westernjournal--2020-10-02--Top White House Official Tests Positive for Coronavirus

Hope Hicks , one of President Donald Trump ’ s closest aides , has tested positive for the coronavirus .
@ @ @ @ @ counselor to the president and traveled with him to a Wednesday rally , tested positive @ @ @ @ @ administration official , who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private health information .
@ @ @ @ @ to Trump to test positive so far .
Hicks traveled with the president multiple times @ @ @ @ @ Marine One , the presidential helicopter , for a Minnesota rally Wednesday , and aboard @ @ @ @ @ night ’ s first presidential debate .
Hicks previously served as White House communications director @ @ @ @ @ year ahead of the election .
The Western Journal has not reviewed this Associated Press @ @ @ @ @ Therefore , it may contain editorial bias or may in some other way not meet @ @ @ @ @ It is provided to our readers as a service from The Western Journal .
We @ @ @ @ @ accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Hope Hicks, one of President Donald Trump’s closest aides, has tested positive for the coronavirus.
Hicks, who serves as counselor to the president and traveled with him to a rally Wednesday, tested positive Thursday, according to an administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private health information.
She is the closest aide to Trump to test positive so far.
The White House did not immediately respond to multiple questions about the last time Trump was tested and whether he and other staffers who spent time with Hicks in recent days will be asked to quarantine.
In a statement, White House spokesman Judd Deere said, “The President takes the health and safety of himself and everyone who works in support of him and the American people very seriously.”
“White House Operations collaborates with the Physician to the President and the White House Military Office to ensure all plans and procedures incorporate current CDC guidance and best practices for limiting COVID-19 exposure to the greatest extent possible both on complex and when the President is traveling,” Deere said.
Hicks traveled with the president multiple times this week, including aboard Marine One, the presidential helicopter, for a Minnesota rally Wednesday, and aboard Air Force One to Tuesday night’s first presidential debate.
Hicks, one of the president’s most trusted aides, previously served as White House communications director and rejoined the administration this year ahead of the election. Her positive test was first reported by Bloomberg News.
Multiple White House staffers have tested positive for the virus, including Katie Miller, Vice President Mike Pence’s press secretary, National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien and one of the president’s personal valets.
After earlier positive cases close to the president, the White House instituted a daily testing regimen for the president’s senior aides.
Others who will be in close proximity to the president and vice president, including reporters, are also tested every day.
The Western Journal has reviewed this Associated Press story and may have altered it prior to publication to ensure that it meets our editorial standards.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-10-02--Moderator for 2nd Debate Worked as Biden’s Intern, Was a Staff Assistant for Dem Sen. Kennedy

There is bipartisan agreement that the first presidential debate between the candidates in the 2020 election was mostly a dumpster fire .
Besides ending pretty much in a draw for President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden , Fox News ’ Chris Wallace was roundly criticized for hammering Trump while helping the Democratic nominee throughout the night , at one point even debating Trump all by himself .
Sadly , the second face-off on Oct. 15 may not go much better with C-SPAN senior executive producer and political editor Steve Scully tapped to moderate the next debate from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ steady demeanor as host of the network ’ s “ Washington Journal ” political commentary has earned him the reputation as the “ most patient man on television.
” Be that as it may , the real problem is Scully ’ s past working for Democratic politicians , leaving critics questioning whether he ’ ll pull another Wallace and get in the trenches for Biden , even if there is little danger of a Candy Crowley moment from a man like Scully .
His bio as a keynote speaker at a Utah Valley @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ served as an intern in the office of Delaware Sen. Joseph R. Biden , and later a staff assistant in Sen. Edward M. Kennedy ’ s media affairs office.
” In 2011 , he told The Cable Center that he also worked on former President Jimmy Carter ’ s presidential campaign , where he stood in for Mr. Peanut ( no joke ) in a photo-op with the peanut farmer turned awful president .
Scully is also on the record railing against Fox News for covering the “ titillating news of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a May 2011 interview with Journalism Jobs .
He made it clear which cable news network he was talking about when he offered , “ if you ’ re sick and tired of watching Laci Peterson on the Fox News Channel , then you can come on to C-SPAN and understand the process that we do in following it , ” describing the network ’ s coverage of the sensational murder of a pregnant woman shortly before Christmas in 2002 .
To his credit , Scully warned of partisan news coverage , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if we go down the path where everyone looks at The Washington Post and The New York Times and dismisses them as being supportive or critical of Republicans.
” Still , he threw in criticism for opinion journalism from “ Fox , Sean Hannity , Bill O ’ Reilly ” and again slighted Fox , using the network ’ s catchphrase to urge news outlets to “ be truly fair and balanced , and not just to say it as a slogan for a cable network.
” While it seems Scully is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats and his words against right-wing media have Trump allies concerned that he will not be impartial .
“ The last debate moderator Chris Wallace was a totally biased partisan who kept rescuing Biden , ” talk radio host Mark Simone tweeted Thursday .
“ The next debate moderator is C-SPAN ’ s Steve Scully , who once worked in Joe Biden ’ s office , before working for Ted Kennedy .
Could the debate committee be less obvious ?
” RELATED : Joe Biden Botches the Constitution : Americans Get 'To Choose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas also pointed out Wallace ’ s partisanship and raised concerns about Scully .
“ Everyone agrees Tuesday ’ s debate was a train wreck .
A major contributing fact was the moderator Chris Wallace , a registered Democrat , repeatedly interrupting to try to help Joe Biden , ” he wrote in a lengthy thread Thursday .
“ The next debate is set to be moderated by a former intern to…Joe Biden .
( And Ted Kennedy . )
” Critics are right to be concerned , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back that Scully was palling around with Democrats .
In a June 2016 tweet , the host shared a photo of himself and Biden side by side and grinning at what he captioned , “ Biden Beach Bash ’ 16.
” Clearly , even if Scully earnestly attempts to be impartial , it hardly seems proper to have him moderating a debate in which one of the candidates is his pal and former employer .
There is no such thing as a completely impartial moderator , but with Scully ’ s track record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Kennedy , it is obvious where his loyalties lie .
The American public needs truly fair debates , not another dumpster fire moderated by a partisan hack stumping for the Democrat .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

There is bipartisan agreement that the first presidential debate between the candidates in the 2020 election was mostly a dumpster fire.
Besides ending pretty much in a draw for President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden, Fox News’ Chris Wallace was roundly criticized for hammering Trump while helping the Democratic nominee throughout the night, at one point even debating Trump all by himself.
Sadly, the second face-off on Oct. 15 may not go much better with C-SPAN senior executive producer and political editor Steve Scully tapped to moderate the next debate from Miami.
Scully’s calm, steady demeanor as host of the network’s “Washington Journal” political commentary has earned him the reputation as the “most patient man on television.”
Be that as it may, the real problem is Scully’s past working for Democratic politicians, leaving critics questioning whether he’ll pull another Wallace and get in the trenches for Biden, even if there is little danger of a Candy Crowley moment from a man like Scully.
His bio as a keynote speaker at a Utah Valley University conference a decade ago said he “served as an intern in the office of Delaware Sen. Joseph R. Biden, and later a staff assistant in Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s media affairs office.”
In 2011, he told The Cable Center that he also worked on former President Jimmy Carter’s presidential campaign, where he stood in for Mr. Peanut (no joke) in a photo-op with the peanut farmer turned awful president.
Scully is also on the record railing against Fox News for covering the “titillating news of the day” rather than more serious issues in a May 2011 interview with Journalism Jobs.
He made it clear which cable news network he was talking about when he offered, “if you’re sick and tired of watching Laci Peterson on the Fox News Channel, then you can come on to C-SPAN and understand the process that we do in following it,” describing the network’s coverage of the sensational murder of a pregnant woman shortly before Christmas in 2002.
Will Scully's history working for Democrats including Biden cloud his ability to be impartial? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 96% (1371 Votes) No: 4% (58 Votes)
To his credit, Scully warned of partisan news coverage, saying it would be a “shame if we go down the path where everyone looks at The Washington Post and The New York Times and dismisses them as being supportive or critical of Republicans.”
Still, he threw in criticism for opinion journalism from “Fox, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly” and again slighted Fox, using the network’s catchphrase to urge news outlets to “be truly fair and balanced, and not just to say it as a slogan for a cable network.”
While it seems Scully is a decent man, his experience working for Democrats and his words against right-wing media have Trump allies concerned that he will not be impartial.
“The last debate moderator Chris Wallace was a totally biased partisan who kept rescuing Biden,” talk radio host Mark Simone tweeted Thursday.
“The next debate moderator is C-SPAN’s Steve Scully, who once worked in Joe Biden’s office, before working for Ted Kennedy. Could the debate committee be less obvious?”
The last debate moderator Chris Wallace was a totally biased partisan who kept rescuing Biden.
The next debate moderator is C-SPAN’s Steve Scully, who once worked in Joe Biden’s office, before working for Ted Kennedy. Could the debate committee be less obvious? #debate — MARK SIMONE (@MarkSimoneNY) October 1, 2020
Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas also pointed out Wallace’s partisanship and raised concerns about Scully.
“Everyone agrees Tuesday’s debate was a train wreck. A major contributing fact was the moderator Chris Wallace, a registered Democrat, repeatedly interrupting to try to help Joe Biden,” he wrote in a lengthy thread Thursday.
“The next debate is set to be moderated by a former intern to…Joe Biden. (And Ted Kennedy.)”
1/x Everyone agrees Tuesday’s debate was a train wreck. A major contributing fact was the moderator Chris Wallace, a registered Democrat, repeatedly interrupting to try to help Joe Biden. The next debate is set to be moderated by a former intern to…Joe Biden. (And Ted Kennedy.) — Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) October 1, 2020
Critics are right to be concerned, as it isn’t just way back that Scully was palling around with Democrats.
In a June 2016 tweet, the host shared a photo of himself and Biden side by side and grinning at what he captioned, “Biden Beach Bash ’16.”
Gotta love the @VP at the Biden Beach Bash ’16 pic.twitter.com/Z9gdC6Cmi1 — Steve Scully (@SteveScully) June 4, 2016
Clearly, even if Scully earnestly attempts to be impartial, it hardly seems proper to have him moderating a debate in which one of the candidates is his pal and former employer.
There is no such thing as a completely impartial moderator, but with Scully’s track record working for Democrats like Carter, Biden and Kennedy, it is obvious where his loyalties lie.
The American public needs truly fair debates, not another dumpster fire moderated by a partisan hack stumping for the Democrat.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-10-01--Republican Attorneys General Use Democrats’ Own Words Against Them in Support of Amy Coney Barrett

Since when did Republicans urge the Senate to listen to the Democrats ?
Since 22 Republican attorneys general unearthed extensive Democratic comments urging that even in an election year , the process of confirming a Supreme Court justice should move forward promptly , and packaged those comments in a letter to Senate leaders urging fast action on President Donald Trump ’ s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court .
If confirmed , Barrett , an originalist , would join a bloc of four justices generally seen as conservatives .
With the death of Justice Ruth Bader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wing has shrunk to three justices .
Chief Justice John Roberts , who was appointed to the court by Republican President George W. Bush , had emerged as a swing vote when the court ’ s liberal and conservative wings were deadlocked .
However , if Barrett is confirmed , conservatives could have an outright majority whichever way Roberts swings .
To prevent that , Senate Democrats are claiming the looming election is a valid reason to put the confirmation process off until next year .
Their hope is that Trump will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nominate Ginsburg ’ s successor .
TRENDING : Trump Challenges Biden To 'Name One ' Law Enforcement Group That Supports Him - Met with Total Silence Adhering to the adage that turnabout is fair play , the attorneys general of Louisiana , Indiana , Georgia , Alabama , Alaska , Arizona , Arkansas , Florida , Kansas , Kentucky , Mississippi , Missouri , Montana , Nebraska , North Dakota , Ohio , Oklahoma , South Carolina , South Dakota , Texas , Utah and West Virginia sent a letter Wednesday telling Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s nomination .
Along the way , the attorneys general cited Democrats to explain their reasoning .
To buttress their case , they quoted a 2016 letter from Democratic attorneys general in 19 states , including New York and California , who were urging that a confirmation hearing for Judge Merrick Garland , former President Barack Obama ’ s nominee to succeed the late Justice Antonin Scalia , be held in that presidential election year .
“ The Constitution clearly sets out the process for filling a Supreme Court vacancy .
The President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” the 2016 Democratic letter said .
The Democratic officials said in 2016 that the Senate “ has the responsibility to consider and approve or disapprove the nomination .
While simple , this is the law and it should be followed.
” The 2016 letter noted that “ since 1900 , six justices have been confirmed during election years , including Justice Anthony Kennedy , who was confirmed in the final year of the Reagan Administration.
” The letter from the Republican attorneys general also pointed out that time , as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s side .
RELATED : Amy Coney Barrett Begins Senate Visits as Some Democrats Shun Her “ Justice Ginsburg herself was confirmed 42 days after she was nominated .
Justice Sandra Day O ’ Connor ’ s confirmation took 33 days , while Justice John Paul Stevens was confirmed 19 days after he was nominated .
As the New York Times reported in 2016 , ‘ on average , a nominee has been confirmed , rejected , or withdrawn within 25 days , ' ” the new letter said .
Addressing fear-mongering about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for issues such as abortion , the GOP attorneys general noted that Barrett said in 2017 — after being nominated to her current Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals judgeship — that “ she has ‘ rejected throughout my entire career the proposition that the end justifies the means or that a judge should decide cases based on a desire to reach a certain outcome . '
” The attorneys general reminded Senate leaders that the court ’ s rulings have far-reaching consequences beyond the Beltway .
“ As the chief legal officers for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to our citizens to ensure that the federal government respects the principles of federalism and separation of powers embodied in the United States Constitution , ” they wrote .
“ As guardians of the Constitution , Supreme Court Justices bear a special responsibility to prevent the other branches of the federal government from encroaching on individual liberties and the States ’ power to provide for the health , education , and welfare of their people .
“ From Judge Barrett ’ s stated views of the law and her opinions from the bench @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this responsibility and will work to safeguard the constitutional framework our Founding Fathers intended .
“ Indeed , Judge Barrett ’ s judicial opinions display a robust commitment to interpreting the Constitution based on its original meaning , ” the letter read .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Since when did Republicans urge the Senate to listen to the Democrats?
Since 22 Republican attorneys general unearthed extensive Democratic comments urging that even in an election year, the process of confirming a Supreme Court justice should move forward promptly, and packaged those comments in a letter to Senate leaders urging fast action on President Donald Trump’s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.
If confirmed, Barrett, an originalist, would join a bloc of four justices generally seen as conservatives. With the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the court’s liberal wing has shrunk to three justices.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who was appointed to the court by Republican President George W. Bush, had emerged as a swing vote when the court’s liberal and conservative wings were deadlocked. However, if Barrett is confirmed, conservatives could have an outright majority whichever way Roberts swings.
To prevent that, Senate Democrats are claiming the looming election is a valid reason to put the confirmation process off until next year. Their hope is that Trump will be defeated and Democratic challenger Joe Biden will nominate Ginsburg’s successor.
Today, it was my great honor to nominate one of our nation’s most brilliant and gifted legal minds to the Supreme Court. She is a woman of unparalleled achievement, towering intellect, sterling credentials, and unyielding loyalty to the Constitution: Judge Amy Coney Barrett… pic.twitter.com/l2yezt2UOi — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 27, 2020
Adhering to the adage that turnabout is fair play, the attorneys general of Louisiana, Indiana, Georgia, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and West Virginia sent a letter Wednesday telling Senate leaders to act promptly on Barrett’s nomination.
Along the way, the attorneys general cited Democrats to explain their reasoning.
Do you think that Judge Amy Coney Barrett will be confirmed before the election? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 99% (108 Votes) No: 1% (1 Votes)
To buttress their case, they quoted a 2016 letter from Democratic attorneys general in 19 states, including New York and California, who were urging that a confirmation hearing for Judge Merrick Garland, former President Barack Obama’s nominee to succeed the late Justice Antonin Scalia, be held in that presidential election year.
“The Constitution clearly sets out the process for filling a Supreme Court vacancy. The President has a duty to make a nomination,” the 2016 Democratic letter said.
The Democratic officials said in 2016 that the Senate “has the responsibility to consider and approve or disapprove the nomination. While simple, this is the law and it should be followed.”
The 2016 letter noted that “since 1900, six justices have been confirmed during election years, including Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was confirmed in the final year of the Reagan Administration.”
The letter from the Republican attorneys general also pointed out that time, as well as precedent, is on Barrett’s side.
“Justice Ginsburg herself was confirmed 42 days after she was nominated. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s confirmation took 33 days, while Justice John Paul Stevens was confirmed 19 days after he was nominated. As the New York Times reported in 2016, ‘on average, a nominee has been confirmed, rejected, or withdrawn within 25 days,'” the new letter said.
A vote by any Senator to confirm Judge Barrett is a vote to terminate the Affordable Care Act and overturn a woman’s right to choose. Democrats are fighting for Americans’ health care and women’s rights. https://t.co/rpaHX2mSOX — Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) October 1, 2020
Addressing fear-mongering about what a conservative court majority might mean for issues such as abortion, the GOP attorneys general noted that Barrett said in 2017 — after being nominated to her current Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals judgeship — that “she has ‘rejected throughout my entire career the proposition that the end justifies the means or that a judge should decide cases based on a desire to reach a certain outcome.'”
The attorneys general reminded Senate leaders that the court’s rulings have far-reaching consequences beyond the Beltway.
“As the chief legal officers for our States, we have an obligation to our citizens to ensure that the federal government respects the principles of federalism and separation of powers embodied in the United States Constitution,” they wrote.
“As guardians of the Constitution, Supreme Court Justices bear a special responsibility to prevent the other branches of the federal government from encroaching on individual liberties and the States’ power to provide for the health, education, and welfare of their people.
“From Judge Barrett’s stated views of the law and her opinions from the bench, we are confident that she understands this responsibility and will work to safeguard the constitutional framework our Founding Fathers intended.
“Indeed, Judge Barrett’s judicial opinions display a robust commitment to interpreting the Constitution based on its original meaning,” the letter read.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-10-01--Mike Huckabee: You Can’t Condemn White Supremacists Any Harder Than Trump Already Has

I couldn ’ t believe during the debate that Joe Biden once again gave his dramatic recitation about the white supremacists with neck veins bulging at Charlottesville and how President Trump called them “ very fine people ” ( he ’ s claimed that hearing that was the catalyst for him deciding to run for president ) , and Chris Wallace didn ’ t inform him that he couldn ’ t possibly have heard it because it ’ s fake news .
It ’ s a lie so glaring that even liberal news outlets have debunked it .
For about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were very fine people on both sides of the argument about removing Confederate monuments , but that the white nationalists should be “ condemned totally.
” Frankly , at this point , I can see only two reasons why Biden would keep telling this long-exposed lie .
Either he ’ s an idiot who doesn ’ t know it ’ s been debunked out the wazoo .
TRENDING : Trump Challenges Biden To 'Name One ' Law Enforcement Group That Supports Him - Met with Total Silence Or he ’ s willing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an attempt to deceive black voters into thinking their president is a racist who hates them , which is a vile , cynical and incredibly corrosive thing to do , as well as being transparently dishonest .
I will give Biden the respect to assume that he is not an idiot .
Biden ’ s willingness to retail such a horrible lie to gin up racial suspicion and division should have been the big story , since it ought to disqualify him as president .
But as expected , almost all of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outrageous ” it was that Trump refused to condemn white supremacists .
Here ’ s a headline from the “ paper of record ” ( quotation marks well-earned ) , The New York Times : “ Trump Refuses to Denounce White Supremacy… ” And from NPR ( your tax dollars at work ) : “ Trump Declines to Denounce White Supremacy.
” But as a post-debate rewatch of the tape showed ( the only harder job was having to write the transcript ! )
, Trump did agree to denounce white supremacists ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loud crosstalk .
If you don ’ t believe a conservative outlet , even the reliably liberal “ fact-check ” site Snopes could only give the claim a “ mixed ” rating , which in the case of any Trump accusation usually means “ We tried every way possible to keep from admitting it ’ s false , but we just couldn ’ t. ” Incidentally , how many times is Trump expected to do this ?
RELATED : Fred Weinberg : BLM & the Left Are Using One of Joseph Goebbel 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these vile people , and they in no way represent his supporters .
It ’ s based on a straw man accusation from the left about Trump ’ s supporters whom they just can ’ t believe would have legitimate reasons to vote against them ( is the media saying that nearly 63 million Trump voters are all white supremacists ? )
While Biden never condemns BLM or antifa rioters , Trump ’ s had to condemn and disavow these racist jerks on multiple occasions , including David Duke , the KKK and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comment that Biden keeps misquoting .
And speaking of the KKK , if Trump supports white supremacists , how come just last week he vowed to designate both antifa and the KKK as terrorist organizations ?
You can ’ t condemn anyone harder than that .
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website .
If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal , you can learn about our submission guidelines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

I couldn’t believe during the debate that Joe Biden once again gave his dramatic recitation about the white supremacists with neck veins bulging at Charlottesville and how President Trump called them “very fine people” (he’s claimed that hearing that was the catalyst for him deciding to run for president), and Chris Wallace didn’t inform him that he couldn’t possibly have heard it because it’s fake news.
It’s a lie so glaring that even liberal news outlets have debunked it.
For about the 100th time: Trump said there were very fine people on both sides of the argument about removing Confederate monuments, but that the white nationalists should be “condemned totally.”
Frankly, at this point, I can see only two reasons why Biden would keep telling this long-exposed lie.
Either he’s an idiot who doesn’t know it’s been debunked out the wazoo.
Or he’s willing to keep repeating a known slanderous falsehood in an attempt to deceive black voters into thinking their president is a racist who hates them, which is a vile, cynical and incredibly corrosive thing to do, as well as being transparently dishonest.
I will give Biden the respect to assume that he is not an idiot.
Biden’s willingness to retail such a horrible lie to gin up racial suspicion and division should have been the big story, since it ought to disqualify him as president.
But as expected, almost all of the post-debate media coverage focused on how “outrageous” it was that Trump refused to condemn white supremacists.
Do you think the media's coverage of Trump's debate comments has been dishonest? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 100% (24 Votes) No: 0% (0 Votes)
Here’s a headline from the “paper of record” (quotation marks well-earned), The New York Times: “Trump Refuses to Denounce White Supremacy…”
And from NPR (your tax dollars at work): “Trump Declines to Denounce White Supremacy.”
But as a post-debate rewatch of the tape showed (the only harder job was having to write the transcript!), Trump did agree to denounce white supremacists; it just got buried in all the loud crosstalk.
If you don’t believe a conservative outlet, even the reliably liberal “fact-check” site Snopes could only give the claim a “mixed” rating, which in the case of any Trump accusation usually means “We tried every way possible to keep from admitting it’s false, but we just couldn’t.”
Incidentally, how many times is Trump expected to do this?
He’s never courted these vile people, and they in no way represent his supporters. It’s based on a straw man accusation from the left about Trump’s supporters whom they just can’t believe would have legitimate reasons to vote against them (is the media saying that nearly 63 million Trump voters are all white supremacists?)
While Biden never condemns BLM or antifa rioters, Trump’s had to condemn and disavow these racist jerks on multiple occasions, including David Duke, the KKK and the thugs in Charlottesville in the very comment that Biden keeps misquoting.
And speaking of the KKK, if Trump supports white supremacists, how come just last week he vowed to designate both antifa and the KKK as terrorist organizations? You can’t condemn anyone harder than that.
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-10-01--Joe Biden Botches the Constitution: Americans Get ‘To Choose Who They Want on the Supreme Court’

In an ideal world , lawmakers and politicians would have a strong working knowledge of the Constitution of the United States .
After all , members of Congress and the president all swear an oath to uphold and defend the nation ’ s most foundational legal document .
In the real world , unfortunately , many politicians appear constitutionally illiterate — even those who have ostensibly studied the Constitution in depth .
Today ’ s culprit is Joe Biden , who was interviewed Wednesday by anchor Shannon Perrine of Pittsburgh ’ s WTAE-TV .
During the interview , Biden claimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people get an opportunity to choose who they want on the Supreme Court by who they pick as their senator and their president.
” However , the Constitution says no such thing .
TRENDING : Trump Challenges Biden To 'Name One ' Law Enforcement Group That Supports Him - Met with Total Silence Rather , the Constitution allows the president to nominate and , with the “ advice and consent ” of the Senate , appoint Supreme Court justices .
The Constitution does not give the American people a say in picking justices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that senators have a right to grill potential justices based on their ideology or political affiliation .
The president nominates a candidate .
If the Senate consents , the president can appoint that candidate .
That ’ s it .
Joe Biden — who has not only been in government for 47 years but also graduated from Syracuse Law School in 1968 and claims to have taught constitutional law for over 20 years — should know this .
In fact , he supported this process in 2016 .
Now , he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political agenda .
To the extent Americans “ get an opportunity to choose who they want ” through their senators and president , the people have already spoken : Republicans hold both the Senate and the presidency .
In 2018 — shortly after President Donald Trump ’ s last Supreme Court pick , Brett Kavanaugh , was confirmed to the highest court — Americans voted to keep the Senate red .
Moreover , Biden ’ s claim is belied by the fact that , so far , he has refused to release a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nominees or answer whether , if elected , he would pack the Supreme Court with additional justices .
Perrine asked Biden if he supports court-packing ; Biden refused to answer , just like he refused to answer during Tuesday night ’ s debate .
“ You know , that ’ s exactly what they want me to talk about so we don ’ t talk about how they ’ re violating the Constitution now .
I ’ m not going to play Trump ’ s game , ” he said .
RELATED : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's Intern , Was a Staff Assistant for Dem Sen. Kennedy “ Right now , my entire focus is seeing to it that the American people get a chance — the election has already started — to have their say on who the next Supreme Court justice is .
And that ’ s what I ’ m focused on.
” If Biden won ’ t even provide a list of who he would nominate , how are the American people supposed to have a say ?
Are we just supposed to blindly support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she is Biden ’ s choice ?
Biden ’ s suggestion that the Republicans are the ones violating the Constitution here is laughable , considering every major Democrat — including Biden himself — supported voting on a Supreme Court nominee in an election year in 2016 .
It doesn ’ t violate the Constitution simply because the shoe is on the other foot this time .
Biden is completely wrong in his constitutional analysis , which is concerning from a man who wants to become president .
We are committed to truth and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Read our editorial standards .

In an ideal world, lawmakers and politicians would have a strong working knowledge of the Constitution of the United States.
After all, members of Congress and the president all swear an oath to uphold and defend the nation’s most foundational legal document.
In the real world, unfortunately, many politicians appear constitutionally illiterate — even those who have ostensibly studied the Constitution in depth.
Today’s culprit is Joe Biden, who was interviewed Wednesday by anchor Shannon Perrine of Pittsburgh’s WTAE-TV. During the interview, Biden claimed that the Constitution “says the American people get an opportunity to choose who they want on the Supreme Court by who they pick as their senator and their president.”
However, the Constitution says no such thing.
Rather, the Constitution allows the president to nominate and, with the “advice and consent” of the Senate, appoint Supreme Court justices.
The Constitution does not give the American people a say in picking justices. It doesn’t even suggest that senators have a right to grill potential justices based on their ideology or political affiliation.
The president nominates a candidate. If the Senate consents, the president can appoint that candidate. That’s it.
Joe Biden — who has not only been in government for 47 years but also graduated from Syracuse Law School in 1968 and claims to have taught constitutional law for over 20 years — should know this. In fact, he supported this process in 2016.
Do you think a President Joe Biden would agree to pack the Supreme Court? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 98% (2759 Votes) No: 2% (64 Votes)
Now, he’s changed his tune to fit his current political agenda.
To the extent Americans “get an opportunity to choose who they want” through their senators and president, the people have already spoken: Republicans hold both the Senate and the presidency. In 2018 — shortly after President Donald Trump’s last Supreme Court pick, Brett Kavanaugh, was confirmed to the highest court — Americans voted to keep the Senate red.
Moreover, Biden’s claim is belied by the fact that, so far, he has refused to release a shortlist of his own potential Supreme Court nominees or answer whether, if elected, he would pack the Supreme Court with additional justices.
Perrine asked Biden if he supports court-packing; Biden refused to answer, just like he refused to answer during Tuesday night’s debate.
“You know, that’s exactly what they want me to talk about so we don’t talk about how they’re violating the Constitution now. I’m not going to play Trump’s game,” he said.
“Right now, my entire focus is seeing to it that the American people get a chance — the election has already started — to have their say on who the next Supreme Court justice is. And that’s what I’m focused on.”
If Biden won’t even provide a list of who he would nominate, how are the American people supposed to have a say? Are we just supposed to blindly support an unnamed nominee simply because he or she is Biden’s choice?
Biden’s suggestion that the Republicans are the ones violating the Constitution here is laughable, considering every major Democrat — including Biden himself — supported voting on a Supreme Court nominee in an election year in 2016.
It doesn’t violate the Constitution simply because the shoe is on the other foot this time.
Biden is completely wrong in his constitutional analysis, which is concerning from a man who wants to become president.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-10-01--Moderator of Next Debate Will Have Power To Silence Trump and Biden: Report

After watching Chris Wallace struggle to play an unbiased and deliberate moderator in Tuesday ’ s debate , many Americans were left wondering how moderators will maintain control of the conversation going forward .
Issues over impartiality appear to have gone completely ignored , and the group that organizes the debates now appears to be arming moderators with a nuclear option .
According to CBS News , the Commission on Presidential Debates plans to give future moderators the power to cut the microphone of either candidate if they don ’ t follow the rules .
Steve Scully , the C-SPAN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 15 debate , will seemingly be the first with the power .
The move comes after a chaotic first debate where both candidates interrupted and shouted over each other .
The CPD originally announced that changes would be made shortly after the candidates ’ confrontation aired .
TRENDING : Trump Challenges Biden To 'Name One ' Law Enforcement Group That Supports Him - Met with Total Silence Near-constant interruptions are a central issue the commission is working to fix with these measures .
This is the first peek at what measures the group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changes were blasted by Tim Murtaugh , the communications director for President Trump ’ s 2020 campaign .
“ They ’ re only doing this because their guy got pummeled last night , ” Murtaugh said .
“ President Trump was the dominant force and now Joe Biden is trying to work the refs .
They shouldn ’ t be moving the goalposts and changing the rules in the middle of the game.
” The new power raises some serious questions about the impact of future moderators ’ biases .
Even Wallace , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by his colleagues for the hostile treatment he gave Trump .
Scully is no Wallace , however .
While in college , Scully interned under then-Senator Joe Biden .
There ’ s no indication that the future moderator has spent any substantial time with President Trump .
RELATED : Moderator for 2nd Debate Worked as Biden 's Intern , Was a Staff Assistant for Dem Sen. Kennedy Now , he will play a critical part in the elections .
Can America trust the C-SPAN editor to wield such a powerful tool responsibly and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an impartial discussion moving , how can we trust the task to a former Biden intern ?
For now , it looks like that decision is out of the hands of the American people .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

After watching Chris Wallace struggle to play an unbiased and deliberate moderator in Tuesday’s debate, many Americans were left wondering how moderators will maintain control of the conversation going forward.
Issues over impartiality appear to have gone completely ignored, and the group that organizes the debates now appears to be arming moderators with a nuclear option.
According to CBS News, the Commission on Presidential Debates plans to give future moderators the power to cut the microphone of either candidate if they don’t follow the rules.
Steve Scully, the C-SPAN editor who is hosting the upcoming Oct. 15 debate, will seemingly be the first with the power.
The move comes after a chaotic first debate where both candidates interrupted and shouted over each other. The CPD originally announced that changes would be made shortly after the candidates’ confrontation aired.
Near-constant interruptions are a central issue the commission is working to fix with these measures.
This is the first peek at what measures the group is considering.
The commission’s changes were blasted by Tim Murtaugh, the communications director for President Trump’s 2020 campaign.
“They’re only doing this because their guy got pummeled last night,” Murtaugh said.
Should moderators be given the power to silence candidates? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 9% (27 Votes) No: 91% (286 Votes)
“President Trump was the dominant force and now Joe Biden is trying to work the refs. They shouldn’t be moving the goalposts and changing the rules in the middle of the game.”
The new power raises some serious questions about the impact of future moderators’ biases.
Even Wallace, a Fox News anchor, was criticized by his colleagues for the hostile treatment he gave Trump.
Scully is no Wallace, however.
While in college, Scully interned under then-Senator Joe Biden. There’s no indication that the future moderator has spent any substantial time with President Trump.
Now, he will play a critical part in the elections.
Can America trust the C-SPAN editor to wield such a powerful tool responsibly and fairly? If Wallace had trouble keeping an impartial discussion moving, how can we trust the task to a former Biden intern?
For now, it looks like that decision is out of the hands of the American people.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-10-01--Four Fact Checks Biden Undoubtedly Earned in the First Presidential Debate

The first of three 2020 presidential debates between incumbent President Donald Trump and Democratic challenger Joe Biden went ahead as scheduled Tuesday night , promptly spiraling into 90 minutes of interruption and untruth .
As was to be expected , however , establishment media allegations of incivility and dishonesty were aimed almost exclusively at Trump , stopping well short of territory in which they might bruise Biden ’ s reputation as a statesman .
In the interest of righting such wrongful omissions , here are four moments where Biden earned himself a fact check in Tuesday night ’ s debate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dominating the news cycle in recent weeks , the debate began with questions regarding the judicial vacancy left by her passing .
TRENDING : Trump Challenges Biden To 'Name One ' Law Enforcement Group That Supports Him - Met with Total Silence Biden showed no hesitance in sabotaging recently tapped Trump administration Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett with the suggestion that , while the U.S. Court of Appeals judge might be fit for the role , her confirmation would put the Affordable Care Act at immediate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s at stake here is the president has made it clear he wants to get rid of the Affordable Care Act .
He ’ s been running on that .
He ran on that and he has been governing on that , ” Biden said .
“ He ’ s in the Supreme Court right now trying to get rid of the Affordable Care Act , which will strip 20 million people from having insurance.
” “ I ’ m not opposed to the justice .
She seems like a very fine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before she went on the bench , which is her right , that she thinks that the Affordable Care Act is not constitutional , ” he added .
“ And if it ’ s struck down , what happens ?
Women ’ s rights are fundamentally changed.
” Unchecked by debate moderator Chris Wallace , Biden ’ s claim that Barrett believes Obamacare to be unconstitutional was later deemed unequivocally false , even by The Associated Press .
Barrett has never outright suggested the ACA is unconstitutional or that she would see its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Independent Business v. Sebelius ” overturned .
On record , the judge has simply forwarded musings as to whether the Roberts court improperly upheld the law on unstable legal footing by reclassifying its passive enforcement measure — a financial penalty on medically uncovered Americans — as a tax .
“ [ Chief Justice John ] Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute , ” Barrett wrote of the case in a 2017 legal review published by Notre Dame Law School .
RELATED : Moderator for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Was a Staff Assistant for Dem Sen. Kennedy “ He construed the penalty imposed on those without health insurance as a tax , which permitted him to sustain the statute as a valid exercise of the taxing power ; had he treated the payment as the statute did — as a penalty — he would have had to invalidate the statute as lying beyond Congress ’ s commerce power.
” Debate audiences also saw Biden beat around the bush Tuesday when he was inevitably cornered regarding whether his candidacy could be distinguished @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politicians like Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders .
The topic of climate change and sustainability in particular presented itself as a substantial stumbling block throughout the night , as Biden attempted to satisfy both the Democratic establishment and left-wing climate alarmists with regard to his position on the controversial Green New Deal .
Challenged to explain how the federal government might pay for radical sustainability legislation like the Green New Deal , which is estimated to cost trillions of dollars , Biden panned the oft-resurrected bill , saying , “ That is not my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not my plan.
” Less than a minute later , Biden was back to defending the bill , claiming it would in fact be cost-efficient in the long-term .
“ The Green New Deal will pay for itself as we move forward .
We ’ re not going to build plants that , in fact , are great polluting plants , ” Biden said .
He would conclude by denouncing the plan in favor of his own scaled-down version , but sharp eyes discovered shortly after the debate that the candidate ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believes the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face.
” The vice president operated in the margins on the topic of crime in Tuesday night ’ s debate — telling audiences “ the fact of the matter is , violent crime went down 17 percent , 15 percent , in [ the Obama ] administration ” — as Trump went on the offensive with regard to what may be his campaign ’ s widely touted tenet in recent months : law and order .
The AP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ degree to which the Obama administration had addressed America ’ s violent crime problem by the end of its eight-year term .
Violent crime did fall by roughly 10 percent nationwide from 2008 to 2016 , the AP reported , citing the FBI Uniform Crime Report .
Nevertheless , the final years of the Obama era did nothing but damage those numbers , giving way to an 8 percent uptick in violent crime between 2014 and 2016 and the first instances of widespread rioting by the Black Lives Matter movement in Ferguson , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 also saw homicide rise to an eight-year high as Obama and Biden prepared to depart the Oval Office , leaving the next administration to get a lid on things .
The worst of Biden ’ s debate dishonesty did not come in discussions of public policy , however , but in the candidate ’ s repeated attempts to hide his controversial son Hunter from the public eye .
Steeped in political scandal , Hunter Biden has emerged in recent years as a major potential liability to the Biden campaign , with critics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a series of suspicious international business dealings in China , Russia and Ukraine as they accuse him of profiting from his father ’ s role as vice president .
Trump put the screws to Biden on that front several times throughout the debate , asking his opponent directly to explain how his son , a drug addict , had managed to land lucrative international gigs while his father was a heartbeat away from the presidency .
“ China ate your lunch , Joe , ” Trump said .
“ And no wonder your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billions of dollars .
He takes out billions of dollars to manage .
He makes millions of dollars .
And also , while we ’ re at it , why is , it just out of curiosity , the mayor of Moscow ’ s wife gave you a son three and a half million dollars ?
What did he do to deserve it ?
What did he do with Burisma [ Holdings ] ?
” “ None of that is true , ” Biden said .
“ Hunter got thrown out of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dishonorably discharged for cocaine use , ” Trump said on another occasion — only partially correct , given the fact that Hunter had managed to dodge a dishonorable discharge and instead reportedly received an administrative discharge despite testing positive for a Schedule II drug while in the military .
Either way , Biden did not simply defend his son against suggestions his business dealings had been improper , but seemed at times to outright deny the well-documented allegations that Hunter had received exorbitant payouts .
“ Once you became vice president he made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in Moscow and various other places , ” Trump said .
Despite Biden ’ s claim , a newly released report from Senate Republicans says Hunter received a suspicious $ 3.5 million payout in 2015 from Elena Baturina , the wife of a former Moscow mayor ( though the report does not reveal specific details about the alleged payment , according to USA Today ) .
Moreover , multiple sources have confirmed Hunter was paid monthly amounts as high as $ 83,000 during his time on the board at Burisma between 2014 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sector experience .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

The first of three 2020 presidential debates between incumbent President Donald Trump and Democratic challenger Joe Biden went ahead as scheduled Tuesday night, promptly spiraling into 90 minutes of interruption and untruth.
As was to be expected, however, establishment media allegations of incivility and dishonesty were aimed almost exclusively at Trump, stopping well short of territory in which they might bruise Biden’s reputation as a statesman.
In the interest of righting such wrongful omissions, here are four moments where Biden earned himself a fact check in Tuesday night’s debate:
1. Supreme Court sabotage
With the Sept. 18 death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dominating the news cycle in recent weeks, the debate began with questions regarding the judicial vacancy left by her passing.
Biden showed no hesitance in sabotaging recently tapped Trump administration Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett with the suggestion that, while the U.S. Court of Appeals judge might be fit for the role, her confirmation would put the Affordable Care Act at immediate risk of being overturned.
“What’s at stake here is the president has made it clear he wants to get rid of the Affordable Care Act. He’s been running on that. He ran on that and he has been governing on that,” Biden said. “He’s in the Supreme Court right now trying to get rid of the Affordable Care Act, which will strip 20 million people from having insurance.”
“I’m not opposed to the justice. She seems like a very fine person. But she’s written before she went on the bench, which is her right, that she thinks that the Affordable Care Act is not constitutional,” he added.
“And if it’s struck down, what happens? Women’s rights are fundamentally changed.”
Joe Biden argues for waiting until after the election to fill Supreme Court vacancy, and focuses on Amy Coney Barrett’s opposition to the Affordable Care Act: “The insurance companies are going to love this” https://t.co/XoIMrd5i2b pic.twitter.com/buGqza5uCk — CBS News (@CBSNews) September 30, 2020
Unchecked by debate moderator Chris Wallace, Biden’s claim that Barrett believes Obamacare to be unconstitutional was later deemed unequivocally false, even by The Associated Press.
Barrett has never outright suggested the ACA is unconstitutional or that she would see its Supreme Court validation through “National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius” overturned.
On record, the judge has simply forwarded musings as to whether the Roberts court improperly upheld the law on unstable legal footing by reclassifying its passive enforcement measure — a financial penalty on medically uncovered Americans — as a tax.
“[Chief Justice John] Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute,” Barrett wrote of the case in a 2017 legal review published by Notre Dame Law School.
“He construed the penalty imposed on those without health insurance as a tax, which permitted him to sustain the statute as a valid exercise of the taxing power; had he treated the payment as the statute did — as a penalty — he would have had to invalidate the statute as lying beyond Congress’s commerce power.”
2. Green New Deal shell games
Debate audiences also saw Biden beat around the bush Tuesday when he was inevitably cornered regarding whether his candidacy could be distinguished ideologically from those of his fellow radical-left politicians like Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.
The topic of climate change and sustainability in particular presented itself as a substantial stumbling block throughout the night, as Biden attempted to satisfy both the Democratic establishment and left-wing climate alarmists with regard to his position on the controversial Green New Deal.
Joe Biden: “I don’t support the Green New Deal” pic.twitter.com/1MTsdScEbw — Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) September 30, 2020
Challenged to explain how the federal government might pay for radical sustainability legislation like the Green New Deal, which is estimated to cost trillions of dollars, Biden panned the oft-resurrected bill, saying, “That is not my plan. The Green New Deal is not my plan.”
Less than a minute later, Biden was back to defending the bill, claiming it would in fact be cost-efficient in the long-term.
“The Green New Deal will pay for itself as we move forward. We’re not going to build plants that, in fact, are great polluting plants,” Biden said.
He would conclude by denouncing the plan in favor of his own scaled-down version, but sharp eyes discovered shortly after the debate that the candidate’s official campaign website declares, “Biden believes the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face.”
The media won’t Fact Check @JoeBiden’s lies. His website says he supports the Green New Deal. @realDonaldTrump is right. pic.twitter.com/tFkop9FiXU — Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) September 30, 2020
3. Crafty on crime
The vice president operated in the margins on the topic of crime in Tuesday night’s debate — telling audiences “the fact of the matter is, violent crime went down 17 percent, 15 percent, in [the Obama] administration” — as Trump went on the offensive with regard to what may be his campaign’s widely touted tenet in recent months: law and order.
The AP accused Biden of “overstating” the degree to which the Obama administration had addressed America’s violent crime problem by the end of its eight-year term.
Violent crime did fall by roughly 10 percent nationwide from 2008 to 2016, the AP reported, citing the FBI Uniform Crime Report.
Nevertheless, the final years of the Obama era did nothing but damage those numbers, giving way to an 8 percent uptick in violent crime between 2014 and 2016 and the first instances of widespread rioting by the Black Lives Matter movement in Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore.
The year 2016 also saw homicide rise to an eight-year high as Obama and Biden prepared to depart the Oval Office, leaving the next administration to get a lid on things.
4. Desperately debating Hunter’s history
The worst of Biden’s debate dishonesty did not come in discussions of public policy, however, but in the candidate’s repeated attempts to hide his controversial son Hunter from the public eye.
Steeped in political scandal, Hunter Biden has emerged in recent years as a major potential liability to the Biden campaign, with critics pointing to his deeply sordid past and a series of suspicious international business dealings in China, Russia and Ukraine as they accuse him of profiting from his father’s role as vice president.
MOMENTS AGO: Debate DERAILS after President Trump mentions Hunter Biden. Joe Biden: “It’s hard to get any word in with this clown.” #Debates2020 pic.twitter.com/JBxQFggrAG — The Hill (@thehill) September 30, 2020
Trump put the screws to Biden on that front several times throughout the debate, asking his opponent directly to explain how his son, a drug addict, had managed to land lucrative international gigs while his father was a heartbeat away from the presidency.
“China ate your lunch, Joe,” Trump said. “And no wonder your son goes in and he takes out billions of dollars. He takes out billions of dollars to manage. He makes millions of dollars. And also, while we’re at it, why is, it just out of curiosity, the mayor of Moscow’s wife gave you a son three and a half million dollars? What did he do to deserve it? What did he do with Burisma [Holdings]?”
“None of that is true,” Biden said.
“Hunter got thrown out of the military. He was thrown out, dishonorably discharged for cocaine use,” Trump said on another occasion — only partially correct, given the fact that Hunter had managed to dodge a dishonorable discharge and instead reportedly received an administrative discharge despite testing positive for a Schedule II drug while in the military.
TRUMP: “Hunter got thrown out of the military, dishonorably discharged–“ BIDEN: “That’s not true, he was not –“ TRUMP: “He didn’t have a job until you became vice president.” pic.twitter.com/ZLR2NttbZg — Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) September 30, 2020
Either way, Biden did not simply defend his son against suggestions his business dealings had been improper, but seemed at times to outright deny the well-documented allegations that Hunter had received exorbitant payouts.
“Once you became vice president he made a fortune in Ukraine, in China, in Moscow and various other places,” Trump said.
Do you think Biden was dishonest in Tuesday night's debate? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 100% (274 Votes) No: 0% (1 Votes)
“That is not true,” Biden replied.
Despite Biden’s claim, a newly released report from Senate Republicans says Hunter received a suspicious $3.5 million payout in 2015 from Elena Baturina, the wife of a former Moscow mayor (though the report does not reveal specific details about the alleged payment, according to USA Today).
Moreover, multiple sources have confirmed Hunter was paid monthly amounts as high as $83,000 during his time on the board at Burisma between 2014 and 2019, despite limited prior energy sector experience.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-10-01--‘WJ Live’: Special Guests Diamond and Silk Answer How Others Can Find Courage To ‘Ditch and Switch’

Don ’ t miss an episode of “ WJ Live ” by getting it delivered directly to your inbox !
Subscribe to the “ WJ Live ” newsletter .
On this episode of “ WJ Live , ” George Upper , Josh Manning , Andrew J. Sciascia and special guests Diamond and Silk discuss whether or not God ’ s sovereignty affects Christians ’ responsibility to vote and how Diamond and Silk ’ s story can encourage other people to leave the “ Democrat Plantation.
” “ Here ’ s the deal , Jim Crow Joe is the clown because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around for the last 47 years in government , skimming from the top and leaving people left at the bottom.
” — Diamond and Silk “ Jim Crow Joe Biden ain ’ t looking out for no religious freedom .
He said he could care less .
You see how they took God out of the Pledge of Allegiance , that should ’ ve woke up everybody.
” — Diamond and Silk “ One thing I love about President Trump , it ’ s about America First : ‘ I ’ m going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m going got to cut this red tape , so these businesses can stay right here.
’ Remember , Obama and his administration said : ‘ You will have to wave a magic wand.
’ Well , I guess that magic wand must have been President Donald J. Trump.
” — Diamond and Silk “ If Jim Crow Joe get in office , he is going to fundamentally change this country for the worse .
You ’ re going to be living the American nightmare , not the American dream.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump “ Will you shut up , man ?
” during debate | The Western Journal Get Diamond and Silk ’ s bestselling book “ Uprising : Who the Hell Said You Can ’ t Ditch and Switch ?
” | Diamond and Silk bookstore Don ’ t miss an episode of “ WJ Live ” by getting it delivered directly to your inbox !
Subscribe to the “ WJ Live ” newsletter .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Don’t miss an episode of “WJ Live” by getting it delivered directly to your inbox! Subscribe to the “WJ Live” newsletter.
Full Episode Details
Description:
On this episode of “WJ Live,” George Upper, Josh Manning, Andrew J. Sciascia and special guests Diamond and Silk discuss whether or not God’s sovereignty affects Christians’ responsibility to vote and how Diamond and Silk’s story can encourage other people to leave the “Democrat Plantation.”
Quotes from this episode:
“Here’s the deal, Jim Crow Joe is the clown because he’s the one been calling around for the last 47 years in government, skimming from the top and leaving people left at the bottom.” — Diamond and Silk
“Jim Crow Joe Biden ain’t looking out for no religious freedom. He said he could care less. You see how they took God out of the Pledge of Allegiance, that should’ve woke up everybody.” — Diamond and Silk
“One thing I love about President Trump, it’s about America First: ‘I’m going to remove all of this regulation. I’m going got to cut this red tape, so these businesses can stay right here.’ Remember, Obama and his administration said: ‘You will have to wave a magic wand.’ Well, I guess that magic wand must have been President Donald J. Trump.” — Diamond and Silk
“If Jim Crow Joe get in office, he is going to fundamentally change this country for the worse. You’re going to be living the American nightmare, not the American dream.” — Diamond and Silk
Relevant sources:
Joe Biden asks Donald Trump “Will you shut up, man?” during debate | The Western Journal
Get Diamond and Silk’s bestselling book “Uprising: Who the Hell Said You Can’t Ditch and Switch?” | Diamond and Silk bookstore
Don’t miss an episode of “WJ Live” by getting it delivered directly to your inbox! Subscribe to the “WJ Live” newsletter.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-10-01--Proud Boys Leader Refutes ‘White Supremacist’ Claims: ‘I’m a Person of Color’

Prominent leaders in the Proud Boys group controversially linked to white supremacy by Fox News host Chris Wallace and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden are speaking out to disavow racism .
During the Cleveland debate , Wallace asked President Donald Trump to disavow white supremacy , which is something the president has done numerous times throughout his presidency , and even before .
“ You have repeatedly criticized the Vice President for not specifically calling out antifa and other left-wing extremist groups .
But are you willing , tonight , to condemn white supremacists and militia groups ?
” Wallace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of … cities.
” “ I ’ m willing to do anything .
I want to see peace , ” Trump said .
“ What do you want to call them ?
Give me a name.
” Trump said , “ Proud Boys , stand back and stand by .
But I ’ ll tell you what , I ’ ll tell you what , somebody ’ s got to do something about antifa and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right-wing problem .
This is a left-wing problem.
” Biden went on to describe antifa as merely an “ idea ” The debate moment has now become the latest controversy with regard to the establishment media and its war on the president , with reporters accusing Trump of refusing to disavow racism by telling the Proud Boys to “ stand by.
” Now , the group in the middle of the political tussle is speaking out .
A man named Enrique Tarrio , who was identified by Sky News as the international chairman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outlet his group is not about skin color .
Tarrio , who himself is not white , told Sky News that he does not view Trump ’ s “ stand by ” comment as an endorsement of his group , and also said the group is anything but a white supremacist organization .
RELATED : Chris Wallace Lauds His Own Debate Performance : ' I Did as Well as I Could' “ We ’ ve been called many names , but probably the most inaccurate name you can call us is white supremacists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m a person of color , I ’ m a brown person , I ’ m chairman of the organization.
” Tarrio said his skin color was not an impediment to being elected to his position and added , “ I think it was a great moment that we were mentioned on stage … if we were recognized by anyone we were recognized by Biden.
” Tarrio said Biden ’ s decision to label his group racist was a “ crucial mistake , ” and pointed to the group ’ s presence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as an example that the group is not violent .
With regard to peacefully assembling , as the group did in Oregon , Tarrio said , “ We ’ ve always done that … we stood back and stood by in Portland on the 26th , and we had a great event.
” Footage from a Proud Boys event in Portland shared by a Daily Caller videographer appeared to show the group was racially diverse .
Tarrio also told Sky News , “ And basically I think what [ Trump ] meant was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which we have.
” KSTU-TV in Salt Lake City also spoke with another nonwhite ranking member of the Proud Boys group during an interview that aired on the station Wednesday night .
A man maned Thad , who identified himself as the chief of the city ’ s Proud Boys chapter , said his group disavows white supremacy .
“ I will go out and say that the Proud Boys as a whole , I will say this on behalf of the entire national organization , denounce white supremacy , ” he said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , shape or form white supremacists ; we have a vetting system that just gets those guys out of our hair.
” KSTU reported that the area chapter of the Proud Boys has actually formed a relationship with the Northern Utah Black Lives Matter group .
Another high-ranking member of the Salt Lake Utah Proud Boys Chapter identified as Seth said that not all of the members of the group support the president .
There are two Black Lives Matter groups residing in the area of Utah .
While the northern Utah group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another area Black Lives Matter representative called the group a “ violent , white supremacist militia.
” “ I don ’ t care what color your skin is , we ’ re all Americans , we need to find a way to come together instead of divide , ” Seth told the station .
The Proud Boys group was founded in 2016 by Vice Media co-founder Gavin McInnes .
McInnes previously described the group as “ as a pro-Western fraternal organization for men who refuse to apologize for creating the modern world ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the organization ’ s website .
The group describes itself as being in favor of limited government , border enforcement , free speech and gun rights , while its members oppose racism , racial guilt , the war on drugs and political correctness .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Prominent leaders in the Proud Boys group controversially linked to white supremacy by Fox News host Chris Wallace and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden are speaking out to disavow racism.
During the Cleveland debate, Wallace asked President Donald Trump to disavow white supremacy, which is something the president has done numerous times throughout his presidency, and even before.
“You have repeatedly criticized the Vice President for not specifically calling out antifa and other left-wing extremist groups. But are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups?” Wallace asked Trump.
Wallace added, “And to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of … cities.”
“I’m willing to do anything. I want to see peace,” Trump said. “What do you want to call them? Give me a name.”
Biden then interjected, “The Proud Boys.”
Trump said, “Proud Boys, stand back and stand by. But I’ll tell you what, I’ll tell you what, somebody’s got to do something about antifa and the left because this is not a right-wing problem. This is a left-wing problem.”
Biden went on to describe antifa as merely an “idea”
Chris Wallace: “Are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down…” Trump: “Proud Boys, stand back and stand by! But I’ll tell you what, somebody’s got to do something about antifa and the left.” pic.twitter.com/4vrPocKzcu — Axios (@axios) September 30, 2020
The debate moment has now become the latest controversy with regard to the establishment media and its war on the president, with reporters accusing Trump of refusing to disavow racism by telling the Proud Boys to “stand by.”
Now, the group in the middle of the political tussle is speaking out.
A man named Enrique Tarrio, who was identified by Sky News as the international chairman of the Proud Boys, told the outlet his group is not about skin color.
Tarrio, who himself is not white, told Sky News that he does not view Trump’s “stand by” comment as an endorsement of his group, and also said the group is anything but a white supremacist organization.
“We’ve been called many names, but probably the most inaccurate name you can call us is white supremacists,” Tarrio said.
“I’m a person of color, I’m a brown person, I’m chairman of the organization.”
Tarrio said his skin color was not an impediment to being elected to his position and added, “I think it was a great moment that we were mentioned on stage … if we were recognized by anyone we were recognized by Biden.”
Tarrio said Biden’s decision to label his group racist was a “crucial mistake,” and pointed to the group’s presence in Portland, Oregon, last weekend as an example that the group is not violent.
With regard to peacefully assembling, as the group did in Oregon, Tarrio said, “We’ve always done that … we stood back and stood by in Portland on the 26th, and we had a great event.”
Footage from a Proud Boys event in Portland shared by a Daily Caller videographer appeared to show the group was racially diverse.
Speaker at The Proud Boys rally in Portland: “I’m not an African American, I am an American.” pic.twitter.com/TFPgnIgNAy — Richie?McG? (@RichieMcGinniss) September 26, 2020
Tarrio also told Sky News, “And basically I think what [Trump] meant was let the police do their job — which we have.”
KSTU-TV in Salt Lake City also spoke with another nonwhite ranking member of the Proud Boys group during an interview that aired on the station Wednesday night.
A man maned Thad, who identified himself as the chief of the city’s Proud Boys chapter, said his group disavows white supremacy.
“I will go out and say that the #ProudBoys as a whole, I will say this on behalf of the entire national organization, denounce white supremacy.” – Thad, Chief of the Proud Boys Salt Lake Utah Chapter pic.twitter.com/WGlUEx3jeF — ????? ?????? (@brian_schnee) October 1, 2020
“I will go out and say that the Proud Boys as a whole, I will say this on behalf of the entire national organization, denounce white supremacy,” he said.
“We are in no way, shape or form white supremacists; we have a vetting system that just gets those guys out of our hair.”
KSTU reported that the area chapter of the Proud Boys has actually formed a relationship with the Northern Utah Black Lives Matter group.
Another high-ranking member of the Salt Lake Utah Proud Boys Chapter identified as Seth said that not all of the members of the group support the president.
There are two Black Lives Matter groups residing in the area of Utah.
While the northern Utah group has worked with the Proud Boys, another area Black Lives Matter representative called the group a “violent, white supremacist militia.”
Seth disagreed with that assessment.
“I don’t care what color your skin is, we’re all Americans, we need to find a way to come together instead of divide,” Seth told the station.
The Proud Boys group was founded in 2016 by Vice Media co-founder Gavin McInnes.
McInnes previously described the group as “as a pro-Western fraternal organization for men who refuse to apologize for creating the modern world; aka Western Chauvinists,” according to the organization’s website.
The group describes itself as being in favor of limited government, border enforcement, free speech and gun rights, while its members oppose racism, racial guilt, the war on drugs and political correctness.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-10-01--Americans Accused of Fighting for ISIS Face Justice Back on US Soil

A version of this article appeared on The Daily Caller News Foundation website .
We are committed to truth and @ @ @ @ @ journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

The United States has repatriated every American citizen held by the Syrian Democratic Forces for allegedly supporting ISIS, the Department of Justice announced Thursday.
Most recently, four defendants were transferred into American custody, according to a Justice Department statement.
Criminal complaints have been filed against the defendants for their alleged support of ISIS pending a Justice Department investigation.
“With this week’s repatriations, the United States has brought back every American supporter of ISIS known to be held by the Syrian Democratic Forces against whom we have charges,” Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers said.
The Justice Department has worked to keep American citizens from traveling abroad to fight for terror groups and will investigate, repatriate and charge those who do, according to Demers.
“This was our moral responsibility to the American people and to the people of the countries to which these terrorists traveled,” Demers said.
The FBI has aided the Justice Department in repatriating American citizens from Iraq and Syria so that they will “face the American justice system,” FBI official John Brown said.
“This announcement should serve as a warning to those who travel, or attempt to travel, to join and fight with ISIS,” Brown said.
“We remain vigilant in our efforts to prevent terrorism as well as hold terrorists, and those who provide support to terrorist organizations, accountable for their actions.”
Americans accused of supporting ISIS will be prosecuted in U.S. courts, State Department official Nathan Sales said.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of their original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


westernjournal--2020-10-01--Video: CNN Lies About Amy Coney Barrett and Even Sen. Schumer Won’t Play Along

Fox Reporter Loses Temper When Called Out for Continuing To Ask About White Supremacy

Bradley Cooper's latest role has not gone down well with everyone, particularly with regard to his use of a prosthetic nose.


westernjournal--2020-10-01--Video: Franklin Graham’s Important Post-Debate Message Goes Mega-Viral


westernjournal--2020-10-01--Larry Elder: Kentucky’s Black GOP Attorney General Is Being Savaged by Racist Leftists

Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron , who spoke at the Republican National Convention , declined to bring murder charges against the three white officers involved in the tragic shooting of Louisville ’ s Breonna Taylor , a black woman .
Contrary to the public assertion made by a Taylor family lawyer , Cameron , who is black , said the Louisville police did not go to the wrong address when executing a search warrant .
Nor was Taylor shot and killed in her bed , as was also publicly asserted by the family lawyer .
Ben Crump , a spokesman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , falsely claimed the police went to the wrong address .
And in a statement full of inaccuracies , Crump , who negotiated a $ 12 million settlement with Louisville , said , “ Taylor and her boyfriend were asleep in their apartment when Louisville Police burst into the home without warning using a battering ram , in search of a suspect who was already in their custody.
” Cameron carefully , methodically and with sensitivity to the Taylor family reviewed the evidence and explained why the law and facts did not warrant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the public ’ s passion for charges .
Cameron said : “ Evidence shows that officers both knocked and announced their presence at the apartment .
The officers ’ statements about their announcement are corroborated by an independent witness who was near , in a proximity to Apartment 4 .
… When officers were unable to get anyone to answer or open the door to apartment four , the decision was made to breach the door.
” A man inside the apartment fired , striking an officer , and the officers returned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over Cameron ’ s decision was fierce , ugly and personal .
At a news conference arranged by the Taylor family attorney , Tamika Mallory , co-founder of the Women ’ s March , said : “ I thought about the ships that went into Fort Monroe and Jamestown with our people on them over 400 years ago and how there were also black men on those ships that were responsible for bringing our people over here .
“ Daniel Cameron is no different than the sellout Negroes that sold our people into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our people , to abuse them , and to traffic them while our women were raped , while our men were raped by savages.
” Sophia A. Nelson , who often appears as a pundit on CNN , tweeted : “ Uncle Tom .
Step & fetch Negro .
The end.
” But perhaps the viciousness award goes to retired Los Angeles Police Department Sergeant Cheryl Dorsey , who said : “ Let me say this as a black woman : He does not speak for black folks .
He ’ s skin-folk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And so just like he thinks they can ’ t speak for Kentucky because he ’ s up there with a black face , he does not speak for all of us .
This was not a tragedy .
This was a murder .
He should be ashamed of himself.
” Cameron is also being attacked because he is not only a black Republican but also a black Republican who spoke passionately at the Republican National Convention in support of President Donald Trump .
About the opposition to him because he is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Yesterday , a liberal attorney said I should stop eating ‘ coon flakes ’ in a Courier Journal interview .
I am a proud lifelong Republican , part of a diverse KY GOP ticket , and yes I support Donald Trump .
It ’ s time to stop telling black Americans what we ’ re allowed to believe.
” Women ’ s March co-founder Mallory and Dorsey are exactly why I produced the documentary “ Uncle Tom , ” which addresses the attacks against black conservatives for the crime of thinking differently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ iTunes , Amazon Prime and Roku , has received a 9.4 rating on IMDb and a 98 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes .
RELATED : Fred Weinberg : BLM & the Left Are Using One of Joseph Goebbel 's Favorite Tricks “ Uncle Tom ” asks simple questions : Are black people free to think for themselves ?
Black conservatives support low taxes , strong borders , choice in public schools .
They want to re-evaluate the welfare state on the grounds that it destabilizes the American family , no matter the race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school choice and debate its merit without being dismissed as a black conservative “ sellout ” for supporting choice ?
Are black people allowed to hold conservative views without being eviscerated by the Mallorys and the Dorseys as self-loathers , coconuts , Oreos , “ Uncle Toms ” and other names unfit for family consumption ?
New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet , who is black , once admitted , “ The left , as a rule , does not want to hear thoughtful disagreement.
” Well , the black left doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a thing called thoughtful disagreement — at least not thoughtful disagreement with a black conservative .
“ Uncle Tom ” does not tell viewers what to think .
The film says black people are free to think for themselves .
We would be happy to provide copies of “ Uncle Tom ” for Mallory and Dorsey .
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website .
If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about our submission guidelines and process here .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron, who spoke at the Republican National Convention, declined to bring murder charges against the three white officers involved in the tragic shooting of Louisville’s Breonna Taylor, a black woman.
Contrary to the public assertion made by a Taylor family lawyer, Cameron, who is black, said the Louisville police did not go to the wrong address when executing a search warrant. Nor was Taylor shot and killed in her bed, as was also publicly asserted by the family lawyer.
Ben Crump, a spokesman and defense attorney for the Taylor family, falsely claimed the police went to the wrong address. And in a statement full of inaccuracies, Crump, who negotiated a $12 million settlement with Louisville, said, “Taylor and her boyfriend were asleep in their apartment when Louisville Police burst into the home without warning using a battering ram, in search of a suspect who was already in their custody.”
Cameron carefully, methodically and with sensitivity to the Taylor family reviewed the evidence and explained why the law and facts did not warrant murder charges, however massive the intensity of the public’s passion for charges.
Cameron said: “Evidence shows that officers both knocked and announced their presence at the apartment. The officers’ statements about their announcement are corroborated by an independent witness who was near, in a proximity to Apartment 4. … When officers were unable to get anyone to answer or open the door to apartment four, the decision was made to breach the door.”
A man inside the apartment fired, striking an officer, and the officers returned fire, killing Taylor.
The anger over Cameron’s decision was fierce, ugly and personal. At a news conference arranged by the Taylor family attorney, Tamika Mallory, co-founder of the Women’s March, said: “I thought about the ships that went into Fort Monroe and Jamestown with our people on them over 400 years ago and how there were also black men on those ships that were responsible for bringing our people over here.
“Daniel Cameron is no different than the sellout Negroes that sold our people into slavery and helped white men to capture our people, to abuse them, and to traffic them while our women were raped, while our men were raped by savages.”
Do you think the leftists attacks on Daniel Cameron have been racist? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 100% (22 Votes) No: 0% (0 Votes)
Sophia A. Nelson, who often appears as a pundit on CNN, tweeted: “Uncle Tom. Step & fetch Negro. The end.”
But perhaps the viciousness award goes to retired Los Angeles Police Department Sergeant Cheryl Dorsey, who said: “Let me say this as a black woman: He does not speak for black folks. He’s skin-folk, but he is not kinfolk. And so just like he thinks they can’t speak for Kentucky because he’s up there with a black face, he does not speak for all of us. This was not a tragedy. This was a murder. He should be ashamed of himself.”
Cameron is also being attacked because he is not only a black Republican but also a black Republican who spoke passionately at the Republican National Convention in support of President Donald Trump.
About the opposition to him because he is a black Republican, Cameron once tweeted: “Yesterday, a liberal attorney said I should stop eating ‘coon flakes’ in a Courier Journal interview. I am a proud lifelong Republican, part of a diverse KY GOP ticket, and yes I support Donald Trump. It’s time to stop telling black Americans what we’re allowed to believe.”
Women’s March co-founder Mallory and Dorsey are exactly why I produced the documentary “Uncle Tom,” which addresses the attacks against black conservatives for the crime of thinking differently.
The film, now available on iTunes, Amazon Prime and Roku, has received a 9.4 rating on IMDb and a 98 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes.
“Uncle Tom” asks simple questions: Are black people free to think for themselves? Black conservatives support low taxes, strong borders, choice in public schools. They want to re-evaluate the welfare state on the grounds that it destabilizes the American family, no matter the race.
Can a black conservative advocate for school choice and debate its merit without being dismissed as a black conservative “sellout” for supporting choice?
Are black people allowed to hold conservative views without being eviscerated by the Mallorys and the Dorseys as self-loathers, coconuts, Oreos, “Uncle Toms” and other names unfit for family consumption?
New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet, who is black, once admitted, “The left, as a rule, does not want to hear thoughtful disagreement.”
Well, the black left doesn’t believe that there is such a thing called thoughtful disagreement — at least not thoughtful disagreement with a black conservative.
“Uncle Tom” does not tell viewers what to think. The film says black people are free to think for themselves. We would be happy to provide copies of “Uncle Tom” for Mallory and Dorsey.
© 2020 CREATORS.COM
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.