wnd--2020-10-08--5 Declaration truths that should drive your vote

The upcoming presidential election is certainly the most important of my lifetime , and perhaps any since the Civil War era .
The winner will not just direct policy over the next four ( or more ) years , but will affect the fundamental structure of our nation .
Indeed , many of today 's politicians , following the lead of former President Obama , wish to `` fundamentally change America . ''
But they do n't tell you what that means .
That 's the purpose of this discussion .
My goal here is not to tell you whom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to argue what to vote for .
To begin with , let us understand exactly what the fundamental principles of America are .
Only then can we make an informed decision about whether to vote to change them .
The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence sets forth the principles upon which America is built .
It states , in part : This simple statement sets out five fundamental truths about our beliefs , which are : • We are all equal ; • God ( not government ) grants humans certain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liberty and the pursuit of happiness ; • Those rights can not be taken away ; and • Governments are created to protect those rights .
As you go into the voting booth this November , ask yourself , which of these fundamental principles do you wish to alter or abolish ?
Let 's discuss them in more detail .
The Right to Life The great William Blackstone , the English jurist and legal philosopher , wrote in his `` Commentaries on the Law '' that life is the `` immediate gift of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right to life is one that is inherent in every individual .
Blackstone noted that that no man has the power to destroy life , but through the law of God , `` who is the author of life . ''
Many politicians today argue that there is an individual choice whether an unborn child should live or die .
Many such politicians argue that this choice exists right up until the moment the child is born , and perhaps , astonishingly , even immediately after the child is born .
Instead , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kill the innocent ( Exodus 23:7 ) .
Rather , in Deuteronomy 30:19 , He says , `` This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death , blessings and curses .
Now choose life , so that you and your children may live . ''
God is so concerned with life that he created life in his own image ( Genesis 1:26-27 ) ; He sustains life ( Job 12:10 ) ; He redeemed life ( 1 Corinthians 5:19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not only that we may have life , but have it to the fullest ( John 10:10 ) .
Would you vote to fundamentally change the idea that humans have an inherent right to life ?
If so , in whom would you vest the power to decide who will live and who will not ?
What government bureaucracy would you trust to make that decision about your life and that of your family ?
If you said `` no '' to my first question , then you must vote to uphold the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Liberty If man is created by God , as so stated in the Declaration , and if man has an absolute right to life , then it naturally follows that he also has an absolute right to liberty .
Man is born free of bonds .
In a state of nature , as explained by John Locke in his first Essay on Civil Government , men are free to `` order their actions '' as they see fit .
This is the essence of liberty : the freedom of every person to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and talents .
As explained by Frederick Bastiat in his classic essay , `` The Law , '' liberty is the union of all other freedoms .
It is the combination of the freedom of conscience , education , association , travel , press , labor and trade .
God placed a call on every human .
He endowed each person with unique gifts and talents , as well as vision , drive , courage and commitment .
He expects each of us to use those gifts – each according his ability ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's Kingdom .
Yet a bevy of today 's politicians somehow believe that you are not smart enough to carry out God 's call on your life .
Rather than recognize the liberty that naturally flows from the gift of life , they intend to intervene in the conduct of your personal affairs , using the force of government to direct your life .
We see this in the areas of the education of your children , your ability to contract with others for goods , serves and compensation , your capacity to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health care , the management of your retirement savings and investments , your general business practices and so on , with an endless list of government regulations ostensibly intended to protect you from yourself .
To borrow Bastiat 's phrase , this `` philanthropic tyranny '' is merely the means by which governments make despotic inroads into every aspect of your private life .
The net effect is to reduce people `` under absolute despotism '' ( Declaration of Independence ) .
People are thus denied their natural , God-given right to liberty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ list of whimsical social programs dreamed up to supplant God 's call on your life .
In this way , political elitists seek to `` arrange , organize , and regulate it according to their fancy '' ( Bastiat ) .
Would you vote to fundamentally change the idea that you have an inherent right to liberty ?
If so , in whom would you vest the power to determine how your life should be run ?
What government bureaucracy would you trust to make critical decisions about every aspect of your private @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' to my first question , then you must vote to uphold the right to liberty .
Right to the Pursuit of Happiness The right to the pursuit of happiness flows directly from the right to liberty .
If one is free to pursue God 's call on his life in an honest and peaceful manner , he has the natural right to the ownership of the property that grows from such exercise .
In fact , in his Essay on Civil Government , Locke used the term `` property '' and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ essential liberties with which every person is born .
The American founders chose to use the phrase `` pursuit of happiness '' in the Declaration expressly to broaden the idea of this natural right , not to limit it .
Yet we have a strong movement of existing and aspiring politicians whose philosophy directly and violently attacks the concept of private property ownership .
We see this chiefly in tax policy , with proposals for wealth taxes , confiscatory estate taxes and a graduated income tax system .
All of these policies – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raising revenue to fund legitimate functions of government as expressed in Article I , Section 8 , of the Constitution .
Rather , they have everything to do with destroying the wealth of individuals that was earned lawfully and peacefully , and purportedly transferring that wealth to others who did not earn it .
The clarion call of socialism/communism is the destruction of private property rights .
The first plank of Marx 's Manifesto calls for the abolition of private property in land .
The second plank calls for a `` heavy progressive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transfer wealth to the state .
This is done , according to Marx , by making `` despotic inroads on the rights of property . ''
In other words , socialism/communism stands for the outright theft of private property by the government .
Would you vote to fundamentally change the idea that you have an inherent right to the property you peacefully acquired through your honest labor ?
If so , in whom would you vest the power to determine how the fruits of your labor will be allocated or distributed ?
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the final decision about what your labor is worth , and what of its fruits you are allowed to keep for yourself ?
If you said `` no '' to my first question , then you must vote to uphold the right to the pursuit of happiness – the right to own and control the fruits of your own labor .
What is the Current Mind of America ?
In 1825 , Jefferson wrote a letter to Henry Lee to explain the thought processes behind the language in the Declaration of Independence .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ document , said the intention was to capture and present to the world `` an expression of the American mind . ''
That is to say , the founders intended to craft a `` plain and firm '' statement to the world about the British government 's destruction of the rights to life , liberty and property in the colonies .
On this matter , Jefferson said , `` there was but one opinion on this side of the water . ''
That opinion was that these rights were granted by God and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ usurp them .
Is this no longer the mind of America ?
Do we now truly wish to fundamentally change America ?
Are we to divorce ourselves from the principles of liberty and limited government that made us the freest and the richest nation the world has ever seen ?
And what would we have replace our fundamental principles of life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness ?
Would we be better suited to the European models of hereditary monarchy and tyrannical dictatorship that looted and oppressed populations for centuries ?
Or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system of government – like so many nations of the world throughout history and even today – subject to the whims of war , chance and conquest ?
As Patrick Henry said in his famous `` Liberty or Death '' speech , `` Forbid it , Almighty God ! ''
When you cast your vote in November , whether at the national , state or local level , I encourage you to vote for life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness .

The upcoming presidential election is certainly the most important of my lifetime, and perhaps any since the Civil War era. The winner will not just direct policy over the next four (or more) years, but will affect the fundamental structure of our nation. Indeed, many of today's politicians, following the lead of former President Obama, wish to "fundamentally change America." But they don't tell you what that means.
That's the purpose of this discussion. My goal here is not to tell you whom to vote for, but rather, to argue what to vote for. To begin with, let us understand exactly what the fundamental principles of America are. Only then can we make an informed decision about whether to vote to change them.
The Declaration of Independence
The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence sets forth the principles upon which America is built. It states, in part:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed …
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
This simple statement sets out five fundamental truths about our beliefs, which are:
God created man; We are all equal; God (not government) grants humans certain rights, in particular, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; Those rights cannot be taken away; and Governments are created to protect those rights.
As you go into the voting booth this November, ask yourself, which of these fundamental principles do you wish to alter or abolish? Let's discuss them in more detail.
The Right to Life
The great William Blackstone, the English jurist and legal philosopher, wrote in his "Commentaries on the Law" that life is the "immediate gift of God." He declared that the right to life is one that is inherent in every individual. Blackstone noted that that no man has the power to destroy life, but through the law of God, "who is the author of life."
Many politicians today argue that there is an individual choice whether an unborn child should live or die. Many such politicians argue that this choice exists right up until the moment the child is born, and perhaps, astonishingly, even immediately after the child is born.
Instead, God tells us we are not to kill the innocent (Exodus 23:7). Rather, in Deuteronomy 30:19, He says, "This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live."
God is so concerned with life that he created life in his own image (Genesis 1:26-27); He sustains life (Job 12:10); He redeemed life (1 Corinthians 5:19); and He sent his Son not only that we may have life, but have it to the fullest (John 10:10).
Would you vote to fundamentally change the idea that humans have an inherent right to life? If so, in whom would you vest the power to decide who will live and who will not? What government bureaucracy would you trust to make that decision about your life and that of your family?
If you said "no" to my first question, then you must vote to uphold the right to life.
The Right to Liberty
If man is created by God, as so stated in the Declaration, and if man has an absolute right to life, then it naturally follows that he also has an absolute right to liberty. Man is born free of bonds. In a state of nature, as explained by John Locke in his first Essay on Civil Government, men are free to "order their actions" as they see fit.
This is the essence of liberty: the freedom of every person to make full use of his own God-given gifts and talents. As explained by Frederick Bastiat in his classic essay, "The Law," liberty is the union of all other freedoms. It is the combination of the freedom of conscience, education, association, travel, press, labor and trade. God placed a call on every human. He endowed each person with unique gifts and talents, as well as vision, drive, courage and commitment. He expects each of us to use those gifts – each according his ability (Matthew 24:15) – to build God's Kingdom.
Yet a bevy of today's politicians somehow believe that you are not smart enough to carry out God's call on your life. Rather than recognize the liberty that naturally flows from the gift of life, they intend to intervene in the conduct of your personal affairs, using the force of government to direct your life. We see this in the areas of the education of your children, your ability to contract with others for goods, serves and compensation, your capacity to provide for your own medical insurance and health care, the management of your retirement savings and investments, your general business practices and so on, with an endless list of government regulations ostensibly intended to protect you from yourself.
To borrow Bastiat's phrase, this "philanthropic tyranny" is merely the means by which governments make despotic inroads into every aspect of your private life. The net effect is to reduce people "under absolute despotism" (Declaration of Independence). People are thus denied their natural, God-given right to liberty and are instead subjected to a growing list of whimsical social programs dreamed up to supplant God's call on your life. In this way, political elitists seek to "arrange, organize, and regulate it according to their fancy" (Bastiat).
Would you vote to fundamentally change the idea that you have an inherent right to liberty? If so, in whom would you vest the power to determine how your life should be run? What government bureaucracy would you trust to make critical decisions about every aspect of your private life?
If you said "no" to my first question, then you must vote to uphold the right to liberty.
Right to the Pursuit of Happiness
The right to the pursuit of happiness flows directly from the right to liberty. If one is free to pursue God's call on his life in an honest and peaceful manner, he has the natural right to the ownership of the property that grows from such exercise. In fact, in his Essay on Civil Government, Locke used the term "property" and the idea of property ownership to describe the essential liberties with which every person is born. The American founders chose to use the phrase "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration expressly to broaden the idea of this natural right, not to limit it.
Yet we have a strong movement of existing and aspiring politicians whose philosophy directly and violently attacks the concept of private property ownership. We see this chiefly in tax policy, with proposals for wealth taxes, confiscatory estate taxes and a graduated income tax system. All of these policies – admittedly – have little to do with raising revenue to fund legitimate functions of government as expressed in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution. Rather, they have everything to do with destroying the wealth of individuals that was earned lawfully and peacefully, and purportedly transferring that wealth to others who did not earn it.
The clarion call of socialism/communism is the destruction of private property rights. The first plank of Marx's Manifesto calls for the abolition of private property in land. The second plank calls for a "heavy progressive or graduated income tax" to purposefully transfer wealth to the state. This is done, according to Marx, by making "despotic inroads on the rights of property." In other words, socialism/communism stands for the outright theft of private property by the government.
Would you vote to fundamentally change the idea that you have an inherent right to the property you peacefully acquired through your honest labor? If so, in whom would you vest the power to determine how the fruits of your labor will be allocated or distributed? What government bureaucracy would you trust to make the final decision about what your labor is worth, and what of its fruits you are allowed to keep for yourself?
If you said "no" to my first question, then you must vote to uphold the right to the pursuit of happiness – the right to own and control the fruits of your own labor.
What is the Current Mind of America?
In 1825, Jefferson wrote a letter to Henry Lee to explain the thought processes behind the language in the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson, the chief author of the document, said the intention was to capture and present to the world "an expression of the American mind." That is to say, the founders intended to craft a "plain and firm" statement to the world about the British government's destruction of the rights to life, liberty and property in the colonies. On this matter, Jefferson said, "there was but one opinion on this side of the water." That opinion was that these rights were granted by God and no government had the lawful authority to usurp them.
Is this no longer the mind of America? Do we now truly wish to fundamentally change America? Are we to divorce ourselves from the principles of liberty and limited government that made us the freest and the richest nation the world has ever seen? And what would we have replace our fundamental principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Would we be better suited to the European models of hereditary monarchy and tyrannical dictatorship that looted and oppressed populations for centuries?
Or would we leave the development of our system of government – like so many nations of the world throughout history and even today – subject to the whims of war, chance and conquest? As Patrick Henry said in his famous "Liberty or Death" speech, "Forbid it, Almighty God!"
When you cast your vote in November, whether at the national, state or local level, I encourage you to vote for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


wnd--2020-10-08--Conviction back on for Hunter Biden's business partner

A conviction handed down by a federal court for a previous business partner of Joe Biden 's son has been restored by the 2nd U.S .
Circuit Court of Appeals .
Hunter Biden and Devon Archer were involved in a variety of business schemes over the years , including a corporation that received a payment of $ 3.5 million from Elena Baturina , the billionaire wife of the former mayor of Moscow .
The payment raised concerns of a conflict of interest because it came when Joe Biden was vice president .
Hunter Biden also received a total of $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma while it was under investigation for corruption .
At the time , his father was overseeing U.S. policy in Ukraine , which focused on an anti-corruption campaign .
Joe Biden is on video boasting that he pressured Ukraine 's president to fire the country 's top prosecutor , who was investigating Burisma at the time .
The restored conviction against Archer was related to events in which Hunter Biden apparently was not involved .
Just the News reported the appeals court overturned a lower court 's decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The report said that while Hunter Biden was not charged in the scheme , his name was `` invoked at various stages of the fraud as a selling point in transactions . ''
In the 2018 indictment , Archer was accused of conspiracy to commit securities fraud over a bond scheme involving Native American tribes .
He was found guilty , but he asked for a new trial , which was granted .
The 2nd Circuit 's ruling canceled the new trial and reinstated the conviction , and a sentencing hearing was ordered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence presented at trial did not preponderate heavily against the jury 's verdict , we find that the district court abused its discretion in vacating the judgment and granting a new trial .
Accordingly , the decision of the district court is REVERSED , and the jury verdict is reinstated .
The case is REMANDED to the district court for sentencing , '' the appeals judges said .
JTN reported : `` Financial records made public during Archer 's 2018 trial revealed large sums of Chinese and Ukrainian money flowing into Archer 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stanley account for an entity called Rosemont Seneca Bohai , LLC ( RSB ) .
For example , the RSB financial records revealed that Ukraine 's largest gas company , Burisma Holdings , funneled millions to Archer and Biden in 2014 and 2015 .
According to Archer 's bank statement , Burisma paid at least $ 166,666.66 ( twin payments of $ 83,333.33 ) into Biden and Archer 's joint account each month between May 2014 and October 2015 . ''
That government-owned Bank of China sent more than $ 100,000 to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Kazakh businessman .
An investigation in the U.S. Senate criticized the Bidens and their associates for apparent conflicts of interest .
A report of the Senate probe warned that there also were Suspicious Activity Reports generated because of the transfers of money .
Many of the issues remain a concern to U.S. officials .

A conviction handed down by a federal court for a previous business partner of Joe Biden's son has been restored by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Hunter Biden and Devon Archer were involved in a variety of business schemes over the years, including a corporation that received a payment of $3.5 million from Elena Baturina, the billionaire wife of the former mayor of Moscow.
The payment raised concerns of a conflict of interest because it came when Joe Biden was vice president.
Hunter Biden also received a total of $3.1 million for serving on the board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma while it was under investigation for corruption. At the time, his father was overseeing U.S. policy in Ukraine, which focused on an anti-corruption campaign. Joe Biden is on video boasting that he pressured Ukraine's president to fire the country's top prosecutor, who was investigating Burisma at the time.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
The restored conviction against Archer was related to events in which Hunter Biden apparently was not involved.
Just the News reported the appeals court overturned a lower court's decision to give Archer a new trial.
The report said that while Hunter Biden was not charged in the scheme, his name was "invoked at various stages of the fraud as a selling point in transactions."
In the 2018 indictment, Archer was accused of conspiracy to commit securities fraud over a bond scheme involving Native American tribes.
Should Hunter Biden be investigated for corruption? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 100% (102 Votes) 0% (0 Votes)
He was found guilty, but he asked for a new trial, which was granted.
The 2nd Circuit's ruling canceled the new trial and reinstated the conviction, and a sentencing hearing was ordered.
"Because the weight of the evidence presented at trial did not preponderate heavily against the jury's verdict, we find that the district court abused its discretion in vacating the judgment and granting a new trial. Accordingly, the decision of the district court is REVERSED, and the jury verdict is reinstated. The case is REMANDED to the district court for sentencing," the appeals judges said.
JTN reported: "Financial records made public during Archer's 2018 trial revealed large sums of Chinese and Ukrainian money flowing into Archer's and Biden's accounts via a Morgan Stanley account for an entity called Rosemont Seneca Bohai, LLC (RSB). For example, the RSB financial records revealed that Ukraine's largest gas company, Burisma Holdings, funneled millions to Archer and Biden in 2014 and 2015. According to Archer's bank statement, Burisma paid at least $166,666.66 (twin payments of $83,333.33) into Biden and Archer's joint account each month between May 2014 and October 2015."
That government-owned Bank of China sent more than $100,000 to the company, and more money came from a Kazakh businessman.
An investigation in the U.S. Senate criticized the Bidens and their associates for apparent conflicts of interest.
A report of the Senate probe warned that there also were Suspicious Activity Reports generated because of the transfers of money.
Many of the issues remain a concern to U.S. officials.


wnd--2020-10-08--Remember skanky Rep. Katie Hill? Hollywood is celebrating her!

Katie Hill is a 33-year-old Democrat who was elected to Congress in 2018 , representing California 's 25th Congressional District .
She resigned in disgrace less than a year later , in October 2019 , after soft-core porn photos emerged showing Hill naked brushing the hair of her 24-year-old female staffer Morgan Desjardins .
( Other photos showed Hill in passionate embraces with Desjardins , and Hill naked with a bong and what looks like a Nazi-style Iron Cross tattoo strategically placed on her nether regions . )
The story behind the photos was even more sordid .
Desjardins was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hill and her then-husband , Kenny Heslep .
Heslep had posted naked photos of Hill on `` wife-sharing '' websites .
And Desjardins was not the only 20-something Hill and Heslep had had a threesome with , according to a former tenant who rented a room from them in 2010 .
But we have n't heard the last of Katie Hill .
She has written a book titled `` She Will Rise '' in which she characterizes herself as a victim of `` revenge porn '' and domestic abuse who has nevertheless emerged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for true equality . ''
And the Hollywood redemption machinery that is made available almost exclusively to reprobates on the left has cranked into high gear .
The story of Hill 's spectacularly short political career is being made into a movie by Blumhouse Television .
Earlier this week , owner Jason Blum issued a statement , saying , `` We pursued this project because we believe in Katie and her message of empowering women and breaking the system . ''
This is a perfect representation of the sickness and revolting double standards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party .
Had Hill been a Republican man , we 'd have heard shrill screams of `` Exploitation ! ''
`` Power differential ! ''
and `` Patriarchy ! ''
Any hopes of a career in the public eye would be over ( not to mention the inevitable jokes and sexual double-entendres that would accompany the title of Hill 's magnum opus if she were male . )
But because Hill is a Democrat and female , all is forgiven – nay , celebrated .
This announcement was accompanied by the news that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by none other than Elisabeth Moss , star of the hit TV series `` The Handmaid 's Tale '' and the left 's new Joan of Arc .
Based upon Margaret Atwood 's novel of the same name , `` The Handmaid 's Tale '' takes place in a dystopian future when fertile young women are conscripted into sexual slavery by the ruling elite whose wives can not bear children .
And – in case you 've been living in an underground bunker with spotty Wi-Fi – that series has become the go-to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dreams : `` Donald Trump is turning the United States into 'The Handmaid 's Tale ' ! ''
`` Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett belongs to a church that calls women 'handmaids ' ! ''
It 's impossible to overstate the irony here .
Katie Hill was accused of sexually exploiting a young female employee , but her behavior is being spun as the triumphant story of a victimized underdog .
Meanwhile , Amy Coney Barrett – a devoted wife , a loving mother of seven children , and a beloved and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ views have somehow not kept her from becoming a law professor , a federal appellate judge and now a nominee to the country 's highest court – is the threat .
I 'm not sure what is worst : the hypocrisy , the appalling degradation of moral standards , or the astonishing ignorance Hollywood and the rest of the left display of their pivotal role in the ongoing decline of the republic .
Twenty-two years ago , when then-President Bill Clinton was receiving and performing sexual favors in the Oval Office ( again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What is it with you people ? )
, Democrats – including feminists – rallied to his defense .
`` It 's just sex '' became the exculpatory mantra.The public was also expected to ignore Clinton 's serial infidelities and the accusations of sexual assault and rape that were alleged to have taken place when Clinton was governor of Arkansas .
Fast-forward to 2016 : Just a month before the election , The Washington Post released an `` Access Hollywood '' audiotape from 2005 in which Donald Trump used vulgar language to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The horror !
The outrage !
The ( dare I say it ) trumped-up indignation !
The left was apoplectic , certain that the rest of the country would be equally infuriated and that these revelations would doom Trump 's presidential hopes .
They 're still baffled that that did n't happen .
They should n't be .
Voters are on to this game now , which Democrats have played expertly for years .
When Democratic politicians – a la Bill Clinton – are caught in flagrante delicto , we 're told that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personal morality .
But when Republicans behave similarly , their supporters are expected to demand their heads on platters .
For quite some time , this worked – largely because conservative voters are legitimately repulsed by things like infidelity , sexual predation and closeted kink .
But at some point , even Republicans figured out that you ca n't play football if the refs only enforce the rules against one side .
So the new rule has become `` There are no rules . ''
Voters supporting Donald Trump could no longer be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use of a bad word – as a private citizen , no less – when a Democratic president did far worse two decades earlier .
That 's not just `` fake news '' ; it 's old news – ho-hum – and we 've moved on .
`` It 's just sex '' is now a bipartisan part of the political canon ( and `` it 's just dirty words '' has been subsumed into it . )
It 's a meaningful question to ask whether – or why – Americans do n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But if Hollywood , the media and the Democratic Party are asking the question , they might start by looking at their own standards – or lack thereof .

Katie Hill is a 33-year-old Democrat who was elected to Congress in 2018, representing California's 25th Congressional District. She resigned in disgrace less than a year later, in October 2019, after soft-core porn photos emerged showing Hill naked brushing the hair of her 24-year-old female staffer Morgan Desjardins. (Other photos showed Hill in passionate embraces with Desjardins, and Hill naked with a bong and what looks like a Nazi-style Iron Cross tattoo strategically placed on her nether regions.)
The story behind the photos was even more sordid. Desjardins was apparently in a "throuple" with Hill and her then-husband, Kenny Heslep. Heslep had posted naked photos of Hill on "wife-sharing" websites. And Desjardins was not the only 20-something Hill and Heslep had had a threesome with, according to a former tenant who rented a room from them in 2010.
But we haven't heard the last of Katie Hill. She has written a book titled "She Will Rise" in which she characterizes herself as a victim of "revenge porn" and domestic abuse who has nevertheless emerged as a "warrior in the battle for true equality."
And the Hollywood redemption machinery that is made available almost exclusively to reprobates on the left has cranked into high gear. The story of Hill's spectacularly short political career is being made into a movie by Blumhouse Television. Earlier this week, owner Jason Blum issued a statement, saying, "We pursued this project because we believe in Katie and her message of empowering women and breaking the system."
This is a perfect representation of the sickness and revolting double standards that have infected Hollywood and the Democratic Party. Had Hill been a Republican man, we'd have heard shrill screams of "Exploitation!" "Power differential!" and "Patriarchy!" Any hopes of a career in the public eye would be over (not to mention the inevitable jokes and sexual double-entendres that would accompany the title of Hill's magnum opus if she were male.)
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
But because Hill is a Democrat and female, all is forgiven – nay, celebrated .
This announcement was accompanied by the news that Hill will be played in the film by none other than Elisabeth Moss, star of the hit TV series "The Handmaid's Tale" and the left's new Joan of Arc.
Based upon Margaret Atwood's novel of the same name, "The Handmaid's Tale" takes place in a dystopian future when fertile young women are conscripted into sexual slavery by the ruling elite whose wives cannot bear children.
And – in case you've been living in an underground bunker with spotty Wi-Fi – that series has become the go-to metaphor for the left's worst fever dreams: "Donald Trump is turning the United States into 'The Handmaid's Tale'!" "Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett belongs to a church that calls women 'handmaids'!"
It's impossible to overstate the irony here. Katie Hill was accused of sexually exploiting a young female employee, but her behavior is being spun as the triumphant story of a victimized underdog. Meanwhile, Amy Coney Barrett – a devoted wife, a loving mother of seven children, and a beloved and respected colleague whose Catholic faith and traditional views have somehow not kept her from becoming a law professor, a federal appellate judge and now a nominee to the country's highest court – is the threat.
I'm not sure what is worst: the hypocrisy, the appalling degradation of moral standards, or the astonishing ignorance Hollywood and the rest of the left display of their pivotal role in the ongoing decline of the republic.
Twenty-two years ago, when then-President Bill Clinton was receiving and performing sexual favors in the Oval Office (again), with a 20-something female intern. What is it with you people?), Democrats – including feminists – rallied to his defense. "It's just sex" became the exculpatory mantra.The public was also expected to ignore Clinton's serial infidelities and the accusations of sexual assault and rape that were alleged to have taken place when Clinton was governor of Arkansas.
Fast-forward to 2016: Just a month before the election, The Washington Post released an "Access Hollywood" audiotape from 2005 in which Donald Trump used vulgar language to describe his own sexually boorish behavior.
The horror! The outrage! The (dare I say it) trumped-up indignation! The left was apoplectic, certain that the rest of the country would be equally infuriated and that these revelations would doom Trump's presidential hopes.
They're still baffled that that didn't happen. They shouldn't be.
Voters are on to this game now, which Democrats have played expertly for years. When Democratic politicians – a la Bill Clinton – are caught in flagrante delicto, we're told that their political expediency matters more than their personal morality. But when Republicans behave similarly, their supporters are expected to demand their heads on platters.
For quite some time, this worked – largely because conservative voters are legitimately repulsed by things like infidelity, sexual predation and closeted kink.
But at some point, even Republicans figured out that you can't play football if the refs only enforce the rules against one side. So the new rule has become "There are no rules."
Voters supporting Donald Trump could no longer be expected to be outraged by Trump's use of a bad word – as a private citizen, no less – when a Democratic president did far worse two decades earlier. That's not just "fake news"; it's old news – ho-hum – and we've moved on. "It's just sex" is now a bipartisan part of the political canon (and "it's just dirty words" has been subsumed into it.)
It's a meaningful question to ask whether – or why – Americans don't care about statesmanship or personal integrity anymore. But if Hollywood, the media and the Democratic Party are asking the question, they might start by looking at their own standards – or lack thereof.


wnd--2020-10-08--Pence victorious over Harris and Page

Pence victorious over Harris and Page

The conventional wisdom is that Susan Page was a fair moderator of the vice presidential debate .
She was n't , but Vice President Mike Pence won anyway .
Almost all of Page 's questions were loaded against the Trump-Pence agenda , and hardly any were loaded against the Biden-Harris agenda .
Though her baked-in assumptions incorporated the liberal narrative , Pence managed to overcome all of it .
Permit a sampling .
In her COVID-19 question to Sen. Kamala Harris , Page stressed how much worse the virus is getting ( debatable ) , which was an implied indictment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In her question to Pence , she charged that the U.S. death toll is proportionately higher than that of almost every other wealthy nation .
Now , some will say this is no big deal , but an impartial moderator would offer no such editorial comments in either question and would instead invite Harris to comment on Trump 's handling of it and how Biden would handle it differently .
She would not suggest Trump has mismanaged the virus but ask Pence if he believes the administration has managed it well , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a `` super-spreader event '' in the Rose Garden without social distancing or masks and accusatorily asked Pence how he could expect Americans to follow safety guidelines when Trump did n't .
It is not her job to attack .
That is the debater 's prerogative .
She might fairly ask that question in an interview , but not a debate .
On the question of presidential disability , Page opined that voters were concerned over presidential disability because of the candidates ' ages and said that this concern was sharpened because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She did n't mention the extraordinarily humongous elephant in the room – Joe Biden 's mental decline – even though Trump 's COVID issue will most likely be short-term and Biden 's will almost certainly progressively degenerate .
The media 's glaring omission of Biden 's dementia throughout the course of this campaign , and again during this debate , underscores their obscene bias and cynical disregard for the very issue Page raised in this question : presidential disability .
Besides , there are already constitutional procedures in place for presidential succession , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your feigned concern , madam .
Page 's next infraction was particularly egregious , as she accused `` Trump 's doctors '' of giving `` misleading answers '' to questions about his health , further pushing the media narrative that all human beings in Trump 's orbit , including distinguished physicians at Walter Reed hospital , are tainted , and that these doctors are hiding something for some sinister purpose .
Page misleadingly framed her question about the economy in the worst possible light for Trump , emphasizing that 11 million jobs lost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adding the zinger that Latinos , blacks and women were hit hardest .
She did n't mention how Trump 's pre-COVID economy was spectacular or that these very minorities benefited in particular .
Nor did she mention that the current recovery is extraordinary , especially given the Democrats ' efforts to perpetuate lockdowns .
If she must editorialize , then let 's have both sides .
When she directed the economy question to Pence , she gratuitously editorialized that Trump had predicted a rapid recovery , `` but the latest economic report shows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presented this highly debatable assertion as indisputable fact .
She should n't have injected herself at all , but since she did , she should have been neutral – not an ally of the Biden-Harris ticket .
On `` climate change , '' Page noted that there have been increasing hurricanes in the South and record-setting wildfires in the West , before loading her question with the assumption that `` man-made climate change '' has caused both .
These claims are ludicrous , in my opinion .
But that 's not the point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her job to make such assertions .
Her real purpose in so framing the question was to trap Pence into rejecting the conventional wisdom of climate change in an effort to make him look like a science denier .
In a follow-up , Page directly asked Pence whether he regards climate change as an existential threat .
She might as well have said , `` Well , do you , rube ? ''
Note that she did n't ask Harris whether she believes in gender science or accepts the leftist pap that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ credit for pointing out the inconsistency between Harris ' and Biden 's attempt to distance themselves from the Green New Deal and their support for it on their website , she did n't ask Harris any pointed questions about the quixotic provisions this program includes , its prohibitive costs and the undeniable truth that even if we were to implement all of its mandates , we would n't appreciably change global temperature by the end of this century .
Space limitations preclude further examples .
But let me say that despite the deck @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to parry the accusations and keep the debate focused on substantive issues .
He specifically contrasted Biden 's agenda with Trump 's agenda and Trump 's record .
I disagree with the pundit consensus that this debate will make no difference .
Pence focused the nation 's attention on Biden 's horrific plans for America , which is critical for a Trump victory .
The media studiously shields Biden 's agenda , and it was incalculably beneficial for Pence to highlight it .
President Trump can build on this in the next debate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's dangerous and cockamamie ideas , the greater Trump 's chances , which is precisely why Biden and Harris are hiding parts of their agenda and the media is abetting them .

The conventional wisdom is that Susan Page was a fair moderator of the vice presidential debate. She wasn't, but Vice President Mike Pence won anyway.
Almost all of Page's questions were loaded against the Trump-Pence agenda, and hardly any were loaded against the Biden-Harris agenda. Though her baked-in assumptions incorporated the liberal narrative, Pence managed to overcome all of it.
Permit a sampling. In her COVID-19 question to Sen. Kamala Harris, Page stressed how much worse the virus is getting (debatable), which was an implied indictment of Trump's management of it. In her question to Pence, she charged that the U.S. death toll is proportionately higher than that of almost every other wealthy nation. Now, some will say this is no big deal, but an impartial moderator would offer no such editorial comments in either question and would instead invite Harris to comment on Trump's handling of it and how Biden would handle it differently. She would not suggest Trump has mismanaged the virus but ask Pence if he believes the administration has managed it well, and why.
Page accused Trump of conducting a "super-spreader event" in the Rose Garden without social distancing or masks and accusatorily asked Pence how he could expect Americans to follow safety guidelines when Trump didn't. It is not her job to attack. That is the debater's prerogative. She might fairly ask that question in an interview, but not a debate.
On the question of presidential disability, Page opined that voters were concerned over presidential disability because of the candidates' ages and said that this concern was sharpened because of Trump's recent bout with COVID. She didn't mention the extraordinarily humongous elephant in the room – Joe Biden's mental decline – even though Trump's COVID issue will most likely be short-term and Biden's will almost certainly progressively degenerate. The media's glaring omission of Biden's dementia throughout the course of this campaign, and again during this debate, underscores their obscene bias and cynical disregard for the very issue Page raised in this question: presidential disability. Besides, there are already constitutional procedures in place for presidential succession, so please give us a break from your feigned concern, madam.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Page's next infraction was particularly egregious, as she accused "Trump's doctors" of giving "misleading answers" to questions about his health, further pushing the media narrative that all human beings in Trump's orbit, including distinguished physicians at Walter Reed hospital, are tainted, and that these doctors are hiding something for some sinister purpose.
Page misleadingly framed her question about the economy in the worst possible light for Trump, emphasizing that 11 million jobs lost this year have not been replaced and adding the zinger that Latinos, blacks and women were hit hardest. She didn't mention how Trump's pre-COVID economy was spectacular or that these very minorities benefited in particular. Nor did she mention that the current recovery is extraordinary, especially given the Democrats' efforts to perpetuate lockdowns. If she must editorialize, then let's have both sides. When she directed the economy question to Pence, she gratuitously editorialized that Trump had predicted a rapid recovery, "but the latest economic report shows that's not happening." She presented this highly debatable assertion as indisputable fact. She shouldn't have injected herself at all, but since she did, she should have been neutral – not an ally of the Biden-Harris ticket.
On "climate change," Page noted that there have been increasing hurricanes in the South and record-setting wildfires in the West, before loading her question with the assumption that "man-made climate change" has caused both. These claims are ludicrous, in my opinion. But that's not the point, which is that it is not her job to make such assertions. Her real purpose in so framing the question was to trap Pence into rejecting the conventional wisdom of climate change in an effort to make him look like a science denier. In a follow-up, Page directly asked Pence whether he regards climate change as an existential threat. She might as well have said, "Well, do you, rube?" Note that she didn't ask Harris whether she believes in gender science or accepts the leftist pap that there are 71 genders.
While Page deserves credit for pointing out the inconsistency between Harris' and Biden's attempt to distance themselves from the Green New Deal and their support for it on their website, she didn't ask Harris any pointed questions about the quixotic provisions this program includes, its prohibitive costs and the undeniable truth that even if we were to implement all of its mandates, we wouldn't appreciably change global temperature by the end of this century.
Space limitations preclude further examples. But let me say that despite the deck being stacked against him, Pence managed to parry the accusations and keep the debate focused on substantive issues. He specifically contrasted Biden's agenda with Trump's agenda and Trump's record.
I disagree with the pundit consensus that this debate will make no difference. Pence focused the nation's attention on Biden's horrific plans for America, which is critical for a Trump victory. The media studiously shields Biden's agenda, and it was incalculably beneficial for Pence to highlight it. President Trump can build on this in the next debate. The more people exposed to Biden's dangerous and cockamamie ideas, the greater Trump's chances, which is precisely why Biden and Harris are hiding parts of their agenda and the media is abetting them.
Against 2-to-1 odds, Pence brought home a resounding victory.


wnd--2020-10-08--The election may be over already

The election may be over already

There is nearly a month to go before Election Day , and things could change , but if they do n't , the numbers look like Joe Biden may win big .
The national popular vote polls are n't super helpful in predicting the outcome , since our winner is picked state by state according to the Electoral College .
But the national polls since the presidential debate all turned even further toward Biden .
What that tells us – no matter what flaws each individual poll may have – is that President Donald Trump did not help himself with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the fact that Biden was already leading in most battleground polls ( where it really matters ) even before the debate , you get a sense of just how dire the current situation is for Team Trump .
Vice President Mike Pence had a good debate , but nothing happened that would fundamentally change the race .
Now it looks like the second presidential debate may be off , which means there is even less opportunity for Trump to shake things up .
If nothing changes , and something easily could in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at President Joe Biden , Vice President Kamala Harris , a Democratic House and maybe even a Democratic Senate .
Many of my fellow conservatives do n't want to believe this .
They will point out legitimate questions about polling techniques , the flawed polls in 2016 , and the `` shy vote '' ( those who may not want to tell pollsters they are supporting Trump ) that may skew the results .
There is some truth to these arguments , but it 's unlikely to close this large of a gap @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on whether Trump or Biden deserves to win or lose .
It 's just a realistic and detached look at the state of play today .
The most pressing issue for conservatives if Trump does not mount an epic comeback will be stopping the potentially radical agenda Democrats will try to impose .
Today 's Democratic Party is more radical than any in recent memory .
Democrats are angry , and many are out for revenge .
There 's a push to remake our system and take over political power by changing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of national reconciliation .
The far left wants to abolish the Senate filibuster ( the rule requiring 60 votes to get things done ) .
If Biden wins , there is a good chance he 'll have a Senate majority for at least his first two years .
And nobody believes the Republicans are in any danger of winning back the House .
This means the Senate filibuster will be the only thing standing in the way of complete , unfettered Democratic control over our government .
The left will pressure Biden to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will have the votes to do it .
Once they kill the filibuster , they will have the ability to pass any policy they like with a bare majority vote in the House and the Senate .
Trump has pushed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to kill the filibuster so Republicans could have passed more bills without any Democratic support .
Trump argued that the Democrats were going to do it the next time they got power , so Republicans may as well do it first .
It looks like he may have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refused for very good reasons .
The filibuster is a requirement that we have some level of consensus before radically changing our country .
Our founders were not in favor of radical swings in our governance .
National stability is a good thing .
It 's one of the things that separates our country from much of the world , where things can swing wildly year to year .
It 's one reason America has been the world 's leader .
We should be really careful before throwing these things away .
McConnell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do n't seem to care .
The filibuster rules sound like inside-baseball minutia to most Americans , but they are anything but .
As soon as you only need a majority to accomplish your goals , you can do radical things such as expand the Supreme Court .
Biden has been asked many times to state his position on the radical left 's plan to add new judges until they have a left-wing majority .
It 's not a subtle plan .
It 's a partisan attack on our fundamental system .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so power would be shared .
Dividing power this way , with our system of checks and balances between the branches , reduces the possibility of corruption and promotes the need for consensus .
The combination of killing the filibuster so you can pass Democrats ' laws with no Republican input and then blowing up the Supreme Court until they will rubber stamp anything you do would permanently change our country and take today 's already bitterly partisan politics to a whole new level .
It should not be hard to oppose , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ position .
Biden has been known as a moderate liberal for much of his career .
If anything , he 's been more of a corporatist Democrat – doing the bidding of big business while pushing a more liberal environmental and social agenda .
Most who know him think Biden knows in his heart that radical change such as blowing up our Supreme Court and neutering a co-equal branch of government could destroy our country .
What nobody knows is whether Biden is willing to stand up to his party 's ascendant left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charge , or if he 's micromanaged by the young left-wing staffers surrounding him .
The fact that Biden is not willing to commit himself against radical ideas should worry every American more moderate than an Elizabeth Warren/Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Democrat .
It may be too late for a comeback , but making sure every American understands this issue could be Trump 's last shot .

There is nearly a month to go before Election Day, and things could change, but if they don't, the numbers look like Joe Biden may win big. The national popular vote polls aren't super helpful in predicting the outcome, since our winner is picked state by state according to the Electoral College. But the national polls since the presidential debate all turned even further toward Biden. What that tells us – no matter what flaws each individual poll may have – is that President Donald Trump did not help himself with his debate performance. When you add in the fact that Biden was already leading in most battleground polls (where it really matters) even before the debate, you get a sense of just how dire the current situation is for Team Trump.
Vice President Mike Pence had a good debate, but nothing happened that would fundamentally change the race. Now it looks like the second presidential debate may be off, which means there is even less opportunity for Trump to shake things up. If nothing changes, and something easily could in this crazy year, we are looking at President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, a Democratic House and maybe even a Democratic Senate.
Many of my fellow conservatives don't want to believe this. They will point out legitimate questions about polling techniques, the flawed polls in 2016, and the "shy vote" (those who may not want to tell pollsters they are supporting Trump) that may skew the results. There is some truth to these arguments, but it's unlikely to close this large of a gap. None of this is a commentary on whether Trump or Biden deserves to win or lose. It's just a realistic and detached look at the state of play today.
The most pressing issue for conservatives if Trump does not mount an epic comeback will be stopping the potentially radical agenda Democrats will try to impose. Today's Democratic Party is more radical than any in recent memory. Democrats are angry, and many are out for revenge. There's a push to remake our system and take over political power by changing the rules. There isn't much talk of national reconciliation.
The far left wants to abolish the Senate filibuster (the rule requiring 60 votes to get things done). If Biden wins, there is a good chance he'll have a Senate majority for at least his first two years. And nobody believes the Republicans are in any danger of winning back the House. This means the Senate filibuster will be the only thing standing in the way of complete, unfettered Democratic control over our government. The left will pressure Biden to kill the filibuster, and the Democrats will have the votes to do it. Once they kill the filibuster, they will have the ability to pass any policy they like with a bare majority vote in the House and the Senate.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Trump has pushed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to kill the filibuster so Republicans could have passed more bills without any Democratic support. Trump argued that the Democrats were going to do it the next time they got power, so Republicans may as well do it first. It looks like he may have been right about that. But McConnell refused for very good reasons. The filibuster is a requirement that we have some level of consensus before radically changing our country. Our founders were not in favor of radical swings in our governance. National stability is a good thing. It's one of the things that separates our country from much of the world, where things can swing wildly year to year. It's one reason America has been the world's leader. We should be really careful before throwing these things away. McConnell understands this; Democrats want power and don't seem to care.
The filibuster rules sound like inside-baseball minutia to most Americans, but they are anything but. As soon as you only need a majority to accomplish your goals, you can do radical things such as expand the Supreme Court. Biden has been asked many times to state his position on the radical left's plan to add new judges until they have a left-wing majority. It's not a subtle plan. It's a partisan attack on our fundamental system. The founders set up three branches of government so power would be shared. Dividing power this way, with our system of checks and balances between the branches, reduces the possibility of corruption and promotes the need for consensus. The combination of killing the filibuster so you can pass Democrats' laws with no Republican input and then blowing up the Supreme Court until they will rubber stamp anything you do would permanently change our country and take today's already bitterly partisan politics to a whole new level. It should not be hard to oppose, but Biden still will not take a position.
Biden has been known as a moderate liberal for much of his career. If anything, he's been more of a corporatist Democrat – doing the bidding of big business while pushing a more liberal environmental and social agenda. Most who know him think Biden knows in his heart that radical change such as blowing up our Supreme Court and neutering a co-equal branch of government could destroy our country. What nobody knows is whether Biden is willing to stand up to his party's ascendant left wing and whether Biden is really in charge, or if he's micromanaged by the young left-wing staffers surrounding him. The fact that Biden is not willing to commit himself against radical ideas should worry every American more moderate than an Elizabeth Warren/Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Democrat. It may be too late for a comeback, but making sure every American understands this issue could be Trump's last shot.


wnd--2020-10-09--Nobel Prize winner: Another universe existed before ours

( LONDON INDEPENDENT ) There was an earlier universe before the Big Bang , and evidence for its existence can @ @ @ @ @ holes , a Nobel Prize-winning physicist has said .
Sir Roger Penrose made the claim @ @ @ @ @ for breakthroughs in Einstein ’ s general theory of relativity and proof of the existence @ @ @ @ @ Roger argues that the existence of unexplained spots of electromagnetic radiation in the sky – @ @ @ @ @ ’ – are remnants of a previous universe .

(LONDON INDEPENDENT) There was an earlier universe before the Big Bang, and evidence for its existence can still be observed in black holes, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist has said.
Sir Roger Penrose made the claim after recently winning the award for breakthroughs in Einstein’s general theory of relativity and proof of the existence of black holes.
Sir Roger argues that the existence of unexplained spots of electromagnetic radiation in the sky – known as ‘Hawking Points’ – are remnants of a previous universe.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-10-09--Weed stocks surge as Kamala Harris vows to decriminalize pot in debate

( REUTERS ) U.S.-listed shares of major cannabis producers surged on Thursday after Democratic vice president nominee Kamala Harris said @ @ @ @ @ a federal level in the United States under a Biden administration .
During Wednesday night @ @ @ @ @ President Mike Pence , Harris said she and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden would also @ @ @ @ @ people convicted of marijuana-related offences in the past .
Cannabis stock tracker MJ ETF MJ.P @ @ @ @ @ its best session since early June , while Tilray Inc TLRY.O jumped 19.2 % on @ @ @ @ @ of Canopy Growth Corp WEED.TO , Aphria Inc APHA.TO and Aurora Cannabis Inc ACB.TO closed @ @ @ @ @ % higher .

(REUTERS) U.S.-listed shares of major cannabis producers surged on Thursday after Democratic vice president nominee Kamala Harris said marijuana would be decriminalized at a federal level in the United States under a Biden administration.
During Wednesday night’s debate with Vice President Mike Pence, Harris said she and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden would also expunge the criminal records of people convicted of marijuana-related offences in the past.
Cannabis stock tracker MJ ETF MJ.P rose 5.5% to mark its best session since early June, while Tilray Inc TLRY.O jumped 19.2% on the Nasdaq. U.S.-listed shares of Canopy Growth Corp WEED.TO, Aphria Inc APHA.TO and Aurora Cannabis Inc ACB.TO closed between 10% and 13% higher.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-10-09--Nearly 70% of charges against Portland rioters were dropped by progressive DA

( THE BLAZE ) Of the nearly 1,000 protest and riot-related arrests made in Portland since late May , prosecutors @ @ @ @ @ of the charges , according to The Oregonian .
On Wednesday , the Multnomah County @ @ @ @ @ a new statistical dashboard that provides data on `` protest-related cases referred to his office @ @ @ @ @ review and potential issuing . ''
Between May 29 and Oct. 5 , there were @ @ @ @ @ Multnomah DA 's office by the Portland Police Department for prosecution , 666 were rejected @ @ @ @ @ all referred cases had the charges dropped by the Multnomah County DA .
The dashboard @ @ @ @ @ been `` rejected in the interest of justice . ''

(THE BLAZE) Of the nearly 1,000 protest and riot-related arrests made in Portland since late May, prosecutors have dropped almost 70% of the charges, according to The Oregonian.
On Wednesday, the Multnomah County District Attorney's Office released a new statistical dashboard that provides data on "protest-related cases referred to his office by law enforcement for prosecutorial review and potential issuing."
Between May 29 and Oct. 5, there were 974 cases referred to the Multnomah DA's office by the Portland Police Department for prosecution, 666 were rejected, meaning 68% of all referred cases had the charges dropped by the Multnomah County DA. The dashboard states that 543 cases have been "rejected in the interest of justice."
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-10-09--Yelp now posts warnings to consumers about businesses 'accused of racist behavior'

( SACRAMENTO BEE ) If you ’ re browsing through Yelp reviews , you might come across a new consumer @ @ @ @ @ a business has been “ accused of racist behavior.
” “ Recently , someone associated @ @ @ @ @ of racist behavior , resulting in an influx of people posting their views to this @ @ @ @ @ says .
There has been a substantial increase in the number of reviews mentioning Black-owned @ @ @ @ @ a news release Thursday .
This summer , Yelp saw a 617 % rise in @ @ @ @ @ year .

(SACRAMENTO BEE) If you’re browsing through Yelp reviews, you might come across a new consumer alert, warning you that a business has been “accused of racist behavior.”
“Recently, someone associated with this business was accused of racist behavior, resulting in an influx of people posting their views to this page,” the warning says.
There has been a substantial increase in the number of reviews mentioning Black-owned businesses, Yelp said in a news release Thursday. This summer, Yelp saw a 617% rise in such reviews compared with last year.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-10-09--Being pro-Trump has caused me more grief than being Osama bin Laden's niece

( LONDON SPECTATOR ) Americans are , in my experience , the warmest , most kind-hearted and open-minded people in @ @ @ @ @ found this to be true for my whole life , despite being the niece of @ @ @ @ @ the same last name ( albeit spelled slightly differently — bin Ladin is the original @ @ @ @ @ their judgment on the content of someone ’ s character and actions , not on @ @ @ @ @ — or their last name .
This was reaffirmed last month , after I voiced @ @ @ @ @ support for President Trump .
The response to ‘ My Letter to America ’ has @ @ @ @ @ I am most thankful to all those who took the time to read it and @ @ @ @ @ Spectator readers .
But in my private life , I have lost a few so-called @ @ @ @ @ over the past five years .
Coming out publicly was a step too far for @ @ @ @ @ I received for stating my political beliefs revealed unflattering sides to certain characters .

(LONDON SPECTATOR) Americans are, in my experience, the warmest, most kind-hearted and open-minded people in the world. I have found this to be true for my whole life, despite being the niece of Osama bin Laden and sharing the same last name (albeit spelled slightly differently — bin Ladin is the original translation). Americans base their judgment on the content of someone’s character and actions, not on the color of their skin — or their last name.
This was reaffirmed last month, after I voiced my love for America and support for President Trump. The response to ‘My Letter to America’ has been overwhelmingly wonderful, and I am most thankful to all those who took the time to read it and send kind messages, including Spectator readers.
But in my private life, I have lost a few so-called friends for backing Donald Trump over the past five years. Coming out publicly was a step too far for some, and the vitriol I received for stating my political beliefs revealed unflattering sides to certain characters.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-10-09--U.S. announces tariffs on $2 billion worth of products

( FOX BUSINESS ) -- U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross on Friday announced the U.S. will collect tariffs on $ @ @ @ @ @ sheet from 18 countries after determining the goods were being unfairly dumped in the country @ @ @ @ @ action by the agency in more than two decades .
The tariffs on 18 nations @ @ @ @ @ Bahrain and Oman , will go into effect immediately , even though the department 's @ @ @ @ @ said .
The U.S. International Trade Commission is expected to make the final determination in @ @ @ @ @ .
`` This is the largest and most far-reaching case that our department has brought @ @ @ @ @ , '' Ross said Friday morning during an interview with FOX Business ' Maria Bartiromo @

(FOX BUSINESS) -- U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross on Friday announced the U.S. will collect tariffs on $1.96 billion worth of aluminum sheet from 18 countries after determining the goods were being unfairly dumped in the country, the broadest trade enforcement action by the agency in more than two decades.
The tariffs on 18 nations, which include Germany, Bahrain and Oman, will go into effect immediately, even though the department's determination was preliminary, Ross said. The U.S. International Trade Commission is expected to make the final determination in February 2021, he said.
"This is the largest and most far-reaching case that our department has brought in more than 20 years," Ross said Friday morning during an interview with FOX Business' Maria Bartiromo.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-10-09--Hurricane Delta landfall expected late Friday

( FOX NEWS ) -- Delta , now a devastating Category 3 storm , is expected to bring hurricane conditions @ @ @ @ @ storm surge to portions of the northern Gulf Coast on Friday .
As of 7 @ @ @ @ @ officials said the storm would make landfall within `` the next couple of hours '' @ @ @ @ @ .
Just hours earlier , around 4 a.m. CDT , Delta was located about 200 @ @ @ @ @ La.
, with maximum sustained winds of 120 mph , according to the National Hurricane @ @ @ @ @ The hurricane is expected to impact some of the same areas that were damaged by @ @ @ @ @ ago .

(FOX NEWS) -- Delta, now a devastating Category 3 storm, is expected to bring hurricane conditions and a "life-threatening" storm surge to portions of the northern Gulf Coast on Friday. As of 7 a.m. CST Friday, weather officials said the storm would make landfall within "the next couple of hours" along Louisiana's southwest coast.
Just hours earlier, around 4 a.m. CDT, Delta was located about 200 miles south of Cameron, La., with maximum sustained winds of 120 mph, according to the National Hurricane Center (NHC).
The hurricane is expected to impact some of the same areas that were damaged by Hurricane Laura about six weeks ago.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-10-09--'Resume life as normal': Over 6,500 scientists and health professionals sign anti-lockdown petition

That 's been the rallying cry of the left on a myriad of issues over the past several years : abortion , sex and gender , climate change and , most recently , the coronavirus .
Never mind the fact that objective science often disagrees with the left 's contentions .
So , they should be happy to reopen the country now that over 6,500 scientists and medical professionals have signed an anti-lockdown petition , according to the U.K. Daily Mail .
The petition , written by Dr. Sunetra Gupta of the University of Oxford , Dr. Martin Kulldorff of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , calls for the United States and the United Kingdom to end their lockdowns and promotes allowing the virus to spread among young people in order to build herd immunity .
Over 60,000 members of the public have backed the petition .
The authors advocate protecting those who are vulnerable while letting the rest of us get back to business as usual .
In support , the petition cites the low death rate among young and healthy people who contract the coronavirus , as well as the negative physical and mental effects of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal , '' the scientists wrote .
`` Keeping these [ lockdown ] measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage , with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed . ''
The scientists are right : Many people are coping with mental health issues due to prolonged isolation brought about by the lockdowns .
Many people are struggling to feed their families because their jobs have been shut down by the government -- including many restaurant and hourly workers who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not to say the coronavirus is n't serious .
Rather , there are many other repercussions of shutting down large chunks of the country with no end in sight other than whether fewer people are exposed to the virus .
Of course , just because a lot of scientists and professors agree that we should strive for herd immunity does n't guarantee it will work .
Because the coronavirus is a novel virus , there are many unanswered questions regarding the long-term effects of the disease and whether contracting it once precludes you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ petitions like this and the opinions of a large number of medical and scientific experts should have been part of the conversation from the beginning .
Instead , the left -- the self-proclaimed `` party of science '' -- has hidden behind the vague veil of `` science '' to ram down destructive policies .
`` Listen to the science '' means nothing if it is simply used as an end to promote a narrative and shut down dissenters , rather than as an objective tool to determine policies and procedures .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

"Listen to the science."
That's been the rallying cry of the left on a myriad of issues over the past several years: abortion, sex and gender, climate change and, most recently, the coronavirus.
Never mind the fact that objective science often disagrees with the left's contentions.
So, they should be happy to reopen the country now that over 6,500 scientists and medical professionals have signed an anti-lockdown petition, according to the U.K. Daily Mail.
The petition, written by Dr. Sunetra Gupta of the University of Oxford, Dr. Martin Kulldorff of Harvard and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford, calls for the United States and the United Kingdom to end their lockdowns and promotes allowing the virus to spread among young people in order to build herd immunity.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Over 60,000 members of the public have backed the petition.
The authors advocate protecting those who are vulnerable while letting the rest of us get back to business as usual.
In support, the petition cites the low death rate among young and healthy people who contract the coronavirus, as well as the negative physical and mental effects of the continued lockdowns.
"Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal," the scientists wrote.
"Keeping these [lockdown] measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed."
The scientists are right: Many people are coping with mental health issues due to prolonged isolation brought about by the lockdowns. Many people are struggling to feed their families because their jobs have been shut down by the government -- including many restaurant and hourly workers who live paycheck to paycheck.
That's not to say the coronavirus isn't serious. Rather, there are many other repercussions of shutting down large chunks of the country with no end in sight other than whether fewer people are exposed to the virus.
Of course, just because a lot of scientists and professors agree that we should strive for herd immunity doesn't guarantee it will work.
Because the coronavirus is a novel virus, there are many unanswered questions regarding the long-term effects of the disease and whether contracting it once precludes you from getting it again.
However, petitions like this and the opinions of a large number of medical and scientific experts should have been part of the conversation from the beginning.
Instead, the left -- the self-proclaimed "party of science" -- has hidden behind the vague veil of "science" to ram down destructive policies.
"Listen to the science" means nothing if it is simply used as an end to promote a narrative and shut down dissenters, rather than as an objective tool to determine policies and procedures.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
UPDATE, Oct. 9, 2020: The Western Journal has added a link to the petition in question to this story.


wnd--2020-10-09--Trump targets 'monster' Kamala Harris in debate response: 'Everything she said is a lie'

President Donald Trump called Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris of California a `` monster '' during his assessment of Wednesday 's debate between Harris and Vice President Mike Pence .
Trump phoned in to Maria Bartiromo 's `` Mornings with Maria '' show on Fox Business , and made it clear what he thought of Harris .
`` And this monster who was on stage with Mike Pence -- who destroyed her last night , by the way -- but this monster , she says , ‘ no no , there won ’ t be fracking , ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Everything she said is a lie , ” Trump said .
During the debate , Pence said that the process of hydrofracking , a method of extracting oil and natural gas from shale bedrock , would be ended if Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden is elected .
`` Joe Biden and Kamala Harris want to raise taxes .
They want to bury our economy under a $ 2 trillion Green New Deal , which you were one of the original co-sponsors of in the United States Senate .
They want to abolish fossil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cost hundreds of thousands of American jobs all across the Heartland , '' Pence said .
When Harris said Biden `` has been very clear '' that he would not end fracking , Pence disagreed .
`` You yourself said on multiple occasions when you were running for president that you would ban fracking .
Joe Biden looked his supporter in the eye and pointed and said , ' I guarantee , I guarantee that we will abolish fossil fuels , ' '' Pence said .
Trump said Biden and Harris have flip-flopped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He was raising his very thin hand and he was fracking .
And now all of a sudden , he ’ s not fracking .
Well tell the Pennsylvania people that you ’ re going , it ’ s ridiculous .
He said , he ’ s not fracking .
That ’ s all he said .
And then all of a sudden , he goes to a fracking mode , '' Trump said .
`` And how about her ?
She committed her life to it .
And all of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She ’ s a big fracker .
They going to stop fracking the minute they get into office , they ’ re lying to everybody .
They ’ re lying about so many different things . ''
Trump also said Harris was a disaster during the debate .
`` I thought that was n't even a contest last night , '' Trump said .
`` She was terrible .
I do n't think you could get worse .
And totally unlikable .
And she is .
She 's a communist .
She 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
`` She 's rated left of Bernie by everybody .
She 's a communist .
Are we going to have a communist ? ''
Trump followed that up by offering his assessment on Biden 's stamina .
`` Joe 's not lasting two months as president , '' Trump said .
“ He 's not mentally capable of being president .
You know that , everybody knows that , everybody that knows him .
He can ’ t be president , '' the president also said .
This article appeared originally on @ @ @ @

President Donald Trump called Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris of California a "monster" during his assessment of Wednesday's debate between Harris and Vice President Mike Pence.
Trump phoned in to Maria Bartiromo's "Mornings with Maria" show on Fox Business, and made it clear what he thought of Harris.
Trump refers to Kamala Harris as "this monster" pic.twitter.com/hcnUpV8PBf — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 8, 2020
"And this monster who was on stage with Mike Pence -- who destroyed her last night, by the way -- but this monster, she says, ‘no no, there won’t be fracking,’ there won’t be this. Everything she said is a lie,” Trump said.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
During the debate, Pence said that the process of hydrofracking, a method of extracting oil and natural gas from shale bedrock, would be ended if Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden is elected.
"Joe Biden and Kamala Harris want to raise taxes. They want to bury our economy under a $2 trillion Green New Deal, which you were one of the original co-sponsors of in the United States Senate. They want to abolish fossil fuels and ban fracking, which would cost hundreds of thousands of American jobs all across the Heartland," Pence said.
When Harris said Biden "has been very clear" that he would not end fracking, Pence disagreed.
Vice President @Mike_Pence calls out Joe Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris: "you yourself said on multiple occasions when you were running for president that you would ban fracking”https://t.co/YAApimuVv1 pic.twitter.com/G0HigU13dC — RNC Research (@RNCResearch) October 8, 2020
"You yourself said on multiple occasions when you were running for president that you would ban fracking. Joe Biden looked his supporter in the eye and pointed and said, 'I guarantee, I guarantee that we will abolish fossil fuels,'" Pence said.
Trump said Biden and Harris have flip-flopped on fracking.
"He was raising his very thin hand, and he was fracking" -- what the hell is Trump talking about? pic.twitter.com/cGguiXi7Ne — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 8, 2020
"He was fracking. He was raising his very thin hand and he was fracking. And now all of a sudden, he’s not fracking. Well tell the Pennsylvania people that you’re going, it’s ridiculous. He said, he’s not fracking. That’s all he said. And then all of a sudden, he goes to a fracking mode," Trump said.
"And how about her? She committed her life to it. And all of a sudden she’s a fracker. She’s a big fracker. They going to stop fracking the minute they get into office, they’re lying to everybody. They’re lying about so many different things."
Trump also said Harris was a disaster during the debate.
"She's a communist," Trump says of Kamala Harris, adding without a shred of irony that "Biden won't make it two months as president" pic.twitter.com/DpwtPh6NSF — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 8, 2020
"I thought that wasn't even a contest last night," Trump said.
"She was terrible. I don't think you could get worse. And totally unlikable. And she is. She's a communist. She's left of Bernie," he added.
"She's rated left of Bernie by everybody. She's a communist. Are we going to have a communist?"
Trump followed that up by offering his assessment on Biden's stamina.
"Joe's not lasting two months as president," Trump said.
“He's not mentally capable of being president. You know that, everybody knows that, everybody that knows him. He can’t be president," the president also said.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.


wnd--2020-10-09--Poll: Considering ACB before inauguration is more popular than packing the court

The left has used the U.S. Supreme Court as another lever to pull to get their radical agenda codified , and they 'll apparently stop at nothing to keep their apparatus in place -- a strategy at odds with what the American people want .
With the death of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Sept. 18 came their cries that President Donald Trump simply could not replace her since his term is nearly up , despite it being both his right and responsibility to do so .
The far left 's only strategy -- besides using the woman 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for holding off confirming Trump 's pick , Judge Amy Coney Barrett -- is to pack the courts with additional justices if they win the White House and a Senate majority in November .
The current balance of the court between the nine justices , provided Barrett is confirmed , would be 6-3 in favor of Republican-appointed justices .
So , if Democrats take over and want to tip the court in their favor , they would need to add at least four more justices .
It seems that both former Vice President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ California Sen. Kamala Harris , likely have no problem doing just that , even if they wo n't say it outright ( more on that later ) .
However , even as the American people are wary of Barrett 's confirmation before Inauguration Day in January 2021 , a Washington Examiner/YouGov poll of 1,200 registered voters conducted Oct. 4 suggests more people favor the Senate considering Barrett than support the Democrats ' radical strategy to counter her potential confirmation .
Among all voters polled , just 34 percent said they favored adding justices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is confirmed before the election and Democrats win both the presidency and the Senate .
By contrast , 42 percent said they favored the Senate considering Barrett before Inauguration Day .
Unsurprisingly , responses to both questions broke decidedly along party lines , with more total Democrats weighing in than Republicans .
( The sample size included 61 percent more Democrats than Republicans .
The margin of error was +/- 3.6 percentage points . )
Still , the poll 's results mean that even with the partisan divide , respondents favored considering Barrett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simply stuffing the court full of more leftists in black robes to counter her appointment .
In fact , 47 percent of all voters questioned said they would prefer a `` balanced '' court over a liberal- or conservative-leaning one if Democrats win the presidency and pack the court .
Barrett , of course , should be a shoo-in , considering she 's a qualified nominee who has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit since 2017 .
The only strikes against her are from the left because she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Trump , which is why she is routinely smeared as some sort of misogynist cult member .
( Those who spread such smears forget that Barrett is a highly educated career woman , wife and mother -- a combination that used to be the feminist ideal . )
Both candidates on the Democratic presidential ticket have demurred from directly answering whether they will seek to add justices , but that itself speaks volumes .
During Wednesday 's vice presidential debate , Harris skirted the question and threw out an implicit charge of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how people being chased in movies knock over shelves as they flee from their pursuer .
( Both scenarios are ridiculous and all about optics . )
`` Of course Kamala Harris will not answer the question about packing the court because that ’ s what they plan on doing , '' Donald Trump Jr. tweeted Wednesday night .
`` When the Democrats can ’ t get their way they will change the rules to push their leftist agenda .
They ’ re not even pretending anymore . ''
During a question-and-answer session @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Biden again refused to answer the question .
`` You ’ ll know my opinion on court packing when the election is over , ” he said .
`` The moment I answer that question , '' he told reporters , `` the headline in every one of your papers will be about that other than focusing on what 's happening now . ''
He accused Republicans of `` denying the American people the one shot they have under constitutional law to be able to have their input '' by possibly confirming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been elected and is still in office until voters say otherwise .
The fact Biden and Harris refuse to answer the question is telling , and for the party that would destroy Justice Brett Kavanaugh 's life during his confirmation hearing , adding more justices to tip the balance their way seems like small potatoes .
The will of the people was decided in November 2016 when Trump was elected , and his time in office runs until a new president is sworn in -- in January 2021 or later .
That means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still within his purview to complete as he sees fit , whether Democrats like it or not .
The American people may not be convinced about Barrett just yet , but they certainly do n't want the radicalism of simply stuffing the courts to allow Democrats to have their own way .
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal .

The left has used the U.S. Supreme Court as another lever to pull to get their radical agenda codified, and they'll apparently stop at nothing to keep their apparatus in place -- a strategy at odds with what the American people want.
With the death of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Sept. 18 came their cries that President Donald Trump simply could not replace her since his term is nearly up, despite it being both his right and responsibility to do so.
The far left's only strategy -- besides using the woman's reported "dying wish" as justification for holding off confirming Trump's pick, Judge Amy Coney Barrett -- is to pack the courts with additional justices if they win the White House and a Senate majority in November.
The current balance of the court between the nine justices, provided Barrett is confirmed, would be 6-3 in favor of Republican-appointed justices.
So, if Democrats take over and want to tip the court in their favor, they would need to add at least four more justices.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
It seems that both former Vice President Joe Biden and his running mate, California Sen. Kamala Harris, likely have no problem doing just that, even if they won't say it outright (more on that later).
However, even as the American people are wary of Barrett's confirmation before Inauguration Day in January 2021, a Washington Examiner/YouGov poll of 1,200 registered voters conducted Oct. 4 suggests more people favor the Senate considering Barrett than support the Democrats' radical strategy to counter her potential confirmation.
Among all voters polled, just 34 percent said they favored adding justices to the U.S. Supreme Court if Barrett is confirmed before the election and Democrats win both the presidency and the Senate.
By contrast, 42 percent said they favored the Senate considering Barrett before Inauguration Day.
Unsurprisingly, responses to both questions broke decidedly along party lines, with more total Democrats weighing in than Republicans. (The sample size included 61 percent more Democrats than Republicans. The margin of error was +/- 3.6 percentage points.)
Still, the poll's results mean that even with the partisan divide, respondents favored considering Barrett prior to Inauguration Day over cheating and simply stuffing the court full of more leftists in black robes to counter her appointment.
10.7.20 Washington Examiner... by Washington Examiner
In fact, 47 percent of all voters questioned said they would prefer a "balanced" court over a liberal- or conservative-leaning one if Democrats win the presidency and pack the court.
Barrett, of course, should be a shoo-in, considering she's a qualified nominee who has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit since 2017.
The only strikes against her are from the left because she's Catholic, judicially conservative and nominated by Trump, which is why she is routinely smeared as some sort of misogynist cult member. (Those who spread such smears forget that Barrett is a highly educated career woman, wife and mother -- a combination that used to be the feminist ideal.)
Both candidates on the Democratic presidential ticket have demurred from directly answering whether they will seek to add justices, but that itself speaks volumes.
During Wednesday's vice presidential debate, Harris skirted the question and threw out an implicit charge of racism to deflect, kind of like how people being chased in movies knock over shelves as they flee from their pursuer. (Both scenarios are ridiculous and all about optics.)
"Of course Kamala Harris will not answer the question about packing the court because that’s what they plan on doing," Donald Trump Jr. tweeted Wednesday night.
"When the Democrats can’t get their way they will change the rules to push their leftist agenda. They’re not even pretending anymore."
Of course Kamala Harris will not answer the question about packing the court because that’s what they plan on doing. When the Democrats can’t get their way they will change the rules to push their leftist agenda.
They’re not even pretending anymore. — Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) October 8, 2020
During a question-and-answer session with both candidates in Phoenix on Thursday, Biden again refused to answer the question.
"You’ll know my opinion on court packing when the election is over,” he said.
"The moment I answer that question," he told reporters, "the headline in every one of your papers will be about that other than focusing on what's happening now."
He accused Republicans of "denying the American people the one shot they have under constitutional law to be able to have their input" by possibly confirming Barrett, even though Trump has already been elected and is still in office until voters say otherwise.
The fact Biden and Harris refuse to answer the question is telling, and for the party that would destroy Justice Brett Kavanaugh's life during his confirmation hearing, adding more justices to tip the balance their way seems like small potatoes.
The will of the people was decided in November 2016 when Trump was elected, and his time in office runs until a new president is sworn in -- in January 2021 or later.
That means every responsibility and task before him is still within his purview to complete as he sees fit, whether Democrats like it or not.
The American people may not be convinced about Barrett just yet, but they certainly don't want the radicalism of simply stuffing the courts to allow Democrats to have their own way.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.