westernjournal--2020-10-12--Maxine Waters’ Veteran Challenger Hits Her on Deplorable State of South LA: ‘Our District Is In Ruin

Maxine Waters’ Veteran Challenger Hits Her on Deplorable State of South LA: ‘Our District Is In Ruins’

To Republican congressional candidate Joe E. Collins III , the longtime California congresswoman known as “ Auntie Maxine ” would better be known as “ Mansion Maxine.
” Collins took his campaign to Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters ’ front door — the mansion she lives in , which is located outside of the boundaries of the 43rd Congressional District that she represents .
“ Do you know where I am ?
Maxine Waters ’ $ 6 Million Mansion .
Do you know where I ’ m NOT ?
Her District .
Mansion Maxine Waters doesn ’ t live in her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is Joe Collins and I ’ m running for Congress against Maxine Waters , ” Collins said in a tweet that accompanied a video he released Saturday on Twitter .
In the four-minute video , Collins contrasts his qualifications with those of Waters and notes that amid rising crime , the district needs something more than the same old same old .
TRENDING : Maxine Waters ' Veteran Challenger Hits Her on Deplorable State of South LA : 'Our District Is In Ruins' “ I was born right here in South LA , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Collins said .
“ Maxine Waters does not drink our water .
She does not breathe our air .
And while she sits here in her mansion , our district is in ruins.
” Collins said he is giving back because he was one of the few who made it out .
“ I survived Maxine ’ s district , graduated high school , went on to join the U.S. Navy .
I fought for this country , ” he said .
“ But while I was fighting for this country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to fight for her own district here in America .
“ And when I returned from war , I came back to my community as a war zone.
” Collins said the numbers show that Waters — who called for President Donald Trump ’ s impeachment from the moment he took office — has not been paying attention to the needs of her district .
“ Just this year , deadly crime spiked 15 percent in South LA , much of it due to gang activity , ” he said in the video @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LA has shot up by 53 percent .
South LA has the highest poverty rate in the city with a crippling 43 percent of its residents living below the poverty line .
“ Meanwhile , LA County has a homeless population of over 40,000 people .
Homelessness rates have increased by 264 percent since 2009.
” RELATED : Male Democratic Senator Tells Amy Coney Barrett Her Nomination Would Be Harmful for Women Collins said that while the district implodes , Waters is too removed to care .
“ Maxine doesn ’ t care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ She only cares about herself and using our tax dollars to buy mansions .
While Maxine fails to lead , riots and violence surge in our streets .
While our buildings and businesses burn , Maxine sits safe in her mansion guarded by the same police she demonizes.
” As noted by the Los Angeles Times , federal law does not require congressional candidates to live in the district they represent .
Collins said the neighborhood has suffered neglect long enough .
“ Maxine has never had to deal with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he said .
“ That must be nice .
But this is the way the rest of us live .
We need someone to represent us who lives here , who fights here , who wants to improve our way of life .
Someone who understands we need safe streets and a strong economy.
” Collins , who ended his service with the Navy as a recruiter , began as a mechanic , according to his campaign website .
“ Joe began his career specializing as a naval jet aviation mechanic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sailors on aircraft including the F-18 Super Hornet fighter , E-6 Mercury Airborne Command Post , and MH-60 Sea Hawk Assault Helicopter , ” the site says .
“ As a leader in uniform he obtained several military and civic certifications , becoming a licensed financial planning professional and a certified counselor for rape and sexual assault victims .
While earning numerous awards and commendations , Joe embraced his role as a top Navy recruiter whereby he had the honor of jump-starting the careers of many who have since gone on to become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ divisiveness and rancorous rhetoric of the 2016 election , Joe empathized with many disenfranchised Americans , feeling the stinging aftermath of that highly polarized climate that continues to be exhibited today .
“ Joe recognizes several alarming factors about the country ’ s current state of affairs : the media ’ s role in escalating unwarranted public anger ; the gap between party lines that has become much more difficult to bridge ; the lack of politicians listening to their constituents with an empathetic ear ; and , with most politicians simply talking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future.
” We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

To Republican congressional candidate Joe E. Collins III, the longtime California congresswoman known as “Auntie Maxine” would better be known as “Mansion Maxine.”
Collins took his campaign to Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters’ front door — the mansion she lives in, which is located outside of the boundaries of the 43rd Congressional District that she represents.
“Do you know where I am? Maxine Waters’ $6 Million Mansion. Do you know where I’m NOT? Her District. Mansion Maxine Waters doesn’t live in her District — I do. My name is Joe Collins and I’m running for Congress against Maxine Waters,” Collins said in a tweet that accompanied a video he released Saturday on Twitter.
In the four-minute video, Collins contrasts his qualifications with those of Waters and notes that amid rising crime, the district needs something more than the same old same old.
Do you know where I am?
Maxine Waters’ $6 Million Mansion. Do you know where I’m NOT?
Her District. Mansion Maxine Waters doesn’t live in her District — I do. My name is Joe Collins and I’m running for Congress against Maxine Waters. Help Me WIN: https://t.co/K4OcfhUR0E pic.twitter.com/GgnmvSWSq9 — Joe E. Collins III For Congress CA-43 (@joecollins43rd) October 10, 2020
“I was born right here in South LA, in a place Maxine refuses to live,” Collins said. “Maxine Waters does not drink our water. She does not breathe our air. And while she sits here in her mansion, our district is in ruins.”
Collins said he is giving back because he was one of the few who made it out.
“I survived Maxine’s district, graduated high school, went on to join the U.S. Navy. I fought for this country,” he said. “But while I was fighting for this country, Maxine Waters could not be bothered to fight for her own district here in America.
“And when I returned from war, I came back to my community as a war zone.”
Collins said the numbers show that Waters — who called for President Donald Trump’s impeachment from the moment he took office — has not been paying attention to the needs of her district.
The president is a deranged lunatic & he’s inspired white supremacists to violence, the latest of which was a plot to kidnap Gov. Whitmer. These groups have attempted to KILL many of us in recent years. They are following Trump’s lead. Dems & GOP must agree to push for 25th Amdt! — Maxine Waters (@RepMaxineWaters) October 9, 2020
“Just this year, deadly crime spiked 15 percent in South LA, much of it due to gang activity,” he said in the video. “The homicide rate in South LA has shot up by 53 percent. South LA has the highest poverty rate in the city with a crippling 43 percent of its residents living below the poverty line.
“Meanwhile, LA County has a homeless population of over 40,000 people. Homelessness rates have increased by 264 percent since 2009.”
Collins said that while the district implodes, Waters is too removed to care.
“Maxine doesn’t care about our district,” the candidate said. “She only cares about herself and using our tax dollars to buy mansions. While Maxine fails to lead, riots and violence surge in our streets. While our buildings and businesses burn, Maxine sits safe in her mansion guarded by the same police she demonizes.”
As noted by the Los Angeles Times, federal law does not require congressional candidates to live in the district they represent.
Do you think Collins makes a strong case for why voters should choose him over Waters? 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% (1812 Votes) No: 0% (2 Votes)
Collins said the neighborhood has suffered neglect long enough.
“Maxine has never had to deal with violence or riots in her neighborhood,” he said. “That must be nice. But this is the way the rest of us live. We need someone to represent us who lives here, who fights here, who wants to improve our way of life. Someone who understands we need safe streets and a strong economy.”
Collins, who ended his service with the Navy as a recruiter, began as a mechanic, according to his campaign website.
“Joe began his career specializing as a naval jet aviation mechanic, working on and then training thousands of sailors on aircraft including the F-18 Super Hornet fighter, E-6 Mercury Airborne Command Post, and MH-60 Sea Hawk Assault Helicopter,” the site says. “As a leader in uniform he obtained several military and civic certifications, becoming a licensed financial planning professional and a certified counselor for rape and sexual assault victims. While earning numerous awards and commendations, Joe embraced his role as a top Navy recruiter whereby he had the honor of jump-starting the careers of many who have since gone on to become fine American leaders.”
“After the divisiveness and rancorous rhetoric of the 2016 election, Joe empathized with many disenfranchised Americans, feeling the stinging aftermath of that highly polarized climate that continues to be exhibited today.
“Joe recognizes several alarming factors about the country’s current state of affairs: the media’s role in escalating unwarranted public anger; the gap between party lines that has become much more difficult to bridge; the lack of politicians listening to their constituents with an empathetic ear; and, with most politicians simply talking without purpose or a plan for the future.”
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--2020-10-12--Mostly Maskless Mob Celebrates Lakers’ NBA Title by Attacking Police Cars, Chanting ‘F*** Donald Tru

Mostly Maskless Mob Celebrates Lakers’ NBA Title by Attacking Police Cars, Chanting ‘F*** Donald Trump’

Los Angeles Lakers fans celebrated winning the NBA championship by venting their hatred at President Donald Trump and police .
The Lakers defeated the Miami Heat 106-93 on Sunday in Game 6 of the NBA Finals to win the championship series .
All games were played at the so-called bubble in Lake Buena Vista , Florida , without fans present due to the coronavirus .
Although Lakers officials had urged fans to stay away from the Staples Center in LA , where the team plays its home games in normal times , a vast crowd of mostly maskless fans gathered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of antagonism toward LA police officers trying to control the crowd as well as , in at least one case , profane chants directed Trump .
WARNING : The following video and tweet contain vulgar language that some viewers may find offensive .
TRENDING : Maxine Waters ' Veteran Challenger Hits Her on Deplorable State of South LA : 'Our District Is In Ruins' Smoke bombs and fireworks filled the streets .
At least one person was injured from fireworks .
The crowd hammered on police cruisers and shouted at officers who arrived @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bottles at the police .
RELATED : LA Sheriff Issues a Challenge to LeBron James : 'Let 's See What He Does' There was also sporadic looting and vandalism .
Some noted that as the mob filled the streets in violation of social distancing rules and wearing no masks , the city has severe restrictions in place on churches and schools .
To limit the damage , the California Highway Patrol closed freeway exit ramps in the downtown section of the city .
Once the celebration began to resemble a riot , Los @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrested those who would not leave on their own .
Five people faced looting charges , and one was held for vandalism .
The rest were cited for failing to disperse when ordered .
Madison said one officer was injured by a bottle .
“ It would have been nice if there were zero [ arrests ] and then we could have just celebrated peacefully , ’ ’ he said .
“ Unfortunately , when it gets to this point , it ’ s usually because things are getting a little out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Los Angeles Lakers fans celebrated winning the NBA championship by venting their hatred at President Donald Trump and police.
The Lakers defeated the Miami Heat 106-93 on Sunday in Game 6 of the NBA Finals to win the championship series. All games were played at the so-called bubble in Lake Buena Vista, Florida, without fans present due to the coronavirus.
Although Lakers officials had urged fans to stay away from the Staples Center in LA, where the team plays its home games in normal times, a vast crowd of mostly maskless fans gathered in what soon became a rowdy expression of antagonism toward LA police officers trying to control the crowd as well as, in at least one case, profane chants directed Trump.
WARNING: The following video and tweet contain vulgar language that some viewers may find offensive.
Hahhhh dope. Just saw this vid posted. “Fuck donald trump” chants in downtown LA#Lakers Kobe Bryant Lebron James Warriors Staples Center #NBA pic.twitter.com/j1lQangS3d — FDT (@MORNINGSTARdj) October 12, 2020
Smoke bombs and fireworks filled the streets. At least one person was injured from fireworks.
#BREAKING: Authorities tell us a man’s hands are badly injured from fireworks. Unclear if he was lighting them off or just got hit. @ABC7 pic.twitter.com/MgrswpahQU — Veronica Miracle (@ABC7Veronica) October 12, 2020
The crowd hammered on police cruisers and shouted at officers who arrived on the scene. Some threw glass bottles at the police.
Large rowdy crowd start hitting LAPD police cars near the Staples center during the Lakers celebration. It was soon after this that an unlawful assembly was declared. Filmed at approximately 8:20pm. #DTLA pic.twitter.com/7ZcAzcXSoq — Rise Images (@rise_images) October 12, 2020
Once LAPD arrived on scene. Laker Fans started throwing glass bottles, police responded with rubber bullets. #Lakers #StaplesCenter #LosAngeles pic.twitter.com/zuROjqHl32 — christa torres (@cmt1806) October 12, 2020
There was also sporadic looting and vandalism.
Full video of the Metro bus being vandalized and set on fire. Allegedly the driver was assaulted. LAPD and LAFD responded to the scene and cleared the protesters. Certain sources state that just after this occurrence, a man was shot at this intersection. #DTLA #Lakers #downtownla pic.twitter.com/RGGuKqboJe — Rise Images (@rise_images) October 12, 2020
Looting at the Starbucks. pic.twitter.com/jXt36e0Blh — Emily Holshouser (@emilyytayylor) October 12, 2020
Some noted that as the mob filled the streets in violation of social distancing rules and wearing no masks, the city has severe restrictions in place on churches and schools.
This is the city that won’t allow my children to go to school—even distanced, with masks, desks cubicled with plexiglas. https://t.co/AIuVWFz9jB — Abigail Shrier (@AbigailShrier) October 12, 2020
Will the media describe the Staples Center post-game rally as a superspreader event or is Los Angeles now immune to the coronavirus? pic.twitter.com/KLYHDxc8jH — Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) October 12, 2020
To limit the damage, the California Highway Patrol closed freeway exit ramps in the downtown section of the city.
Once the celebration began to resemble a riot, Los Angeles police declared an unlawful assembly and arrested those who would not leave on their own.
Police arrested 67 people, according to LAPD Officer Drake Madison, USA Today reported
Five people faced looting charges, and one was held for vandalism. The rest were cited for failing to disperse when ordered.
Madison said one officer was injured by a bottle.
“It would have been nice if there were zero [arrests] and then we could have just celebrated peacefully,’’ he said. “Unfortunately, when it gets to this point, it’s usually because things are getting a little out of control.’’
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--2020-10-12--Brit Hume Says Biden’s ‘Obvious’ ‘Senility’ Could Cost Dems the Election

Veteran newsman Brit Hume on Sunday broached the biggest truth Democrats are trying to deny : Three weeks out from the presidential election , their candidate is a man whose mental capacity stopped being reliable a long time ago .
And while President Donald Trump is clearly facing a challenge in most mainstream media polling , the challenge facing the Biden campaign , is arguably even bigger : Keeping the American public convinced the party ’ s standard bearer isn ’ t well on the road to senility .
Hume made the statement at the end of a “ Fox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being asked by host Chris Wallace about the state of the presidential campaign .
Hume ’ s response acknowledged that Trump might be playing from behind at the moment , but what he followed with could not have been comforting to Democratic nominee Joe Biden ’ s campaign , or Americans watching the campaign unfold .
“ I think [ Trump ] is in a place where the only thing that might save him would be a performance or several performances by Joe Biden in which his senility , which I think has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time , becomes utterly obvious that people begin to say , ‘ wait a minute , we really can ’ t have this guy in the White House , ” Hume said ( video at RealClearPolitics here ) .
“ I think that ’ s [ Trump ’ s ] best hope but that means more debates , and let Biden talk , because the longer he talks , the greater the chance of it showing through are.
” The response apparently didn ’ t sit well with Wallace , who called Hume @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before acknowledging , “ but that ’ s your view and you ’ re entitled to it.
” Actually , the only “ controversial ” aspect of the discussion was Wallace calling it controversial .
At this point , anyone who has followed Biden ’ s public statements over the course of the campaign has to acknowledge that there are serious questions about his mental state .
His gaffes have ranged from ludicrous — like apparently forgetting the name of the president he served for eight years — to almost unbelievable detached — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deaths , military and civilian , attributed to the coronavirus .
Garden-variety misstatements — for Biden — like botching references to foundational American documents or mixing up what state he happens to be in at any given time have become almost the norm .
Democrats and Trump-loathers in the media like to either ignore Biden ’ s evident mental frailties , or try to explain them away as the result of the pressure of a presidential campaign , but the real truth is more obvious : Biden is simply not the same sharp @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate and was appointed vice president of the United States .
RELATED : Joe Biden Slurs His Way Through Opening Remarks : 'Because Uh , by Cause It 's Ellen General Motors' There were plenty of those defenders out in force on social media after Hume ’ s “ the-emperor ’ s-got-no-clothes ” comment , of course .
There always are .
But Hume had backers , too .
That last tweet , praising Hume ’ s advice to Trump for the next presidential debate — assuming there is one — was dead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Trump ’ s aggressive style in the first debate , it never gave Biden a chance to go off on one of his signature rambles — where evidence of his diminished faculties would become evident .
Wallace , a journalist who failed by every standard in his job as moderator of the first debate ( his evident siding with Biden reached the point where the two shared a laugh at Trump ’ s expense at one point ) might have thought it was “ controversial ” for Hume to describe Biden ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s a good deal more damning for a major political party , an entire mainstream media complex , and Hollywood celebrities to pretend that what is happening in front of the entire country isn ’ t happening at all .
The truth , as Hume put it , has been “ obvious to careful watchers for some time.
” It ’ s not Hume ’ s fault , or Trump ’ s fault , if the American mainstream media doesn ’ t care to tell it .
We are committed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Veteran newsman Brit Hume on Sunday broached the biggest truth Democrats are trying to deny:
Three weeks out from the presidential election, their candidate is a man whose mental capacity stopped being reliable a long time ago.
And while President Donald Trump is clearly facing a challenge in most mainstream media polling, the challenge facing the Biden campaign, is arguably even bigger: Keeping the American public convinced the party’s standard bearer isn’t well on the road to senility.
Hume made the statement at the end of a “Fox News Sunday” panel discussion, after being asked by host Chris Wallace about the state of the presidential campaign.
Hume’s response acknowledged that Trump might be playing from behind at the moment, but what he followed with could not have been comforting to Democratic nominee Joe Biden’s campaign, or Americans watching the campaign unfold.
“I think [Trump] is in a place where the only thing that might save him would be a performance or several performances by Joe Biden in which his senility, which I think has been obvious to careful watchers for some time, becomes utterly obvious that people begin to say, ‘wait a minute, we really can’t have this guy in the White House,” Hume said (video at RealClearPolitics here).
“I think that’s [Trump’s] best hope but that means more debates, and let Biden talk, because the longer he talks, the greater the chance of it showing through are.”
Brit Hume: Joe Biden’s ‘senility … has been obvious to careful watchers for some time’ @washtimes https://t.co/akUfOXbRaa — Jessica Chasmar (@JessicaChasmar) October 12, 2020
The response apparently didn’t sit well with Wallace, who called Hume’s statement “controversial,” before acknowledging, “but that’s your view and you’re entitled to it.”
Actually, the only “controversial” aspect of the discussion was Wallace calling it controversial.
At this point, anyone who has followed Biden’s public statements over the course of the campaign has to acknowledge that there are serious questions about his mental state.
His gaffes have ranged from ludicrous — like apparently forgetting the name of the president he served for eight years — to almost unbelievable detached — like wildly misstating the number of American deaths, military and civilian, attributed to the coronavirus.
Garden-variety misstatements — for Biden — like botching references to foundational American documents or mixing up what state he happens to be in at any given time have become almost the norm.
Democrats and Trump-loathers in the media like to either ignore Biden’s evident mental frailties, or try to explain them away as the result of the pressure of a presidential campaign, but the real truth is more obvious: Biden is simply not the same sharp mind that spent a career in the Senate and was appointed vice president of the United States.
There were plenty of those defenders out in force on social media after Hume’s “the-emperor’s-got-no-clothes” comment, of course. There always are. But Hume had backers, too.
@jaketapper Finally an honest reporter – Brit Hume referred to Biden’s senility on Chris W.’s show this a.m. When will you CNN “puppets” get some guts and let the public know what you must already know well. — Nancy Robinson (@NancyRo49104038) October 11, 2020
Nasty Democrat #ChrisWallace criticized a real journalist @brithume for having “controversial view” re @JoeBiden being senile. Chris was rude to a well respected colleague. No surprise. #maga2020 #election2020 — Victoria Toensing (@VicToensing) October 11, 2020
In my Sunday morning channel switching, @BritHume was the star. He doesn’t hold back about #JoeBiden‘s obvious senility or refusal to be honest with American voters on packing the court. “Let him talk” is excellent advice for Trump. Biden’s mental deterioration will be clear. — Marylka (@MarylkaMP) October 11, 2020
That last tweet, praising Hume’s advice to Trump for the next presidential debate — assuming there is one — was dead on.
Whatever the merits or drawbacks of Trump’s aggressive style in the first debate, it never gave Biden a chance to go off on one of his signature rambles — where evidence of his diminished faculties would become evident.
Do you agree with Brit Hume about Biden's "senility"? 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% (2393 Votes) No: 0% (7 Votes)
Wallace, a journalist who failed by every standard in his job as moderator of the first debate (his evident siding with Biden reached the point where the two shared a laugh at Trump’s expense at one point) might have thought it was “controversial” for Hume to describe Biden’s failings as “senility.”
But it’s a good deal more damning for a major political party, an entire mainstream media complex, and Hollywood celebrities to pretend that what is happening in front of the entire country isn’t happening at all.
The truth, as Hume put it, has been “obvious to careful watchers for some time.”
It’s not Hume’s fault, or Trump’s fault, if the American mainstream media doesn’t care to tell it.
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--2020-10-12--Lindsey Graham Kicks Off Amy Coney Barrett Hearing by Setting the Record Straight on Democrats’ ‘Unc

Lindsey Graham Kicks Off Amy Coney Barrett Hearing by Setting the Record Straight on Democrats’ ‘Unconstitutional’ Claims

Republican Rep. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said Monday that “ there is nothing unconstitutional ” or untoward about the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett .
As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee , Graham began the confirmation process Monday by saying that “ we do have a country that needs to move forward.
” Graham noted that liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , whose seat Barrett was nominated to fill upon Ginsburg ’ s death , was confirmed 96-3 in bipartisan days Graham said are now long gone .
“ What will happen is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has never been done , and they ’ re right in this regard .
Nobody ’ s been confirmed in an election year past July , ” he said .
“ The bottom line is , Justice Ginsburg , when asked about this several years ago , said that a president serves for four years , not three , ” Graham said .
“ There is nothing unconstitutional about this process.
” “ This is a vacancy that has occurred through a tragic loss of a great woman , and we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great woman , ” Graham said .
“ The bottom line here is that the Senate is doing its duty constitutionally.
” “ We can talk about history , but here ’ s the history as I understand it , ” Graham said .
“ There ’ s never been a situation where you had a president of one party and the senate of another , where the nominee , the replacement , was made in election year .
It ’ s been over 140 years ago .
I think there have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 17 of the 19 were confirmed to the court when the party of the president and the senate were the same , ” he said .
Graham said the process always moves swiftly .
“ In terms of timing , the hearing is starting 16 days after nomination .
More than half of all Supreme Court hearings have been held within 16 days of the announcement of the nominee , ” Graham said .
“ I feel that we ’ re doing this constitutionally , ” Graham said , noting that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats .
Graham said the hearing is vital to prove Barrett is qualified .
“ The bottom line is I think it ’ s important .
This is a lifetime appointment .
I would like the world and the country to know more about Judge Barrett .
I ’ m proud of you .
I ’ m proud of what you ’ ve accomplished and I think you ’ re a great choice by the president , ” he said .
RELATED : Amy Coney Barrett Speaks on Day One of Confirmation Hearings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Prayer' “ This is probably not about persuading each other unless something really dramatic happens .
All Republicans will vote yes , and all Democrats will vote no , and that will be the way the breakout of the vote , ” he said .
Graham said the hearing is a chance for Democrats to more fully understand Barrett ’ s philosophy , regardless of how they stand politically on her nomination .
Graham has said he hopes Barrett will be confirmed this month .
Republicans hold a 53-47 majority in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for confirmation .
Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine has said she opposes moving forward with the confirmation process at this time , according to Fox News .
Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska initially said she opposed the confirmation process , but later indicated that her disfavor with moving forward might not automatically lead to a vote against a nominee .
Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware said Sunday that confirming Barrett “ constitutes court packing.
” Court packing is generally a term applied for adding justices over the nine currently on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority votes in the way a president wishes .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said Monday that “there is nothing unconstitutional” or untoward about the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett.
As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Graham began the confirmation process Monday by saying that “we do have a country that needs to move forward.”
Graham noted that liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose seat Barrett was nominated to fill upon Ginsburg’s death, was confirmed 96-3 in bipartisan days Graham said are now long gone.
“What will happen is that my Democratic colleagues will say this has never been done, and they’re right in this regard. Nobody’s been confirmed in an election year past July,” he said.
“The bottom line is, Justice Ginsburg, when asked about this several years ago, said that a president serves for four years, not three,” Graham said. “There is nothing unconstitutional about this process.”
“This is a vacancy that has occurred through a tragic loss of a great woman, and we’re gonna fill that vacancy with another great woman,” Graham said. “The bottom line here is that the Senate is doing its duty constitutionally.”
“We can talk about history, but here’s the history as I understand it,” Graham said.
“There’s never been a situation where you had a president of one party and the senate of another, where the nominee, the replacement, was made in election year. It’s been over 140 years ago. I think there have been 19 vacancies filled in an election year, 17 of the 19 were confirmed to the court when the party of the president and the senate were the same,” he said.
Will Judge Amy Coney Barrett be confirmed? 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% (2410 Votes) No: 0% (9 Votes)
Graham said the process always moves swiftly.
“In terms of timing, the hearing is starting 16 days after nomination. More than half of all Supreme Court hearings have been held within 16 days of the announcement of the nominee,” Graham said.
“I feel that we’re doing this constitutionally,” Graham said, noting that he expects arguments about the process from Senate Democrats.
Graham said the hearing is vital to prove Barrett is qualified.
“The bottom line is I think it’s important. This is a lifetime appointment. I would like the world and the country to know more about Judge Barrett. I’m proud of you. I’m proud of what you’ve accomplished and I think you’re a great choice by the president,” he said.
“This is probably not about persuading each other unless something really dramatic happens. All Republicans will vote yes, and all Democrats will vote no, and that will be the way the breakout of the vote,” he said.
Graham said the hearing is a chance for Democrats to more fully understand Barrett’s philosophy, regardless of how they stand politically on her nomination.
Graham has said he hopes Barrett will be confirmed this month.
“That’s my hope,” Graham added. “It will be up to Senator [Mitch] McConnell what do after the 22nd, but we can easily get her confirmed before the election.”https://t.co/2OTNJaiT4C — Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) October 11, 2020
Republicans hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate. A simple majority is required for confirmation.
Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine has said she opposes moving forward with the confirmation process at this time, according to Fox News.
Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska initially said she opposed the confirmation process, but later indicated that her disfavor with moving forward might not automatically lead to a vote against a nominee.
Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware said Sunday that confirming Barrett “constitutes court packing.” Court packing is generally a term applied for adding justices over the nine currently on the court in order to ensure a majority votes in the way a president wishes.
Coons also called Barrett’s views “disqualifying.”
CORRECTION, Oct. 14, 2020: This story originally misidentified Senator Lindsey Graham as a representative rather than a senator. We apologize to Sen. Graham, and to our readers, for the error.
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--2020-10-12--Portland Rioters Tear Down Lincoln Statue, Smash Up Historical Society in ‘Day of Rage’

Rioters in Portland , Oregon , toppled statues of former Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt in a wave of destruction Sunday night that was planned as an “ Indigenous Peoples Day of Rage.
” A mob of about 200 people also smashed windows and defaced a mural commemorating the Lewis and Clark expedition .
Police did not intervene until long after the first statue fell , according to Oregon Live , but eventually dispersed the crowd and made arrests .
WARNING : The following video contains vulgar language that some viewers may find offensive .
President Donald Trump shared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wanton destruction .
“ These are Biden fools , ” he tweeted Monday .
“ ANTIFA RADICALS .
Get them FBI , and get them now !
” The event had been planned with an advance notice warning away those who regularly video the months of demonstrations that have left Portland strewn with shattered glass , graffiti and boarded-up buildings .
The statue of Roosevelt was the first to fall .
The mob then pulled down a statue of Lincoln .
Someone sprayed “ Dakota 38 ” on the statue ’ s pedestal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ War of 1862 , in which Lincoln approved the execution of 38 Dakota Indians after an uprising that fall in Minnesota .
State officials had sought the executive of more than 300 Dakota for their role in the uprising , but Lincoln reviewed the case files and winnowed the number to 38 .
Once the statues , which had stood for almost a century , were torn down , the group smashed windows at the Oregon Historical Society and displayed a sign reading , “ Stop honoring racist colonizer murderers.
” A mural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ splattered with red paint .
Despite the smashed windows , the historical society reported that none of its exhibits was damaged .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Rioters in Portland, Oregon, toppled statues of former Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt in a wave of destruction Sunday night that was planned as an “Indigenous Peoples Day of Rage.”
A mob of about 200 people also smashed windows and defaced a mural commemorating the Lewis and Clark expedition.
Police did not intervene until long after the first statue fell, according to Oregon Live, but eventually dispersed the crowd and made arrests.
WARNING: The following video contains vulgar language that some viewers may find offensive.
Portland Police shut down the unpermited antifa protest because they could start attacking the north precinct. Many arrests made. #PortlandRiots pic.twitter.com/X4N2KpOMtR — Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) October 11, 2020
President Donald Trump shared his disgust with the mob’s wanton destruction.
“These are Biden fools,” he tweeted Monday. “ANTIFA RADICALS. Get them FBI, and get them now!”
These are Biden fools. ANTIFA RADICALS. Get them FBI, and get them now! https://t.co/RI9fH6sC1g — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 12, 2020
Taking advantage of fools. Law & Order! Portland, call in the Feds! https://t.co/rJl9IVxdMM — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 12, 2020
The event had been planned with an advance notice warning away those who regularly video the months of demonstrations that have left Portland strewn with shattered glass, graffiti and boarded-up buildings.
Tonight the “indigenous” faction of antifa held a “day of rage” riot in Portland. They banned video recording as the criminal acts were planned ahead. They’ve toppled the statues of Roosevelt & Lincoln so far using chains. #PortlandRiots pic.twitter.com/PkTqxeCLIj — Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) October 12, 2020
The statue of Roosevelt was the first to fall.
The mob then pulled down a statue of Lincoln. Someone sprayed “Dakota 38” on the statue’s pedestal.
The reference is to the Dakota War of 1862, in which Lincoln approved the execution of 38 Dakota Indians after an uprising that fall in Minnesota. State officials had sought the executive of more than 300 Dakota for their role in the uprising, but Lincoln reviewed the case files and winnowed the number to 38.
Now Lincoln. The second statue is toppled in downtown Portland pic.twitter.com/dizgPMkFgf — Sergio Olmos (@MrOlmos) October 12, 2020
Once the statues, which had stood for almost a century, were torn down, the group smashed windows at the Oregon Historical Society and displayed a sign reading, “Stop honoring racist colonizer murderers.” A mural depicting the Lewis and Clark expedition was splattered with red paint.
Despite the smashed windows, the historical society reported that none of its exhibits was damaged.
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--2020-10-12--Twitter Censors Trump Tweet Saying He’s Immune from COVID-19

Trump on Sunday used the social media platform to give Americans an update on his health .
On Oct. 2 , the president was hospitalized after testing positive for the coronavirus .
He returned to the White House a week ago and has now been cleared to resume his full schedule .
“ A total and complete sign off from White House Doctors yesterday .
That means I can ’ t get it ( immune ) , and can ’ t give it .
Very nice to know !
!
!
” Trump exulted in a tweet Sunday .
Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the president ’ s upbeat declaration .
The social media giant hid the tweet behind a warning .
“ This Tweet violated the Twitter Rules about spreading misleading and potentially harmful information related to COVID-19 .
However , Twitter has determined that it may be in the public ’ s interest for the Tweet to remain accessible , ” it wrote .
The move made it so Twitter users were unable to like or reply to the tweet or share it without comment .
“ We try to prevent a Tweet like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from reaching more people , so we have disabled most of the ways to engage with it , ” Twitter said .
A Twitter spokeswoman told Reuters that the tweet made “ misleading health claims ” about COVID-19 .
The social media giant did not indicate what was “ misleading ” or “ potentially harmful ” about the president ’ s comment .
“ This evening I am happy to report that in addition to the President meeting CDC criteria for the safe discontinuation of isolation , this morning ’ s COVID PCR @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he is no longer considered a transmission risk to others , ” the statement said .
PCR stands for polymerase chain reaction , a type of test in which a swab is taken from the nose or throat to detect the virus .
“ Now at day 10 from symptom onset , fever-free for well over 24 hours and all symptoms improved , the assortment of advanced diagnostic tests obtained reveal there is no longer evidence of actively replicating virus , ” the memo said .
Trump had also given an upbeat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo on “ Sunday Morning Futures.
” “ [ I ] t seems like I ’ m immune , so I can go way out of a basement , which I would have done anyway , ” the president said when asked about his medical status .
“ The president is in very good shape to fight the battles , ” Trump said .
“ I beat this crazy horrible China virus .
Trump said that he “ passed the highest test , the highest standards , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And I have to tell you I feel fantastically .
I really feel good.
” “ The White House doctors are the best .. .they said totally free of spreading , there ’ s no spread , ” Trump said .
Twitter ’ s muzzling of the president was Trump ’ s second brush with social media censors in recent days .
Last week , after Trump compared COVID-19 with the flu , Twitter restricted access to the post , as it did Sunday , while Facebook took the post down .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people every year , sometimes over 100,000 , and despite the Vaccine , die from the Flu .
Are we going to close down our Country ?
No , we have learned to live with it , just like we are learning to live with Covid , in most populations far less lethal !
!
!
” Trump tweeted Tuesday .
Facebook spokesman Andy Stone said the post violated the social media giant ’ s rules .
Twitter spokesman Adrian Zamora said then that a “ public interest notice ” was slapped on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about COVID-19.
” We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Dr. Twitter examined a Sunday tweet from President Donald Trump and prescribed censorship.
Trump on Sunday used the social media platform to give Americans an update on his health. On Oct. 2, the president was hospitalized after testing positive for the coronavirus. He returned to the White House a week ago and has now been cleared to resume his full schedule.
“A total and complete sign off from White House Doctors yesterday. That means I can’t get it (immune), and can’t give it. Very nice to know!!!” Trump exulted in a tweet Sunday.
A total and complete sign off from White House Doctors yesterday. That means I can’t get it (immune), and can’t give it. Very nice to know!!! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 11, 2020
Twitter, however, took a dim view of the president’s upbeat declaration. The social media giant hid the tweet behind a warning.
“This Tweet violated the Twitter Rules about spreading misleading and potentially harmful information related to COVID-19. However, Twitter has determined that it may be in the public’s interest for the Tweet to remain accessible,” it wrote.
The move made it so Twitter users were unable to like or reply to the tweet or share it without comment.
“We try to prevent a Tweet like this that otherwise breaks the Twitter Rules from reaching more people, so we have disabled most of the ways to engage with it,” Twitter said.
Should Twitter censor the president? 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: 0% (0 Votes) No: 100% (37 Votes)
A Twitter spokeswoman told Reuters that the tweet made “misleading health claims” about COVID-19. The social media giant did not indicate what was “misleading” or “potentially harmful” about the president’s comment.
On Saturday, White House physician Dr. Sean Conley issued a memo giving Trump the all-clear.
“This evening I am happy to report that in addition to the President meeting CDC criteria for the safe discontinuation of isolation, this morning’s COVID PCR sample demonstrates, by currently recognized standards, he is no longer considered a transmission risk to others,” the statement said. PCR stands for polymerase chain reaction, a type of test in which a swab is taken from the nose or throat to detect the virus.
“Now at day 10 from symptom onset, fever-free for well over 24 hours and all symptoms improved, the assortment of advanced diagnostic tests obtained reveal there is no longer evidence of actively replicating virus,” the memo said.
Trump had also given an upbeat assessment of his health during an interview on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo on “Sunday Morning Futures.”
“[I]t seems like I’m immune, so I can go way out of a basement, which I would have done anyway,” the president said when asked about his medical status.
“The president is in very good shape to fight the battles,” Trump said. “I beat this crazy horrible China virus.
Trump said that he “passed the highest test, the highest standards, and I’m in great shape. And I have to tell you I feel fantastically. I really feel good.”
“The White House doctors are the best .. .they said totally free of spreading, there’s no spread,” Trump said.
Twitter’s muzzling of the president was Trump’s second brush with social media censors in recent days.
Last week, after Trump compared COVID-19 with the flu, Twitter restricted access to the post, as it did Sunday, while Facebook took the post down.
“Flu season is coming up! Many people every year, sometimes over 100,000, and despite the Vaccine, die from the Flu. Are we going to close down our Country? No, we have learned to live with it, just like we are learning to live with Covid, in most populations far less lethal!!!” Trump tweeted Tuesday.
Flu season is coming up! Many people every year, sometimes over 100,000, and despite the Vaccine, die from the Flu. Are we going to close down our Country? No, we have learned to live with it, just like we are learning to live with Covid, in most populations far less lethal!!! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 6, 2020
Facebook spokesman Andy Stone said the post violated the social media giant’s rules.
Twitter spokesman Adrian Zamora said then that a “public interest notice” was slapped on Trump for “making misleading health claims about COVID-19.”
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--2020-10-12--As Biden Refuses To Answer Court-Packing Question, Resurfaced Video Shows Him Calling the Idea a ‘Po

As Biden Refuses To Answer Court-Packing Question, Resurfaced Video Shows Him Calling the Idea a ‘Power Grab’

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden , in a newly unearthed video , referred to the idea of packing the Supreme Court as a “ power grab ” while he was a senator representing Delaware .
Biden would almost certainly now entertain the idea of adding justices to the high court , as some Democrats have proposed , if he manages to win the November election .
However , he bludgeoned the idea of packing the court back in 2005 — when he still spoke with vigor and passion .
During a speech that is suddenly very relevant , given Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about packing the court , Biden was on the other side of the issue during the second term of former President George W. Bush .
In a reference to the 1937 court-packing controversy that briefly enveloped the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt — back when the idea of packing the court was still scandalous , even for Democrats — Biden slammed the country ’ s 32nd president .
The video was shared on Twitter by Eddie Zipperer , a conservative commentator and assistant professor of political science and English at Georgia Military College @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 37 , Roosevelt had just come off of a landslide victory over Alf Landon .
He had a Congress made up off of solid New Dealers , but the ‘ nine old men ’ of the court were thwarting his agenda , ” Biden said on the Senate floor , using a Roosevelt-era term of disparagement for the court .
“ In this environment , Roosevelt , I remember this old adage about power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely , corrupted by power , in my view , unveiled his court-packing plan.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] wanted to increase the number of justices to 15 , allowing himself to nominate those additional judges .
It took an act of courage on the part of his own party , institutionally , to stand up against this power grab.
” It actually took a bit of courage from a career politician such as Biden to criticize one of his party ’ s most historically popular presidents like that .
Now , the 77-year-old , who has grown frail and has lost his vigor , lacks the courage to even answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Just last week , Biden stated clearly that voters “ don ’ t deserve ” to know if he and his party intend to add more justices to the court .
RELATED : Joe Biden Slurs His Way Through Opening Remarks : 'Because Uh , by Cause It 's Ellen General Motors' KTLV-TV reporter Ross DiMattei asked Biden about his stance on the court at a campaign stop Friday in Las Vegas , “ This is the number one thing that I ’ ve been asked about from viewers in the past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a reference to the nomination of Hudge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court , cut in ” “ Well , you ’ ve been asked by viewers who are probably Republicans who don ’ t want me to continue talking about what they ’ re doing to the court right now.
” “ Sir , don ’ t the voters deserve to know where you stand ?
” he asked .
“ No , they don ’ t deserve , ” the Democrat nominee said .
“ I ’ m not going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ added in an apparent reference to President Donald Trump .
Biden ’ s impassioned words from 15 years ago are a reminder of how far to the left Democrats have drifted , and how far they ’ ve taken Biden with them .
Biden and Democrats want to violate judicial norms in a fit over Trump ’ s nomination of Barrett to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
Ginsburg , who died on Sept. 18 , was opposed to the idea of court-packing , NPR reported , as was Biden not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t the major topic of conversation for not-so nonpartisan debate moderators , or for most reporters during Q & As .
Of course , if the country ’ s establishment media was good for anything , Biden ’ s refusal to answer questions about the Supreme Court would dominate the top of every newscast , and pepper the front pages of every national newspaper .
But Biden and his running mate , Sen. Kamala Harris , are in charge of not only the Democratic Party , but also apparently the establishment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For them , you ’ d imagine , this issue apparently can ’ t go away fast enough .
A few reporters have engaged in journalism in recent weeks by asking both Biden and Harris each about the court-packing plan multiple times , but both candidates have been evasive .
No demands for answers from media titans like CNN CEO Jeff Zucker .
The transparency though , is there in the form that we know what we ’ ve known now for decades : Democrats and the media are one and the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has let Biden and Harris get away dodging questions about rebuilding the Supreme Court , and now we ’ re three weeks away from voting , and we have no idea what the makeup of the country , or the judiciary , could look like next year , should Biden and the complicit media succeed in unseating President Trump .
The country knew that the the Supreme Court would be a deciding issue for the upcoming election .
But Democrats are violating every norm , and now the issue of the high court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different reason , as Biden now seems at least open to an FDR-like “ power grab ” of his own .
If Democrats are successful next month , the Supreme Court could forever change , as the additional liberal activist judges would make a mockery of the Constitution and the high court by treating it as another legislative body .
Joe Biden had the sense to reject that 15 years ago .
American voters need the sense , and the strength , to reject it now .
We are committed to truth and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Read our editorial standards .

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, in a newly unearthed video, referred to the idea of packing the Supreme Court as a “power grab” while he was a senator representing Delaware.
Biden would almost certainly now entertain the idea of adding justices to the high court, as some Democrats have proposed, if he manages to win the November election. However, he bludgeoned the idea of packing the court back in 2005 — when he still spoke with vigor and passion.
During a speech that is suddenly very relevant, given Biden’s complete refusal to answer questions about packing the court, Biden was on the other side of the issue during the second term of former President George W. Bush.
In a reference to the 1937 court-packing controversy that briefly enveloped the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt — back when the idea of packing the court was still scandalous, even for Democrats — Biden slammed the country’s 32nd president.
The video was shared on Twitter by Eddie Zipperer, a conservative commentator and assistant professor of political science and English at Georgia Military College:
Biden refers to court packing a “power grab” in 2005: pic.twitter.com/AhQWp1a8F3 — Eddie Zipperer (@EddieZipperer) October 10, 2020
“In the summer of ’37, Roosevelt had just come off of a landslide victory over Alf Landon. He had a Congress made up off of solid New Dealers, but the ‘nine old men’ of the court were thwarting his agenda,” Biden said on the Senate floor, using a Roosevelt-era term of disparagement for the court.
“In this environment, Roosevelt, I remember this old adage about power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, corrupted by power, in my view, unveiled his court-packing plan.”
Do you think President Donald Trump will be re-elected? 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% (128 Votes) No: 1% (1 Votes)
Biden continued, “[FDR] wanted to increase the number of justices to 15, allowing himself to nominate those additional judges. It took an act of courage on the part of his own party, institutionally, to stand up against this power grab.”
It actually took a bit of courage from a career politician such as Biden to criticize one of his party’s most historically popular presidents like that.
Now, the 77-year-old, who has grown frail and has lost his vigor, lacks the courage to even answer a question about packing the Supreme Court.
Just last week, Biden stated clearly that voters “don’t deserve” to know if he and his party intend to add more justices to the court.
Reporter: “Don’t the voters deserve to know [your position on packing the courts?]”@JoeBiden: “No, they don’t deserve” pic.twitter.com/xF1Ywtf0od — Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) October 10, 2020
KTLV-TV reporter Ross DiMattei asked Biden about his stance on the court at a campaign stop Friday in Las Vegas, “This is the number one thing that I’ve been asked about from viewers in the past couple of days.”
Biden, in a reference to the nomination of Hudge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, cut in” “Well, you’ve been asked by viewers who are probably Republicans who don’t want me to continue talking about what they’re doing to the court right now.”
DiMattei, to his credit, persisted.
“Sir, don’t the voters deserve to know where you stand?” he asked.
“No, they don’t deserve,” the Democrat nominee said.
“I’m not going to play his game,” he added in an apparent reference to President Donald Trump.
Biden’s impassioned words from 15 years ago are a reminder of how far to the left Democrats have drifted, and how far they’ve taken Biden with them.
Biden and Democrats want to violate judicial norms in a fit over Trump’s nomination of Barrett to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Ginsburg, who died on Sept. 18, was opposed to the idea of court-packing, NPR reported, as was Biden not too long ago.
Somehow this information isn’t the major topic of conversation for not-so nonpartisan debate moderators, or for most reporters during Q&As.
Of course, if the country’s establishment media was good for anything, Biden’s refusal to answer questions about the Supreme Court would dominate the top of every newscast, and pepper the front pages of every national newspaper.
But Biden and his running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris, are in charge of not only the Democratic Party, but also apparently the establishment media’s daily editorial meetings.
For them, you’d imagine, this issue apparently can’t go away fast enough.
A few reporters have engaged in journalism in recent weeks by asking both Biden and Harris each about the court-packing plan multiple times, but both candidates have been evasive.
No reporter follow-ups.
No demands for answers from media titans like CNN CEO Jeff Zucker.
The transparency though, is there in the form that we know what we’ve known now for decades: Democrats and the media are one and the same.
The country’s activist media has let Biden and Harris get away dodging questions about rebuilding the Supreme Court, and now we’re three weeks away from voting, and we have no idea what the makeup of the country, or the judiciary, could look like next year, should Biden and the complicit media succeed in unseating President Trump.
The country knew that the the Supreme Court would be a deciding issue for the upcoming election.
But Democrats are violating every norm, and now the issue of the high court takes on the utmost importance for a different reason, as Biden now seems at least open to an FDR-like “power grab” of his own.
If Democrats are successful next month, the Supreme Court could forever change, as the additional liberal activist judges would make a mockery of the Constitution and the high court by treating it as another legislative body.
Joe Biden had the sense to reject that 15 years ago. American voters need the sense, and the strength, to reject it now.
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--2020-10-14--Op-Ed: Dems Won’t Tell You, But Abortion Was Called a Crime Against Humanity After WWII

During the vice presidential debate , Mike Pence accused Kamala Harris of having “ attacked ” a judicial nominee “ because they were a member of the Catholic Knights of Columbus , just because the Knights of Columbus holds pro-life views.
” An NBC fact check found this religious-based attack was indeed made by Harris .
In next week ’ s Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings , Harris will question Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett , a Catholic , on the basis of her pro-life views on abortion .
Should Harris resort to attacks on faith , she will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a long list of other proponents of separation of Christian morality and health policy popularized in an earlier era .
Perhaps the most infamous of these was Dr. Gerhard Wagner , head of the Nazi organization of physicians in the 1930s .
He too complained of Catholic opposition to abortion and other elements of the state ’ s health programs .
He wanted health to be left “ primarily in the hands of the approximately 20,000 expert physicians with a reliable worldview.
” ( Catholics need not apply ! )
Wagner condemned Christian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reject or oppose us because they hold to another worldview.
” He resented that they “ warn their sheep in Christian piety … of the errors of the measures taken by the Third Reich.
” A report issued on Oct. 25 , 1943 , singled out Catholic doctors as the main objectors to the new abortion policy being extended from Russia , Poland and the Occupied Eastern Territories of the German homeland .
It was “ mostly Catholic physicians , ” the report said , who were objecting “ that the decree was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a physician to preserve life.
” Pro-abortion propaganda had set about “ encouraging ” abortion of the socially unwanted : “ [ T ] he press , radio , and movies , as well as pamphlets , booklets , and lectures , must be used to instill … the idea that it is harmful to have several children .
We must emphasize the expenses that children cause , the good things that people could have had with the money spent on them .
We could also hint at the dangerous effect of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ( Professor Erich Wetzel , April 27 , 1942 ) Domestic eugenic abortion had been promoted by Wagner as “ saving the German people from a steady stream of new moral and economic burdens resulting from genetic illnesses .
…We have a good conscience before the world when we eliminate life that is unworthy of life.
” It is against the Democrats ’ reincarnation of this attitude to eugenic abortion in the United States today that Judge Amy has already made her stand .
In a recent case related originally to whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , prevent eugenic abortions , Judge Amy discerned correctly : “ [ N ] one of the Court ’ s abortion decisions holds that states are powerless to prevent abortions designed to choose the sex , race , and other attributes of children.
” In her confirmation hearings , Judge Amy could be asked for her views on sex-selective abortion of children who are deemed not to be of the “ preferred ” sex .
Or her views on entrenched legislative and judicial toleration of disproportionate targeting of black American children for abortion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about another entrenched injustice being ignored — coerced abortions for women and girls in abusive relationships .
Democrat-dominated legislatures and courts have for too long enabled these discriminatory violations of the rule of law to continue with impunity .
Or Judge Amy could be asked why over 67 percent of American children detected prenatally to have Down syndrome are “ chosen ” for eugenic abortion “ treatments.
” Or why these children are aborted at a higher proportion ( more than 80 percent ) than children without Down ’ s ( 18 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the principle of equality .
Nuremberg : “ Protection of the Law Was Denied to Unborn Children ” Regrettably , today ’ s Democrats don ’ t want these questions answered .
Nor do Democrats want to know of the parallels between the current U.S. abortion record and the Nazi record of systematically decriminalizing abortion .
Instructions issuing directives to decriminalize abortion were furnished at the Nuremberg trials as evidence for the count of crimes against humanity : “ Abortion must not be punishable in the remaining territory … Institutes and persons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should not be prosecuted by the police.
” Not all Eastern women workers ’ abortions were forced .
In addition , to the charge of “ compelling ” abortions , there was also the charge of “ encouraging ” abortions among Polish women by removing abortion from prosecution in Polish courts .
Though abortion had been decriminalized , the Nuremberg court still judged that “ protection of the law was denied the unborn children , ” and two SS officers , Richard Hildebrandt and Otto Hofmann , were convicted for “ compelling and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 25 years .
Nuremberg abortion trials historian Dr. John Hunt has established that condemnation of abortion was not simply limited to forced abortions but included all abortions .
American James McHaney , a Nuremberg prosecutor of the RuSHA/Greifelt Case , called abortion an “ inhumane act ” and an “ act of extermination ” and stated that even if a woman ’ s request for abortion was voluntary , abortion was still a crime against humanity .
British Medical Association : “ The Greatest Crime Being Co-operation in … Murder , Suicide and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ British Medical Association also condemned abortion doctors for lacking “ moral and professional conscience.
” These doctors had “ departed from the traditional medical ethic which maintains the value and sanctity of every individual human being.
” The BMA stressed : “ Although there have been many changes in Medicine , the spirit of the Hippocratic Oath can not change.
” The international medical profession was urged to reaffirm “ the duty of curing , the greatest crime being co-operation in the destruction of life by murder , suicide and abortion.
” Declaration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Human Life from the Time of Conception ” In 1948 , the World Medical Association ’ s Declaration of Geneva included the Physician ’ s Oath pledging : “ I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception ; even under threat , I will not use medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.
” Then , in 1949 , the International Code of Medical Ethics declared : “ A doctor must always bear in mind the importance of preserving human life from the time of conception @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further we move in time away from Nazi-era atrocities , the easier it seems for our legislatures and courts to slide into a neo-Nazi contempt for the human rights of the child before birth .
Back in 1997 , Professor Edmund Pellegrino , heading the U.S. President ’ s Council on Bioethics , warned : “ Moral lessons are quickly forgotten .
Medical ethics is more fragile than we think .
Moral reasoning based on defective premises tends to recur in new settings.
” Part of the opening indictment from doctors ’ trials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disturbing applicability to abortion doctors today : “ [ F ] rom leaders of … scientific medicine , with excellent international reputations , down to the dregs of the … medical profession .
All of them have in common a callous lack of consideration and human regard for , and an unprincipled willingness to abuse their power over the poor , unfortunate , defenceless creatures who had been deprived of their rights … All of them violated the Hippocratic commandments … including the fundamental principles never to do harm – ‘ primum non @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their power over human beings rendered rightless.
” In the U.S. since Roe v. Wade , over 62 million American children — tiny human beings rendered rightless — have been culled by abortion .
In years to come , when this pro-abortion madness has passed , Catholic justices like Clarence Thomas , Samuel Alito and hopefully Amy Coney Barrett will be remembered and honored as among the valiant few who tried to protect these smallest human beings “ chosen ” for cruel extermination in “ reproductive health ” programs .
The views expressed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

During the vice presidential debate, Mike Pence accused Kamala Harris of having “attacked” a judicial nominee “because they were a member of the Catholic Knights of Columbus, just because the Knights of Columbus holds pro-life views.” An NBC fact check found this religious-based attack was indeed made by Harris.
In next week’s Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings, Harris will question Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, a Catholic, on the basis of her pro-life views on abortion.
Should Harris resort to attacks on faith, she will join, I’m afraid, a long list of other proponents of separation of Christian morality and health policy popularized in an earlier era.
Perhaps the most infamous of these was Dr. Gerhard Wagner, head of the Nazi organization of physicians in the 1930s.
He too complained of Catholic opposition to abortion and other elements of the state’s health programs. He wanted health to be left “primarily in the hands of the approximately 20,000 expert physicians with a reliable worldview.” (Catholics need not apply!)
Wagner condemned Christian churches for being among “those who reject or oppose us because they hold to another worldview.” He resented that they “warn their sheep in Christian piety … of the errors of the measures taken by the Third Reich.”
Objectors to Nazi Abortions: “Mostly Catholic Physicians”
A report issued on Oct. 25, 1943, singled out Catholic doctors as the main objectors to the new abortion policy being extended from Russia, Poland and the Occupied Eastern Territories of the German homeland.
It was “mostly Catholic physicians,” the report said, who were objecting “that the decree was not in accordance with the moral obligation of a physician to preserve life.”
Do you think abortion is a crime against humanity? 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: 97% (390 Votes) No: 3% (11 Votes)
Pro-abortion propaganda had set about “encouraging” abortion of the socially unwanted:
“[T]he press, radio, and movies, as well as pamphlets, booklets, and lectures, must be used to instill … the idea that it is harmful to have several children. We must emphasize the expenses that children cause, the good things that people could have had with the money spent on them. We could also hint at the dangerous effect of child-bearing on a woman’s health…” (Professor Erich Wetzel, April 27, 1942)
Domestic eugenic abortion had been promoted by Wagner as “saving the German people from a steady stream of new moral and economic burdens resulting from genetic illnesses. …We have a good conscience before the world when we eliminate life that is unworthy of life.”
It is against the Democrats’ reincarnation of this attitude to eugenic abortion in the United States today that Judge Amy has already made her stand.
Some Questions on Abortion Inequities
In a recent case related originally to whether the states may, under the Constitution, prevent eugenic abortions, Judge Amy discerned correctly:
“[N]one of the Court’s abortion decisions holds that states are powerless to prevent abortions designed to choose the sex, race, and other attributes of children.”
In her confirmation hearings, Judge Amy could be asked for her views on sex-selective abortion of children who are deemed not to be of the “preferred” sex.
Or her views on entrenched legislative and judicial toleration of disproportionate targeting of black American children for abortion.
Perhaps Judge Amy should be asked about another entrenched injustice being ignored — coerced abortions for women and girls in abusive relationships. Democrat-dominated legislatures and courts have for too long enabled these discriminatory violations of the rule of law to continue with impunity.
Or Judge Amy could be asked why over 67 percent of American children detected prenatally to have Down syndrome are “chosen” for eugenic abortion “treatments.” Or why these children are aborted at a higher proportion (more than 80 percent) than children without Down’s (18 percent), a disproportionality demonstrating a breach of the principle of equality.
Nuremberg: “Protection of the Law Was Denied to Unborn Children”
Regrettably, today’s Democrats don’t want these questions answered. Nor do Democrats want to know of the parallels between the current U.S. abortion record and the Nazi record of systematically decriminalizing abortion.
Instructions issuing directives to decriminalize abortion were furnished at the Nuremberg trials as evidence for the count of crimes against humanity:
“Abortion must not be punishable in the remaining territory … Institutes and persons who make a business of performing abortions should not be prosecuted by the police.”
Not all Eastern women workers’ abortions were forced. In addition, to the charge of “compelling” abortions, there was also the charge of “encouraging” abortions among Polish women by removing abortion from prosecution in Polish courts.
Though abortion had been decriminalized, the Nuremberg court still judged that “protection of the law was denied the unborn children,” and two SS officers, Richard Hildebrandt and Otto Hofmann, were convicted for “compelling and encouraging abortion,” receiving sentences of 25 years.
Nuremberg abortion trials historian Dr. John Hunt has established that condemnation of abortion was not simply limited to forced abortions but included all abortions. American James McHaney, a Nuremberg prosecutor of the RuSHA/Greifelt Case, called abortion an “inhumane act” and an “act of extermination” and stated that even if a woman’s request for abortion was voluntary, abortion was still a crime against humanity.
British Medical Association: “The Greatest Crime Being Co-operation in … Murder, Suicide and Abortion”
In June 1947, the British Medical Association also condemned abortion doctors for lacking “moral and professional conscience.” These doctors had “departed from the traditional medical ethic which maintains the value and sanctity of every individual human being.”
The BMA stressed: “Although there have been many changes in Medicine, the spirit of the Hippocratic Oath cannot change.” The international medical profession was urged to reaffirm “the duty of curing, the greatest crime being co-operation in the destruction of life by murder, suicide and abortion.”
Declaration of Geneva: “Utmost Respect for Human Life from the Time of Conception”
In 1948, the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Geneva included the Physician’s Oath pledging:
“I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.”
Then, in 1949, the International Code of Medical Ethics declared:
“A doctor must always bear in mind the importance of preserving human life from the time of conception until death.”
Those “Chosen” for Abortion: “Human Beings Rendered Rightless”
Yet sadly, the further we move in time away from Nazi-era atrocities, the easier it seems for our legislatures and courts to slide into a neo-Nazi contempt for the human rights of the child before birth.
Back in 1997, Professor Edmund Pellegrino, heading the U.S. President’s Council on Bioethics, warned: “Moral lessons are quickly forgotten. Medical ethics is more fragile than we think. Moral reasoning based on defective premises tends to recur in new settings.”
Part of the opening indictment from doctors’ trials of Dec. 9, 1946, has disturbing applicability to abortion doctors today:
“[F]rom leaders of … scientific medicine, with excellent international reputations, down to the dregs of the … medical profession. All of them have in common a callous lack of consideration and human regard for, and an unprincipled willingness to abuse their power over the poor, unfortunate, defenceless creatures who had been deprived of their rights … All of them violated the Hippocratic commandments … including the fundamental principles never to do harm – ‘primum non nocere’ … they simply relied on their power over human beings rendered rightless.”
In the U.S. since Roe v. Wade, over 62 million American children — tiny human beings rendered rightless — have been culled by abortion.
In years to come, when this pro-abortion madness has passed, Catholic justices like Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and hopefully Amy Coney Barrett will be remembered and honored as among the valiant few who tried to protect these smallest human beings “chosen” for cruel extermination in “reproductive health” programs.
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--2020-10-14--Dan Calabrese: Social Pressure Won’t Break Up the US, the Debt Will – In the Next 25 Years

As I write this , Donald Trump and Nancy Pelosi are tussling over whether to add another $ 1.8 trillion or $ 2.3 trillion to the national debt , because the first $ 2.2 trillion spending blowout Congress passed this year didn ’ t save us .
If this bill passes , every dime of it would be borrowed .
Congress does not have the money from tax receipts .
Congress never does .
And yet conventional wisdom says refusal to spend the money will be a negative for all involved .
With that in mind , let ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidency of George Washington through the presidency of George W. Bush , the United States government amassed a national debt of just over $ 10 trillion .
That ’ s 221 years ’ worth of borrowing funds .
This is the result of far too many generations of politicians who figured they would be safely out of the picture before there was any price to be paid for their borrowing .
And it ’ s a lot of borrowing too .
Way too much .
TRENDING : ATF Reversal Immediately Puts Millions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Without getting into who was responsible for such borrowing , let ’ s establish that the accumulated debt we faced in 2009 was a very serious problem .
OK. Now let ’ s look at where we stand today .
Since Bush left office we ’ ve lived under eight years of Barack Obama and four years of Donald Trump .
Today the national debt stands at over $ 25 trillion .
That ’ s right .
$ 25 trillion .
That means that , in the past 12 years , we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we borrowed in the 221 years previous to that .
This includes at least six years in which we ran deficits of more than $ 1 trillion in a single year .
And of course , 2020 takes the cake , as we ’ re already running a deficit of more than $ 3 trillion .
And if Trump and Pelosi make a deal on a second COVID spending bill , the deficit for 2020 alone is likely to exceed $ 5 trillion .
Why does this matter ?
First of all , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for interest on the debt .
Just for interest .
This is one of the biggest spending items for the federal government each year , and we get nothing for it .
No principal retired .
No social benefits .
We pay interest to avoid falling further behind on the debt we ’ re not paying off .
Second , most of this debt is financed through short-term notes , with durations as short as five years .
Someone invests in government debt with the promise of a payoff five years later .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we still don ’ t have the money to pay off the debt , so we refinance what we owe to Peter by borrowing money from Paul .
We pay Peter off with interest and start making interest payments to Paul .
In five years , when we need to pay Paul off , we borrow from Wilhelm , and so on it goes .
This is why the debt keeps getting bigger even if we don ’ t add to it with more deficit spending .
But of course , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spending .
And this year , Nancy Pelosi wants us to add so much to it that next year we ’ ll probably be spending more than $ 500 billion on interest payments alone .
RELATED : Cal Thomas : JFK Could n't Get Nominated by Today 's Democratic Party Because of This 1 Belief And there ’ s going to come a time when certain states with strong economies and lots of natural resources ( looking at you , Texas ) look at their shares of the debt burden and conclude they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it by seceding from the union .
You think it won ’ t happen ?
You ’ re wrong .
Because states only remain in the union so long as it ’ s beneficial for them to do so .
Up until now it ’ s been in all states ’ interests to remain .
But when the cost of servicing this debt becomes so high for them and for their residents , they are going to seriously reconsider the cost/benefit balance .
If America doesn ’ t first balance its budget , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debt , the costs of servicing the debt are going to increase so much that states will no longer accept it , and at that point the nation will start to break apart .
We ’ ve already lost any sense of national unity between left and right .
Soon we ’ re going to lose the economic rationale for staying together .
Don ’ t think for a minute that this can ’ t happen .
It can and it will , probably within the next 25 years , unless we reverse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stop would be to kill this second stimulus , and tell the nation the hard truth about why .
Is anyone willing to stand for re-election on the basis of fiscal sanity ?
Because anyone who is deserves your vote .
I ’ m just not sure there ’ s any such person out there .
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 .

As I write this, Donald Trump and Nancy Pelosi are tussling over whether to add another $1.8 trillion or $2.3 trillion to the national debt, because the first $2.2 trillion spending blowout Congress passed this year didn’t save us.
If this bill passes, every dime of it would be borrowed. Congress does not have the money from tax receipts. Congress never does. And yet conventional wisdom says refusal to spend the money will be a negative for all involved.
With that in mind, let’s consider a few things:
From the presidency of George Washington through the presidency of George W. Bush, the United States government amassed a national debt of just over $10 trillion. That’s 221 years’ worth of borrowing funds.
This is the result of far too many generations of politicians who figured they would be safely out of the picture before there was any price to be paid for their borrowing. And it’s a lot of borrowing too. Way too much.
Without getting into who was responsible for such borrowing, let’s establish that the accumulated debt we faced in 2009 was a very serious problem.
OK. Now let’s look at where we stand today.
Since Bush left office we’ve lived under eight years of Barack Obama and four years of Donald Trump. Today the national debt stands at over $25 trillion. That’s right. $25 trillion.
That means that, in the past 12 years, we’ve borrowed a time-and-a-half as much as we borrowed in the 221 years previous to that. This includes at least six years in which we ran deficits of more than $1 trillion in a single year.
Do you think the national debt will cause America to split? 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: 65% (84 Votes) No: 35% (46 Votes)
And of course, 2020 takes the cake, as we’re already running a deficit of more than $3 trillion. And if Trump and Pelosi make a deal on a second COVID spending bill, the deficit for 2020 alone is likely to exceed $5 trillion.
Why does this matter? First of all, in 2019 we spent $393 billion for interest on the debt. Just for interest. This is one of the biggest spending items for the federal government each year, and we get nothing for it. No principal retired. No social benefits. We pay interest to avoid falling further behind on the debt we’re not paying off.
Second, most of this debt is financed through short-term notes, with durations as short as five years. Someone invests in government debt with the promise of a payoff five years later. Then when the five years come along, we still don’t have the money to pay off the debt, so we refinance what we owe to Peter by borrowing money from Paul.
We pay Peter off with interest and start making interest payments to Paul. In five years, when we need to pay Paul off, we borrow from Wilhelm, and so on it goes.
This is why the debt keeps getting bigger even if we don’t add to it with more deficit spending. But of course, we always add to it with more deficit spending. And this year, Nancy Pelosi wants us to add so much to it that next year we’ll probably be spending more than $500 billion on interest payments alone.
This is insane.
And there’s going to come a time when certain states with strong economies and lots of natural resources (looking at you, Texas) look at their shares of the debt burden and conclude they would be better off freeing themselves of it by seceding from the union.
You think it won’t happen? You’re wrong. Because states only remain in the union so long as it’s beneficial for them to do so.
Up until now it’s been in all states’ interests to remain. But when the cost of servicing this debt becomes so high for them and for their residents, they are going to seriously reconsider the cost/benefit balance.
If America doesn’t first balance its budget, and then start paying off the national debt, the costs of servicing the debt are going to increase so much that states will no longer accept it, and at that point the nation will start to break apart.
We’ve already lost any sense of national unity between left and right. Soon we’re going to lose the economic rationale for staying together. Don’t think for a minute that this can’t happen. It can and it will, probably within the next 25 years, unless we reverse this fiscal suicide.
A good place to stop would be to kill this second stimulus, and tell the nation the hard truth about why. Is anyone willing to stand for re-election on the basis of fiscal sanity? Because anyone who is deserves your vote. I’m just not sure there’s any such person out there.
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--2020-10-14--MSNBC Hosts Praise Judge Amy Coney Barrett for Her Answer on George Floyd Question

During the second day of Judge Amy Coney Barrett ’ s hearing before the Senate committee regarding her nomination for Supreme Court justice , she was asked to relay her perspective on racism in America .
And according to MSNBC hosts Chuck Todd and Andrea Mitchell , Barrett ’ s response was “ accessible and touching.
” “ It wasn ’ t a judge who responded , it was an American citizen , a mom , you know … and I kinda wish more senators would ask more questions like that so you find out the fuller picture of who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Mitchell added : “ And that made her so relatable ; this is a white mom with black children explaining the talk that black parents have had to communicate to their kids for generations , for centuries — if you will — and this is an interracial family , a multiracial family — it ’ s something more and more present in America.
” Such a response from the establishment media is a complete reversal to their slew of attacks on Barrett and her family since her nomination by President Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the late Justice Antonin Scalia and her views on abortion .
So what did Barrett say ?
Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois asked Barrett if she had seen the footage of George Floyd ’ s arrest .
“ What impact did it have on you ?
” Durbin asked .
“ Senator , as you might imagine given that I have two black children , that was very , very personal for my family , ” Barrett said .
“ Jesse was with the boys on a camping trip out in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and my 17-year-old daughter Vivian , who was adopted from Haiti , all of this was erupting , it was very difficult for her .
“ We wept together in my room .
And then it was also difficult for my daughter Julia who ’ s 10 , I had to try to explain some of this to them .
“ I mean , my children to this point in their lives have had the benefit of growing up in a cocoon where they have not yet experienced hatred or violence , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a risk to her brother or the son she might have one day , of that kind of brutality , has been an ongoing conversation .
It ’ s a difficult one for us like it is for Americans all over the country.
” RELATED : Was Amy Coney Barrett Trolling Liberals with Her Wardrobe Choice ?
This heartfelt response is exactly what Americans on both sides of the political aisle would hope to hear from a mother , especially one who has adopted two children from Haiti .
People like Barrett are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those on the radical left .
Durbin then continued to probe for Barrett ’ s views on racism in America : “ So , I ’ d like to ask you as an originalist who obviously has a passion for history — I can ’ t imagine that you can separate the two — to reflect on the history of this country : Where are we today when it comes to the issue of race ?
” Durbin continued : “ Some argue it ’ s fine , everything ’ s fine and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ teach children about the history of slavery or discrimination .
Others say there is implicit bias in so many aspects of American life that we have to be very candid about and address .
Others go further and say , ‘ No , it ’ s systemic racism that is built into America and we have to be much more pointed in our addressing it.
’ With poise , Barrett responded , “ I think it is an entirely uncontroversial and obvious statement — given as we just talked about the George Floyd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country .
“ As to putting my finger on the nature of the problem — whether , as you say , it ’ s just outright or systemic racism or how to tackle the issue of making it better — those things are policy questions , they ’ re hotly contested policy questions that have been in the news and discussed all summer .
“ So , while as I did share my personal experience and am very happy to discuss the reaction our family had to the George Floyd video , giving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the problem is kind of beyond what I ’ m capable of doing as a judge , ” Barrett concluded .
Barrett ’ s compassion for the struggles of fellow Americans along with her capacity for nuance , especially regarding controversial topics such as racism , is more proof that she will be an honorable and necessary addition to the Supreme Court .
Hopefully , Barrett ’ s words will be heard for what they are by more from the radical left , especially those Democratic senators who ’ ve done nothing but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thus far .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

During the second day of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s hearing before the Senate committee regarding her nomination for Supreme Court justice, she was asked to relay her perspective on racism in America.
And according to MSNBC hosts Chuck Todd and Andrea Mitchell, Barrett’s response was “accessible and touching.”
“It wasn’t a judge who responded, it was an American citizen, a mom, you know … and I kinda wish more senators would ask more questions like that so you find out the fuller picture of who these folks are,” Todd said.
Mitchell added: “And that made her so relatable; this is a white mom with black children explaining the talk that black parents have had to communicate to their kids for generations, for centuries — if you will — and this is an interracial family, a multiracial family — it’s something more and more present in America.”
MSNBC’s Chuck Todd and Andrea Mitchell praised Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s “accessible and touching” answer to a question about George Floyd. “This is a white mom with Black children explaining the talk that Black parents have had to communicate to their kids for generations.” pic.twitter.com/mUzkChRQxz — Trump War Room – Text TRUMP to 88022 (@TrumpWarRoom) October 13, 2020
Such a response from the establishment media is a complete reversal to their slew of attacks on Barrett and her family since her nomination by President Donald Trump — attacking her faith, her affiliation with the late Justice Antonin Scalia and her views on abortion.
So what did Barrett say?
Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois asked Barrett if she had seen the footage of George Floyd’s arrest.
Do you think Judge Barrett responded well to Sen. Durbin's questions? 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% (930 Votes) No: 0% (2 Votes)
“I have,” Barrett responded.
“What impact did it have on you?” Durbin asked.
“Senator, as you might imagine given that I have two black children, that was very, very personal for my family,” Barrett said. “Jesse was with the boys on a camping trip out in South Dakota, so I was there and my 17-year-old daughter Vivian, who was adopted from Haiti, all of this was erupting, it was very difficult for her.
“We wept together in my room. And then it was also difficult for my daughter Julia who’s 10, I had to try to explain some of this to them.
“I mean, my children to this point in their lives have had the benefit of growing up in a cocoon where they have not yet experienced hatred or violence, and for Vivian to understand there would be a risk to her brother or the son she might have one day, of that kind of brutality, has been an ongoing conversation. It’s a difficult one for us like it is for Americans all over the country.”
This heartfelt response is exactly what Americans on both sides of the political aisle would hope to hear from a mother, especially one who has adopted two children from Haiti.
People like Barrett are capable of reaching the hearts of even those on the radical left.
Durbin then continued to probe for Barrett’s views on racism in America:
“So, I’d like to ask you as an originalist who obviously has a passion for history — I can’t imagine that you can separate the two — to reflect on the history of this country: Where are we today when it comes to the issue of race?”
Durbin continued: “Some argue it’s fine, everything’s fine and you don’t have to even teach children about the history of slavery or discrimination. Others say there is implicit bias in so many aspects of American life that we have to be very candid about and address. Others go further and say, ‘No, it’s systemic racism that is built into America and we have to be much more pointed in our addressing it.’
“How do you feel?”
With poise, Barrett responded, “I think it is an entirely uncontroversial and obvious statement — given as we just talked about the George Floyd video — that racism persists in our country.
“As to putting my finger on the nature of the problem — whether, as you say, it’s just outright or systemic racism or how to tackle the issue of making it better — those things are policy questions, they’re hotly contested policy questions that have been in the news and discussed all summer.
“So, while as I did share my personal experience and am very happy to discuss the reaction our family had to the George Floyd video, giving broader statements or making broader diagnoses about the problem is kind of beyond what I’m capable of doing as a judge,” Barrett concluded.
Barrett’s compassion for the struggles of fellow Americans along with her capacity for nuance, especially regarding controversial topics such as racism, is more proof that she will be an honorable and necessary addition to the Supreme Court.
Hopefully, Barrett’s words will be heard for what they are by more from the radical left, especially those Democratic senators who’ve done nothing but stuff up the air during these hearings thus far.
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.