge’s confirmation has increased by two percentage points among registered voters who participated in a survey conducted between Oct. 9-11.
Since Sept. 26, when Barrett was nominated by President Donald Trump following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, support for her conformation has increased by 11 points, and now sits at 48 percent.
In a survey conducted from Oct. 2-4, support among all voters was at 46 percent.
As the Senate Judiciary Committee considers Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court, our new polling with @politico shows support for her confirmation remains sturdy.https://t.co/wbDcpw0GVF pic.twitter.com/gCQ9f5EZQs — Morning Consult (@MorningConsult) October 14, 2020
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Meanwhile, only 31 percent of all respondents said they opposed her confirmation.
Of course, those more likely to approve of Barrett’s confirmation identified as either Republican or independent.
Support from Republicans in the Oct. 9-11 poll has maintained steady at 77 percent since Oct. 4, with seven percent of Republican respondents saying they oppose the confirmation.
Thirty-eight percent of independents, meanwhile, support Barrett, which is up two points from Oct. 4, and up 10 points from Sept. 26.
But surprisingly, support for Barrett has increased the most among Democrats.
On Sept. 26, a mere 14 percent of Democrats supported her confirmation, while support from Democrats polled from Oct. 2-4 rose by ten points to 24 percent.
In the latest survey, 27 percent of Democrats now support confirming Barrett, while another 19 percent said they had no opinion one way or the other on the matter.
Only 55 percent of Democrats polled by Morning Consult in the latest survey oppose Barrett’s confirmation, which means the party’s voters are essentially split on a key issue which is supposed to galvanize them to turn out and vote next month.
That number is huge, and it doesn't bode well for Democrats who might be hoping to use the death of Ginsburg to bolster their election chances.
It’s important to note that the latest survey was conducted from Oct. 9 - 11, which was before the country got a chance to watch the judge hit it out of the park when being examined by the Judiciary Committee.
Barrett has proved to be bright, composed, knowledgable and charismatic when interacting with both Senate Democrats and Republicans in this week's hearings.
Seeing as Barrett has demonstrated she is supremely qualified for a spot on the high court, it’s difficult to imagine support for her confirmation won’t increase further, as it has trended upward since Morning Consult first polled registered voters about her nomination last month.
Morning Consult also had somewhat of a warning for Democrats who might be inclined toward obstructing Barrett’s confirmation through procedural means.
The pollster concluded, “Turning to more recent trends, the latest poll provides another warning sign for Senate Democrats — process arguments about when the chamber should hold a vote on Barrett’s nomination have yet to sway public opinion.
“By an 8-point margin, voters say that the Senate should vote on Barrett’s nomination as soon as possible, rather than wait to see if the president can defeat Democratic nominee Joe Biden on Election Day.”
From our latest poll with @politico: By an 8-point margin, voters say that the Senate should vote on Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court as soon as possible, rather than wait to see the winner of the 2020 election. https://t.co/wbDcpw0GVF pic.twitter.com/nWNvVE9k64 — Morning Consult (@MorningConsult) October 14, 2020
The Associated Press reported that Barrett could face a final confirmation vote in the Senate the week of Oct. 26, which is roughly one week before the election.
All indications are that Senate Republicans will have the votes needed to confirm Barrett, barring any unforeseen roadblocks.
The Morning Consult poll surveyed roughly 2,000 registered voters and had a margin of error listed at +/- 2 percentage points.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.


wnd--2020-10-14--October surprise: Biden sex-assault accuser Tara Reade releasing memoir right before election

October during a presidential election year has developed a reputation for being riddled with `` surprises '' -- meaning unearthed political dirt on a candidate that may affect election outcomes .
One of this year 's October surprises happens to be regarding Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his sexual assault accuser , Tara Reade .
Reade , a longtime Democrat , is planning to release a memoir on Oct. 27 titled `` Left Out : When the Truth Does n't Fit In , '' which details her experience after publicly sharing her allegation against Biden , who she claims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him in 1993 .
Biden was a senator at the time .
In her memoir , according to the promotional website , Reade promises to share `` the aftermath of the re-victimization of speaking out about her sexual assault , with then Senator Joe Biden in 1993 , where the shaming , attacks , and threats instigated by the media sent her into a personal tailspin . ''
`` Tara-rized viciously by cyber bullies , receiving death threats and fearing for her life and those of her family , Tara tells how living @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right for her conscious , '' the website states .
In an article published Tuesday , Reade told Fox News that `` by being really frank about my life , about what has happened to me , and how I keep forward , '' she hopes her work will help others who have also been victims .
But Reade told Fox she does n't think the timing of her memoir 's planned release by TVGuestpert Publishing will affect Biden 's election chances because of the prevalence of early voting .
`` It does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election , '' she told Fox .
`` I do discuss Joe Biden and how I experienced Joe Biden as a staffer and as a woman .
And it was not a positive experience , yet he is going to the most powerful position in the Western world . ''
Still , whether Reade intended to or not , her memoir may have an effect on voter turnout for Biden as the publicity will certainly bring Reade 's allegation against the Democratic presidential candidate back to the public eye with only weeks before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ occasion for voters to remember Biden 's running mate Sen. Kamala Harris ' opinion on Biden 's accusers .
Only last year -- before she was selected by Biden as his vice-presidential running mate , of course -- Harris stated that she believed these women .
In April 2019 , a reporter asked Harris ' at a campaign event in Nevada , `` Senator , the question for you is , as someone who has a relationship with Vice President Biden , what message would you give to the women who feel like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past by the Vice President ? ''
`` I believe them , and I respect them being able to tell their story and having the courage to do it , '' Harris responded .
`` Do you believe that the vice president should enter this race ? ''
`` Oh , he 's going to have to make that decision for himself .
I would n't tell him what to do . ''
This is just another moment where we are reminded of the double-standard embodied by Democratic politicians .
When Democrats call @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' who voice allegations against men such as President Trump or Justice Brett Kavanaugh , they refuse to equally apply their same principle to accusers of former President Bill Clinton or Biden .
Unfortunately for the country , there 's nothing surprising about that .
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal .

October during a presidential election year has developed a reputation for being riddled with "surprises" -- meaning unearthed political dirt on a candidate that may affect election outcomes.
One of this year's October surprises happens to be regarding Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his sexual assault accuser, Tara Reade.
Reade, a longtime Democrat, is planning to release a memoir on Oct. 27 titled "Left Out: When the Truth Doesn't Fit In," which details her experience after publicly sharing her allegation against Biden, who she claims sexually assaulted her while she worked for him in 1993. Biden was a senator at the time.
In her memoir, according to the promotional website, Reade promises to share "the aftermath of the re-victimization of speaking out about her sexual assault, with then Senator Joe Biden in 1993, where the shaming, attacks, and threats instigated by the media sent her into a personal tailspin."
"Tara-rized viciously by cyber bullies, receiving death threats and fearing for her life and those of her family, Tara tells how living with no regret and coming forward was right for her conscious," the website states.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
In an article published Tuesday, Reade told Fox News that "by being really frank about my life, about what has happened to me, and how I keep forward," she hopes her work will help others who have also been victims.
But Reade told Fox she doesn't think the timing of her memoir's planned release by TVGuestpert Publishing will affect Biden's election chances because of the prevalence of early voting.
"It doesn't have anything to do with the election," she told Fox. "I do discuss Joe Biden and how I experienced Joe Biden as a staffer and as a woman. And it was not a positive experience, yet he is going to the most powerful position in the Western world."
Still, whether Reade intended to or not, her memoir may have an effect on voter turnout for Biden as the publicity will certainly bring Reade's allegation against the Democratic presidential candidate back to the public eye with only weeks before Election Day.
This is also an occasion for voters to remember Biden's running mate Sen. Kamala Harris' opinion on Biden's accusers. Only last year -- before she was selected by Biden as his vice-presidential running mate, of course -- Harris stated that she believed these women.
In April 2019, a reporter asked Harris' at a campaign event in Nevada, "Senator, the question for you is, as someone who has a relationship with Vice President Biden, what message would you give to the women who feel like their space has been invaded in the past by the Vice President?"
"I believe them, and I respect them being able to tell their story and having the courage to do it," Harris responded.
"Do you believe that the vice president should enter this race?"
"Oh, he's going to have to make that decision for himself. I wouldn't tell him what to do."
This is just another moment where we are reminded of the double-standard embodied by Democratic politicians.
When Democrats call on Americans to "believe all women" who voice allegations against men such as President Trump or Justice Brett Kavanaugh, they refuse to equally apply their same principle to accusers of former President Bill Clinton or Biden.
Unfortunately for the country, there's nothing surprising about that.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.


wnd--2020-10-14--2020 race gives voters a choice between a man and a movement

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics . ]
I know that President Trump has many faults .
I myself sometimes cringe listening to him .
Often , he is his own worst enemy .
He is a braggart , frequently misinformed , petty , sometimes vengeful .
And more .
Yet he is just the man for these times .
These are revolutionary times .
The Democrats , now controlled by their Black Lives Matter wing , seek to overthrow the American founding , as President Trump said in his excellent Mount @ @ @ @ @ @ @ BLM-Democrats propose a new regime , one that conceives of society not as a collective of individuals with equal rights and a shared understanding of the common good , but as a collection of identity groups , all oppressed by white males .
Government ’ s role in this regime is not to create the conditions for freedom as the Founders intended , but rather to create equal income and power for each identity group .
Achieving this outcome equality requires a never-ending redistribution of wealth and power .
This can only be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as in all tyrannies , dissenters must be silenced .
The BLM-Democratic policy agenda is clear : endless affirmative action , reparations , socialism , open borders , defanging the police , and much more .
In order to achieve this agenda , the BLM-Democrats must get Americans to change their values , their principles , and the way they understand themselves .
They must get us to believe that national borders and colorblindness are racist ; that we are not one culture , but many ; that the most important thing in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pivots -- is slavery .
More extensively , they must get us to believe that we are unworthy .
Not just that we have sinned ( which of course we have ) , but that we are irredeemably sinful , or , in the language of today , “ systemically racist.
” And sexist , homophobic , Islamophobic , etc.
, to boot .
Simply put , the BLM-Democrats must get the rest of us to believe we are bad .
This suggests one way to frame the coming election : as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who believes America is good , and a man , Biden , controlled by a movement that believes America is bad .
Put another way , the choice is between a man who wants to preserve the traditional American way of life and a man controlled by a movement that wants to destroy it .
Beyond all else , what makes Trump the man for these revolutionary times is his willingness to defend the American way of life .
Here he has no equal .
He is unreservedly , unquestionably pro-America .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past .
He makes no apologies .
He concedes nothing .
And Trump has unlimited confidence in America .
These may not always be the attributes one wants in a president but in this day of woke guilt and doubt , they are just what the doctor ordered .
Trump believes that if Americans are “ systemically ” anything , they are systemically committed to freedom and equal rights for all .
He thinks our culture is “ incredible ” ( to use his adjective of choice ) , and that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
President Trump also has the indispensable attribute of a leader : courage .
As a leader must , he goes where others are afraid to go .
And he has common sense , which means he generally wants to go to the right place .
Trump not only thinks America is incredible , he also knows that we are in a fight for our lives .
And he is a fighter .
Despite what one hears ad nauseum from the Democrats , Trump is among the least racist presidents we have ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white way of life ; he is defending the American way of life , a colorblind way open to anyone willing to embrace it .
We are lucky to have him .
I am almost prepared to say that having him is providential .
How else to explain that we find ourselves with this most unusual , most unpresidential man who has just the attributes most needed for this moment .
If we want to save our country then , we should support him -- unequivocally .
I do .
I think this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think Trump is that good .
Remember : Trump versus Biden is the choice between a man who believes America is good and a man controlled by a movement that believes America is bad .
At any other time , Trump might well have been a bad president .
But in these times -- these revolutionary times -- he is the best president we could have had .

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics.]
By Tom Klingenstein
Real Clear Politics
I know that President Trump has many faults. I myself sometimes cringe listening to him. Often, he is his own worst enemy. He is a braggart, frequently misinformed, petty, sometimes vengeful. And more.
Yet he is just the man for these times. These are revolutionary times. The Democrats, now controlled by their Black Lives Matter wing, seek to overthrow the American founding, as President Trump said in his excellent Mount Rushmore speech on July 4.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
The BLM-Democrats propose a new regime, one that conceives of society not as a collective of individuals with equal rights and a shared understanding of the common good, but as a collection of identity groups, all oppressed by white males. Government’s role in this regime is not to create the conditions for freedom as the Founders intended, but rather to create equal income and power for each identity group.
Achieving this outcome equality requires a never-ending redistribution of wealth and power. This can only be achieved by tyrannical government -- and, as in all tyrannies, dissenters must be silenced. The BLM-Democratic policy agenda is clear: endless affirmative action, reparations, socialism, open borders, defanging the police, and much more. In order to achieve this agenda, the BLM-Democrats must get Americans to change their values, their principles, and the way they understand themselves.
They must get us to believe that national borders and colorblindness are racist; that we are not one culture, but many; that the most important thing in our history -- around which all else pivots -- is slavery. More extensively, they must get us to believe that we are unworthy. Not just that we have sinned (which of course we have), but that we are irredeemably sinful, or, in the language of today, “systemically racist.” And sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, etc., to boot. Simply put, the BLM-Democrats must get the rest of us to believe we are bad.
This suggests one way to frame the coming election: as a contest between a man, Trump, who believes America is good, and a man, Biden, controlled by a movement that believes America is bad. Put another way, the choice is between a man who wants to preserve the traditional American way of life and a man controlled by a movement that wants to destroy it.
Beyond all else, what makes Trump the man for these revolutionary times is his willingness to defend the American way of life. Here he has no equal. He is unreservedly, unquestionably pro-America. He feels no guilt for America’s past. He makes no apologies. He concedes nothing. And Trump has unlimited confidence in America. These may not always be the attributes one wants in a president , but in this day of woke guilt and doubt, they are just what the doctor ordered. Trump believes that if Americans are “systemically” anything, they are systemically committed to freedom and equal rights for all. He thinks our culture is “incredible” (to use his adjective of choice), and that’s the way he wants to keep it.
President Trump also has the indispensable attribute of a leader: courage. As a leader must, he goes where others are afraid to go. And he has common sense, which means he generally wants to go to the right place.
Trump not only thinks America is incredible, he also knows that we are in a fight for our lives. And he is a fighter. Despite what one hears ad nauseum from the Democrats, Trump is among the least racist presidents we have ever had. Trump is not defending the white way of life; he is defending the American way of life, a colorblind way open to anyone willing to embrace it.
We are lucky to have him. I am almost prepared to say that having him is providential. How else to explain that we find ourselves with this most unusual, most unpresidential man who has just the attributes most needed for this moment.
If we want to save our country , then, we should support him -- unequivocally. I do. I think this election is that important, and I think Trump is that good.
Remember: Trump versus Biden is the choice between a man who believes America is good and a man controlled by a movement that believes America is bad. At any other time, Trump might well have been a bad president. But in these times -- these revolutionary times -- he is the best president we could have had.