westernjournal--2020-08-04--Leftist Harvard Prof Pushes Scenario in Which Pelosi Could Become President

It ’ s difficult to know when to take Laurence Tribe seriously .
Yes , the notoriously left-leaning Harvard law professor is one of our nation ’ s foremost constitutional scholars .
You might not agree with him , but he ’ s been both massively prolific and influential in his work .
For better or ill , Tribe was the legal mentor of Barack Obama .
He helped kill Robert Bork ’ s nomination to the Supreme Court through his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee .
He ’ s argued a not-insignificant number of cases before the high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but he ’ s one of the most important legal minds of the past century .
He ’ s also a man who ’ s come undone in the age of Donald Trump , using his Twitter account to spread misinformation about the president when he isn ’ t coming up with his own : TRENDING : I Looked Up What Happened When Sweden Refused To Shut Down - They Were Right , We Were Wrong This is like watching the final years of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle , when he became obsessed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ existed and had been captured on camera .
The difference is that Doyle wrote “ The Hound of the Baskervilles ” and not “ American Constitutional Law , ” and he wasn ’ t being invited on MSNBC to talk about the existence of the fairies .
( To be fair , that might have been a bit anachronistic . )
Thus , if you heard the situation Tribe described on Joy Reid ’ s MSNBC show on Friday regarding what would happen if no presidential winner were declared by Jan. 20 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballot difficulties — that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would take office as the next president — you were probably wondering whether this was Tribe speaking as a constitutional scholar or as a man who could use a nice , long rest .
The answer : It ’ s not as bonkers as you think , but the situation also isn ’ t as well-thought-out as you would expect from one of our top constitutional scholars .
“ There is a procedure — it ’ s a very elaborate procedure — in every state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the so-called safe harbor on Dec. 8 , ” Tribe said .
“ So , really , all of the efforts that Trump is making to both pretend that he can extend the date of the election , which everyone understands he can ’ t do that .
That date is set at Nov. 3 by act of Congress .
All of that is designed simply to cast doubt in the way that [ Russian President Vladimir ] Putin wants to , and the way that [ former Trump adviser Steve ] Bannon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time on the ability of our system to work , ” he said .
As for the part about extending the date of the election , Tribe is accurate — and everyone understands , by this point , that the election isn ’ t being postponed .
The question is what happens if the states haven ’ t decided winners by the inauguration date .
As for Putin and Bannon , this is Tribe we ’ re dealing with .
There ’ s always something lurking behind the Trump presidency .
“ They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chaotic , but there ’ s a fail-safe mechanism built into the Constitution itself , ” Tribe said .
“ That is no matter how much dust he throws into the gears , at high noon on Jan. 20 , 2021 , if there has not been a new president elected , at that point , Nancy Pelosi , speaker of the House , becomes president of the United States .
“ And all of these enablers … at that point would risk committing federal felonies if they were to exercise power which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no longer be president , ” he said .
Tribe went on to emphasize that “ the default solution in our system is President Nancy Pelosi.
” “ You have made , I think , a lot of people ’ s nights , Laurence Tribe , ” Reid said , grinning .
“ President Pelosi , hmm.
” So , is Tribe right ?
The answer reveals the problem with national mail-in voting : maybe , sort of , we don ’ t know .
First , in terms of Pelosi becoming president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : For once , Snopes ’ rundown on the matter is pretty accurate .
Trump would have to leave office on Jan. 20 — but Pelosi would have to leave earlier , on Jan. 3 , as would all 435 members of the House .
Thus , the president would be the president pro-tempore of the Senate , next in line for the office .
There would be 65 senators left sitting , a majority of them Democrats .
They would likely select a Democrat to fill the Oval Office until the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WUSA-TV ’ s set of constitutional scholars pointed out , state governors could potentially fill those Senate seats .
That ’ s not going to happen , though , so the question is whether Pelosi would become the president if there were troubles counting mail-in ballots .
The answer , in that case , is a shrug emoji .
We don ’ t know how and when congressional races will be decided .
Two Democratic Party primaries for House seats in New York City alone are still being decided — and they took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s answer , in short , isn ’ t nutty .
It ’ s also not nuanced .
It should give us some of the frightening prospects that an election conducted by national mail-in voting might produce .
And , alas — sorry , Joy Reid , but President Nancy Pelosi probably won ’ t be happening .
That still doesn ’ t mean we might be opening Pandora ’ s Box .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

It’s difficult to know when to take Laurence Tribe seriously.
Yes, the notoriously left-leaning Harvard law professor is one of our nation’s foremost constitutional scholars. You might not agree with him, but he’s been both massively prolific and influential in his work.
For better or ill, Tribe was the legal mentor of Barack Obama. He helped kill Robert Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court through his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He’s argued a not-insignificant number of cases before the high court. Conservatives may loathe him, but he’s one of the most important legal minds of the past century.
He’s also a man who’s come undone in the age of Donald Trump, using his Twitter account to spread misinformation about the president when he isn’t coming up with his own:
What if we were to learn that Trump suppressed scary information re COVID-19 (and the needed federal response) in January to postpone the economic turndown until it could no longer endanger his Senate acquittal? Retweet if you wouldn’t be surprised by his making that tradeoff. — Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) April 5, 2020
This is like watching the final years of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, when he became obsessed with the paranormal and convinced that fairies existed and had been captured on camera. The difference is that Doyle wrote “The Hound of the Baskervilles” and not “American Constitutional Law,” and he wasn’t being invited on MSNBC to talk about the existence of the fairies. (To be fair, that might have been a bit anachronistic.)
Thus, if you heard the situation Tribe described on Joy Reid’s MSNBC show on Friday regarding what would happen if no presidential winner were declared by Jan. 20, 2021, due to delays or mail-in ballot difficulties — that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would take office as the next president — you were probably wondering whether this was Tribe speaking as a constitutional scholar or as a man who could use a nice, long rest.
The answer: It’s not as bonkers as you think, but the situation also isn’t as well-thought-out as you would expect from one of our top constitutional scholars.
Laurence Tribe says there’s a “fail safe” built into the U.S. Constitution if Pres. Trump loses the election and refuses to leave office: “On Jan. 20, 2021 if there has not been a new president elected, at that point, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, becomes president.” pic.twitter.com/vuvzll5ib3 — MSNBC (@MSNBC) August 1, 2020
“There is a procedure — it’s a very elaborate procedure — in every state for resolving disputes by the date of the so-called safe harbor on Dec. 8,” Tribe said.
“So, really, all of the efforts that Trump is making to both pretend that he can extend the date of the election, which everyone understands he can’t do that. That date is set at Nov. 3 by act of Congress. All of that is designed simply to cast doubt in the way that [Russian President Vladimir] Putin wants to, and the way that [former Trump adviser Steve] Bannon has tried to do from time to time on the ability of our system to work,” he said.
As for the part about extending the date of the election, Tribe is accurate — and everyone understands, by this point, that the election isn’t being postponed.
The question is what happens if the states haven’t decided winners by the inauguration date.
As for Putin and Bannon, this is Tribe we’re dealing with. There’s always something lurking behind the Trump presidency.
“They’re trying to make it look chaotic, but there’s a fail-safe mechanism built into the Constitution itself,” Tribe said.
“That is no matter how much dust he throws into the gears, at high noon on Jan. 20, 2021, if there has not been a new president elected, at that point, Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House, becomes president of the United States.
Do you think Nancy Pelosi would be a good 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: 1% (21 Votes) No: 99% (3273 Votes)
“And all of these enablers … at that point would risk committing federal felonies if they were to exercise power which they no longer have because Trump would no longer be president,” he said.
Tribe went on to emphasize that “the default solution in our system is President Nancy Pelosi.”
“You have made, I think, a lot of people’s nights, Laurence Tribe,” Reid said, grinning. “President Pelosi, hmm.”
“You have made, I think, a lot of peoples’ nights. President Pelosi, hmm.”@JoyAnnReid on @tribelaw mentioning a ‘fail safe’ that Nancy Pelosi would be president if one is not decided by January 20, 2020. #TheReidOut pic.twitter.com/3HvGMv4Vdp — The ReidOut (@thereidout) July 31, 2020
So, is Tribe right?
The answer reveals the problem with national mail-in voting: maybe, sort of, we don’t know.
First, in terms of Pelosi becoming president in the event of a delayed election: For once, Snopes’ rundown on the matter is pretty accurate. Trump would have to leave office on Jan. 20 — but Pelosi would have to leave earlier, on Jan. 3, as would all 435 members of the House.
Thus, the president would be the president pro-tempore of the Senate, next in line for the office. There would be 65 senators left sitting, a majority of them Democrats. They would likely select a Democrat to fill the Oval Office until the election was held. Of course, as WUSA-TV’s set of constitutional scholars pointed out, state governors could potentially fill those Senate seats.
That’s not going to happen, though, so the question is whether Pelosi would become the president if there were troubles counting mail-in ballots.
The answer, in that case, is a shrug emoji. We don’t know how and when congressional races will be decided. Two Democratic Party primaries for House seats in New York City alone are still being decided — and they took place on June 26.
Laurence Tribe’s answer, in short, isn’t nutty. It’s also not nuanced.
It should give us some of the frightening prospects that an election conducted by national mail-in voting might produce.
And, alas — sorry, Joy Reid, but President Nancy Pelosi probably won’t be happening.
That still doesn’t mean we might be opening Pandora’s Box.
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--2020-08-04--Economist/YouGov Polls Savage Biden, Show 2016 Happening All Over Again – and a Trump Win

One of the trendy theories in pop political science right now is that there ’ s no such thing as a “ swing voter.
” There are no “ undecideds.
” Voters in that slice of the pie chart you see that says “ not sure ” are perfectly sure of whom they would vote for .
It ’ s just whether or not they ’ re interested in voting .
The most prominent exponent of this theory is Rachel Bitecofer , a political science professor at Christopher Newport University in Virginia .
While something resembling the theory had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bitecofer became a wonk-universe star in the aftermath of the 2018 midterms , in which she predicted the Democrats ’ retaking of the House of Representatives with uncanny accuracy and specificity .
The elevator pitch for her theory is this : Elections are won or lost not by persuading an illusory middle in American politics that ’ s almost entirely disappeared , but by turning out more of your voters than the other side does .
Now , according to Politico , Bitecofer thinks the data show the Democrats are almost certain to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And , to be fair , one set of polls isn ’ t everything .
That said , proponents of this new theory might want to take a close look at what respondents in recent Economist/YouGov surveys have been saying .
It could mean 2016 — when Donald Trump defied the polls to defeat Hillary Clinton — is about to happen all over again .
In an article at YouGov on Saturday , Mark Blumenthal noted the raw results were unsurprising : Former Vice President Biden was in the lead , and by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ throughout surveys conducted in recent weeks .
TRENDING : I Looked Up What Happened When Sweden Refused To Shut Down - They Were Right , We Were Wrong However , also consistent was the fact that Biden supporters were thoroughly unexcited about their candidate .
“ The gap in enthusiasm for the two candidates has remained constant in recent weeks along with Joe Biden ’ s lead .
When we combine data from the Economist/YouGov trial heats in July , Biden leads Trump by the same nine percentage point margin ( 49 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most recent survey , ” Blumenthal wrote .
“ During July , better than two-thirds of Trump supporters ( 68 % ) felt ‘ enthusiastic ’ about him compared to 40 percent of Biden supporters who felt the same about him .
Enthusiasm for Biden has grown over the last month ( from 31 % in mid-June ) , but the large gap between the candidates on this measure remains.
” According to YouGov , the polls consisted of weekly online interviews over the course of July with 1,500 U.S. adults selected from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country as a whole , with samples weighted according to gender , age , race and education .
Margins of error over the weeks ranged from 3.2 percent to 3.5 percent .
The surveys also considered enthusiasm for voting , and Trump came out ahead , too — albeit by smaller margins .
When asked whether or not they were enthusiastic about “ voting for President in the upcoming presidential election in November , ” 76 percent of Trump supporters said yes , compared with 69 percent of Biden supporters .
Fifty-six @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said they were “ extremely enthusiastic ” about voting for their candidate , compared with 50 percent of Biden voters .
Economist/YouGov were finally able to dig deep enough to find numbers that didn ’ t show some kind of substantial gap between Trump and Biden in the enthusiasm department .
When asked whether they were “ more enthusiastic ” about this election than previous elections , 55 percent of Trump supporters said yes , against 53 percent of Biden supporters .
However , 18 percent of Biden voters were “ less enthusiastic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 11 percent of Trump voters .
But , according to Blumenthal , they finally found a question that “ erases the gap completely.
” That being : “ how important is voting for President this November ?
” That produced a result where 91 percent of Trump voters thought it was important against 92 percent of Biden supporters .
However , I ’ d argue that question is as good as useless .
We ’ re all told , from the moment civics is introduced to us by our parents and our teachers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to vote — not just in presidential elections but in all elections , up to and including school board elections .
This may be true , but we ’ re also told by our doctors how important it is for us to get exercise every day , and while there are plenty of people in gyms after work , there are more people in line at Chipotle on their lunch break .
Now , there ’ s also the possibility that voting against President Trump might be as important as whether or not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for voting .
In June , 62 percent of voters said their vote was “ mostly against Donald Trump , ” with that number falling slightly to 57 percent in the July surveys , Blumenthal wrote .
The question is whether or not enthusiasm or dissatisfaction was a key motivator in driving people to the polls .
To settle this question , Blumenthal decided to consult a totally unbiased source , a Democrat-aligned polling concern .
“ Analysts at the Democratic polling firm Global Strategy Group found that questions on ‘ motivation ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turnout ( as validated by voting records ) than questions on ‘ excitement ’ about voting in elections in both 2018 and 2019 , ” Blumental noted .
“ Their theory is that ‘ motivation ’ captures a broader range of feeling than ‘ excitement , ’ particularly when voters ‘ are showing up to express dissatisfaction ’ with another candidate rather than just ‘ showing up to vote for someone or to affirm something.
’ That distinction may be analogous to the expressions of ‘ enthusiasm ’ and ‘ importance ’ in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Blumenthal also noted that 2018 polling from CBS/YouGov showed similar enthusiasm between Republicans and Democrats for the midterms but “ found that their pre-election enthusiasm did little to predict whether they actually voted , at least after controlling for their self-reported likelihood of turning out.
” He also noted that Mitt Romney had a higher enthusiasm level than Barack Obama and still lost .
In the first case , however , I ’ d argue that enthusiasm polls for 2018 midterms were complex — particularly since Republican enthusiasm didn ’ t spike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mostly disappeared from the headlines by the time the midterms rolled around .
Before then , polls had showed the GOP running a significant enthusiasm deficit .
As for Romney , if you believe that voters “ are showing up to express dissatisfaction ” with the other side as opposed to voting out of enthusiasm , 2012 should have been a Romney year , too .
Obamacare was still unpopular , the economy wasn ’ t recovering that quickly from the 2008 financial crisis and Republicans had bowled over the Democrats in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , therefore , could be seen as invalidating either theory .
To that extent , the 2016 election was also one where voters “ showing up to express dissatisfaction ” with a candidate should have buried Trump .
Democrat voters hated him just as much then as they do now .
One of the reasons why he ’ s now president , among many others , was that they were also profoundly unenthusiastic about Hillary Clinton .
Four years later , Mark Blumenthal is reading the Economist/YouGov tea leaves and coming to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump is going to drive voter turnout more than enthusiasm .
Just like in 2016 .
In short : If Rachel Bitecofer is right and all there is to elections is driving turnout , Democrats shouldn ’ t look at that 9-point lead with ease .
They ’ re selling a product no one ’ s particularly excited about and their message seems to be that the other product is worse .
To that extent , they ’ ve been successful , with the assistance of a mainstream media monolith that has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House for going on four years .
The complications arise when you consider that no one has to buy either product .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

One of the trendy theories in pop political science right now is that there’s no such thing as a “swing voter.” There are no “undecideds.” Voters in that slice of the pie chart you see that says “not sure” are perfectly sure of whom they would vote for. It’s just whether or not they’re interested in voting.
The most prominent exponent of this theory is Rachel Bitecofer, a political science professor at Christopher Newport University in Virginia. While something resembling the theory had been floating around in more amorphous forms, Bitecofer became a wonk-universe star in the aftermath of the 2018 midterms, in which she predicted the Democrats’ retaking of the House of Representatives with uncanny accuracy and specificity.
The elevator pitch for her theory is this: Elections are won or lost not by persuading an illusory middle in American politics that’s almost entirely disappeared, but by turning out more of your voters than the other side does.
Now, according to Politico, Bitecofer thinks the data show the Democrats are almost certain to regain the White House in 2020. And, to be fair, one set of polls isn’t everything. That said, proponents of this new theory might want to take a close look at what respondents in recent Economist/YouGov surveys have been saying. It could mean 2016 — when Donald Trump defied the polls to defeat Hillary Clinton — is about to happen all over again.
In an article at YouGov on Saturday, Mark Blumenthal noted the raw results were unsurprising: Former Vice President Biden was in the lead, and by a fairly substantial margin that was consistent throughout surveys conducted in recent weeks.
However, also consistent was the fact that Biden supporters were thoroughly unexcited about their candidate.
“The gap in enthusiasm for the two candidates has remained constant in recent weeks along with Joe Biden’s lead. When we combine data from the Economist/YouGov trial heats in July, Biden leads Trump by the same nine percentage point margin (49% to 40%) as on the most recent survey,” Blumenthal wrote.
“During July, better than two-thirds of Trump supporters (68%) felt ‘enthusiastic’ about him compared to 40 percent of Biden supporters who felt the same about him. Enthusiasm for Biden has grown over the last month (from 31% in mid-June), but the large gap between the candidates on this measure remains.”
According to YouGov, the polls consisted of weekly online interviews over the course of July with 1,500 U.S. adults selected from an opt-in panel to be representative of the country as a whole, with samples weighted according to gender, age, race and education. Margins of error over the weeks ranged from 3.2 percent to 3.5 percent.
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: 98% (618 Votes) No: 2% (10 Votes)
The surveys also considered enthusiasm for voting, and Trump came out ahead, too — albeit by smaller margins.
When asked whether or not they were enthusiastic about “voting for President in the upcoming presidential election in November,” 76 percent of Trump supporters said yes, compared with 69 percent of Biden supporters.
Fifty-six percent of Trump voters, meanwhile, said they were “extremely enthusiastic” about voting for their candidate, compared with 50 percent of Biden voters.
Economist/YouGov were finally able to dig deep enough to find numbers that didn’t show some kind of substantial gap between Trump and Biden in the enthusiasm department.
When asked whether they were “more enthusiastic” about this election than previous elections, 55 percent of Trump supporters said yes, against 53 percent of Biden supporters. However, 18 percent of Biden voters were “less enthusiastic” this year, as opposed to 11 percent of Trump voters.
But, according to Blumenthal, they finally found a question that “erases the gap completely.” That being: “how important is voting for President this November?” That produced a result where 91 percent of Trump voters thought it was important against 92 percent of Biden supporters.
However, I’d argue that question is as good as useless. We’re all told, from the moment civics is introduced to us by our parents and our teachers, how important it is for us to vote — not just in presidential elections but in all elections, up to and including school board elections.
This may be true, but we’re also told by our doctors how important it is for us to get exercise every day, and while there are plenty of people in gyms after work, there are more people in line at Chipotle on their lunch break.
Now, there’s also the possibility that voting against President Trump might be as important as whether or not voters feel enthusiastic about Joe Biden or for voting. In June, 62 percent of voters said their vote was “mostly against Donald Trump,” with that number falling slightly to 57 percent in the July surveys, Blumenthal wrote.
The question is whether or not enthusiasm or dissatisfaction was a key motivator in driving people to the polls. To settle this question, Blumenthal decided to consult a totally unbiased source, a Democrat-aligned polling concern.
“Analysts at the Democratic polling firm Global Strategy Group found that questions on ‘motivation’ to vote were better predictors of actual turnout (as validated by voting records) than questions on ‘excitement’ about voting in elections in both 2018 and 2019,” Blumental noted. “Their theory is that ‘motivation’ captures a broader range of feeling than ‘excitement,’ particularly when voters ‘are showing up to express dissatisfaction’ with another candidate rather than just ‘showing up to vote for someone or to affirm something.’ That distinction may be analogous to the expressions of ‘enthusiasm’ and ‘importance’ in regard to voting in the Economist/YouGov surveys.”
Blumenthal also noted that 2018 polling from CBS/YouGov showed similar enthusiasm between Republicans and Democrats for the midterms but “found that their pre-election enthusiasm did little to predict whether they actually voted, at least after controlling for their self-reported likelihood of turning out.” He also noted that Mitt Romney had a higher enthusiasm level than Barack Obama and still lost.
In the first case, however, I’d argue that enthusiasm polls for 2018 midterms were complex — particularly since Republican enthusiasm didn’t spike until the Kavanaugh hearings, which had mostly disappeared from the headlines by the time the midterms rolled around. Before then, polls had showed the GOP running a significant enthusiasm deficit.
As for Romney, if you believe that voters “are showing up to express dissatisfaction” with the other side as opposed to voting out of enthusiasm, 2012 should have been a Romney year, too. Obamacare was still unpopular, the economy wasn’t recovering that quickly from the 2008 financial crisis and Republicans had bowled over the Democrats in the 2010 midterms. Romney’s loss, therefore, could be seen as invalidating either theory.
To that extent, the 2016 election was also one where voters “showing up to express dissatisfaction” with a candidate should have buried Trump. Democrat voters hated him just as much then as they do now. One of the reasons why he’s now president, among many others, was that they were also profoundly unenthusiastic about Hillary Clinton.
Four years later, Mark Blumenthal is reading the Economist/YouGov tea leaves and coming to the conclusion that fear and loathing of Donald Trump is going to drive voter turnout more than enthusiasm. Just like in 2016.
In short: If Rachel Bitecofer is right and all there is to elections is driving turnout, Democrats shouldn’t look at that 9-point lead with ease. They’re selling a product no one’s particularly excited about and their message seems to be that the other product is worse. To that extent, they’ve been successful, with the assistance of a mainstream media monolith that has been on the attack against the Trump White House for going on four years.
The complications arise when you consider that no one has to buy either product.
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.


Hearing or Smearing?

For more A.F .
Branco cartoons , go to WesternJournal.com/cartoons .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all @ @ @ @ @ our editorial standards .

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


westernjournal--2020-08-04--Trump Champions National Parks, Signs $3 Billion-a-Year Conservation Law

President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed legislation that will devote nearly $ 3 billion annually to conservation projects , outdoor recreation and maintenance of national parks and other public lands .
The measure was overwhelmingly approved by Congress .
“ There hasn ’ t been anything like this since Teddy Roosevelt , I suspect , ” Trump said .
Supporters say the Great American Outdoors Act is the most significant conservation legislation enacted in nearly half a century .
The law requires full , mandatory funding of the popular Land and Water Conservation Fund and addresses the maintenance backlog facing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lands .
TRENDING : I Looked Up What Happened When Sweden Refused To Shut Down - They Were Right , We Were Wrong The law would spend about $ 900 million a year — double current spending — on the conservation fund and another $ 1.9 billion per year on improvements at national parks , forests , wildlife refuges and range lands .
Supporters say the legislation will create at least 100,000 jobs , while restoring national parks and repairing trails and forest systems .
The park maintenance backlog has been a problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ congressional champions are Republican Sens .
Cory Gardner of Colorado and Steve Daines of Montana .
Each represents a state where the outdoor economy and tourism at sites such as the Rocky Mountain and Yellowstone national parks play an outsize role .
Ivanka Trump , the president ’ s daughter and adviser , also supported the legislation .
The legislation ’ s opponents complain it will not eliminate an estimated $ 20 billion maintenance backlog on 640 acres of federally owned lands .
The legislation authorizes $ 9.5 billion for maintenance over five @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed legislation that will devote nearly $3 billion annually to conservation projects, outdoor recreation and maintenance of national parks and other public lands.
The measure was overwhelmingly approved by Congress.
“There hasn’t been anything like this since Teddy Roosevelt, I suspect,” Trump said.
Supporters say the Great American Outdoors Act is the most significant conservation legislation enacted in nearly half a century.
The law requires full, mandatory funding of the popular Land and Water Conservation Fund and addresses the maintenance backlog facing America’s national parks and public lands.
The law would spend about $900 million a year — double current spending — on the conservation fund and another $1.9 billion per year on improvements at national parks, forests, wildlife refuges and range lands.
Supporters say the legislation will create at least 100,000 jobs, while restoring national parks and repairing trails and forest systems.
The park maintenance backlog has been a problem for decades.
Among the bills’ congressional champions are Republican Sens. Cory Gardner of Colorado and Steve Daines of Montana. Each represents a state where the outdoor economy and tourism at sites such as the Rocky Mountain and Yellowstone national parks play an outsize role.
Do you support this bill? 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% (336 Votes) No: 3% (10 Votes)
Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter and adviser, also supported the legislation.
The legislation’s opponents complain it will not eliminate an estimated $20 billion maintenance backlog on 640 acres of federally owned lands. The legislation authorizes $9.5 billion for maintenance over five years.
[jwplayer XXO0CVrC]
The Western Journal has reviewed this Associated Press story and may have altered it prior to publication to ensure that it meets our editorial standards.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-08-04--Lebanon’s Capitol Rocked by Massive Explosion

Massive explosions rocked downtown Beirut on Tuesday , flattening much of the port , damaging buildings and blowing out windows and doors as a giant mushroom cloud rose above the capital .
Witnesses saw many people injured by flying glass and debris .
An Associated Press photographer near the port saw people lying injured on the ground and hospitals called for blood donations .
Exact casualties were not immediately known .
Miles from the scene of the blast , balconies were knocked down , ceilings collapsed and windows were shattered .
TRENDING : I Looked Up What Happened When Sweden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Right , We Were Wrong The cause of the blast was not immediately clear .
It comes at a time when Lebanon is going through its worst economic and financial crisis in decades .
It also comes amid rising tensions between Israel and the militant Islamic Hezbollah group along Lebanon ’ s southern border .
Online video showed a column of smoke rising from the port area from what appeared to be an initial explosion , followed by a massive blast that sent up a mushroom cloud .
Some local TV stations reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ port inside an area where fireworks were stored .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Massive explosions rocked downtown Beirut on Tuesday, flattening much of the port, damaging buildings and blowing out windows and doors as a giant mushroom cloud rose above the capital.
Witnesses saw many people injured by flying glass and debris.
An Associated Press photographer near the port saw people lying injured on the ground and hospitals called for blood donations.
Exact casualties were not immediately known.
Miles from the scene of the blast, balconies were knocked down, ceilings collapsed and windows were shattered.
The cause of the blast was not immediately clear. It comes at a time when Lebanon is going through its worst economic and financial crisis in decades.
It also comes amid rising tensions between Israel and the militant Islamic Hezbollah group along Lebanon’s southern border.
Online video showed a column of smoke rising from the port area from what appeared to be an initial explosion, followed by a massive blast that sent up a mushroom cloud.
Some local TV stations reported the blast was at Beirut’s port inside an area where fireworks were stored.
[jwplayer 5hWwBJ2C]
The Western Journal has reviewed this Associated Press story and may have altered it prior to publication to ensure that it meets our editorial standards.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-08-04--Democrats Threaten Huge Retaliation if Trump Appoints a Supreme Court Justice in 2020

No political partisan , I hope , greeted the recent news that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had liver cancer with the craven hope this would force her off the bench and open up a seat on the nation ’ s highest court .
If that was you , delete your Twitter account , step away from politics , go back to church , embrace meditation , spend time with your family — really , do whatever it takes to regain some semblance of humanity .
You need a break .
Ginsburg , 87 , announced last month she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but that chemotherapy had been “ yielding positive results.
” She says she intends to stay on the bench .
However , it was also impossible to ignore the obvious , grim possibility : There ’ s the potential of an open spot on the Supreme Court before November .
There ’ s also the possibility — however slim — of retirements on the high court .
This leaves a quandary for Republicans .
They control the Senate and the White House .
That ’ s all you need to get a Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refused to consider Merrick Garland , Barack Obama ’ s nomination to the bench after the death of Antonin Scalia , citing the so-called “ Biden Rule ” — a very informal arrangement proposed by in a speech by then-Sen. Joseph Biden in 1992 under which a president would either refuse to nominate a justice in an election year or nominate a moderate acceptable to both parties .
TRENDING : I Looked Up What Happened When Sweden Refused To Shut Down - They Were Right , We Were Wrong Then again , Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a hearing and an up-or-down vote in the GOP-controlled Senate .
They were outraged he didn ’ t get either — and would have been outraged if the Senate didn ’ t approve the nomination .
Since then , the Democrats have entertained thoughts of “ court-packing ” — expanding the size of the Supreme Court in order to sit more sympathetic , liberal justices — in order to rectify this grave injustice .
Now that the possibility exists that President Donald Trump might have the opportunity to appoint another Supreme Court justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bench in retaliation if he puts forth a nomination .
Mind you , they might pack the bench anyway , but they ’ re really going to do it if Trump appoints another justice .
“ We knew basically they were lying in 2016 , when they said , ‘ Oh , we can ’ t do this because it ’ s an election year.
’ We knew they didn ’ t want to do it because it was President Obama , ” Virginia Democrat Sen. Tim Kaine said in an interview reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If they show that they ’ re unwilling to respect precedent , rules and history , then they can ’ t feign surprise when others talk about using a statutory option that we have that ’ s fully constitutional in our availability , ” Kaine added .
“ I don ’ t want to do that .
But if they act in such a way , they may push it to an inevitability .
So they need to be careful about that.
” Democrat Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii , meanwhile , said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and cry ” if Trump were to nominate a Supreme Court justice this year .
Of course , she already wants to eliminate whatever advantage the Trump administration might have gotten in the federal courts by restructuring them , so I ’ m not exactly sure how this is a carrot-and-stick situation when all I see is stick .
“ Regardless of whether they try to do it or not , there have already been discussions about what we can do with our courts to make them much more balanced in many ways @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Because the majority of the judges are white , male , young , with a particular orientation , ideological orientation.
” And the Democrats are going to pack the court with judges who are … more representative of the population , old and with no political orientation ?
I ’ m not going to make assumptions on the first count , but I ’ m pretty sure the last two aren ’ t happening .
As for former Vice President Joe Biden , he ’ s has come out against court-packing — for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manages to defeat Trump in November .
Last July , according Biden said in an interview with the website Iowa Starting Line that he was against the idea because “ we ’ ll live to rue that day.
” In an October primary debate , according to The Washington Post , he said that , “ I would not get into court packing .
We add three justices ; next time around , we lose control , they add three justices .
We begin to lose any credibility the court has at all.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Independence and Constitution Into a Blender and It Comes Out Incomprehensible That said , the betting favorite for his running mate has a different view of the matter .
“ We are on the verge of a crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court , ” said California Democrat Sen. Kamala Harris in March of 2019 , according to Politico .
“ We have to take this challenge head-on , and everything is on the table to do that.
” When you consider Harris is arguably the least left-leaning of the potential vice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t inspire confidence in the matter .
This isn ’ t just because a running mate is a statement of what a candidate ’ s values are and how those values have evolved during on the campaign trail .
Biden ’ s pick is also considered consequential because there ’ s the question of how fit Biden is — and how soon a potential vice president would begin exerting policy power .
If the Supreme Court position opens up , two of the three Republicans who have any say in the matter of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham — are in favor of advancing a nominee .
A spokesman for McConnell told NBC the situation was different this time around because the president ’ s party was controlling the Senate — unlike in 2016 , when a Democrat was in the White House and the GOP was in control of the upper house .
As for Graham , he told NBC the ugly , partisan tenor of the confirmation hearings for now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 had made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nominee in an election year .
“ Yeah .
We ’ ll cross that bridge .
After Kavanaugh , the rules have changed as far as I ’ m concerned , ” the South Carolina Republican said .
“ We ’ ll see what the market will bear if that ever happens.
” As for Trump , while he hasn ’ t gone on record , it would be difficult to see the president not putting forth a nominee .
Senate Majority Whip John Thune of North Dakota , meanwhile , said the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process even if President Trump wasn ’ t re-elected the vacancy occurred in the lame-duck session , according to NBC .
Whether or not a court candidate would be confirmed either way would be another thing ; GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska has told The Hill she would vote against an election-year nominee and former Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley of Indiana — who blocked Garland ’ s nomination — said he “ couldn ’ t move forward with it ” were he still in charge of the committee .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ mind the words of GOP Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina .
According to CNN , when asked about the potential vacancy , he only said , “ I am praying for Justice Ginsburg ’ s health .
That ’ s all I ’ m really focused on right now.
” That ’ s fair enough , but the possibility needs to be considered .
Inasmuch as this would invite retaliation from the Democrats if and when they regain power in the Senate and White House , it ’ s eminently likely retaliate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ followed by a pattern of mutually assured destruction every time power switches hands .
Draft language for this year ’ s Democratic Party platform obtained by NBC News would call for “ structural court reforms to increase transparency and accountability , ” saying the GOP “ packed our federal courts with unqualified , partisan judges who consistently rule for corporations , the wealthy , and Republican interests , ” castigating them for “ blocking a Democratic president from appointing a justice to the Supreme Court.
” That ’ s court-packing language — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have arguably moved in anyway , given that they saw the ability to have Garland confirmed as their God-given right .
If an opening occurs before the next presidential inauguration , and Republicans demur and don ’ t nominate a candidate , it ’ d arguably only slow a process Democrats are embracing anyhow — and prove to Republican voters the party establishment ’ s willingness to back down to Democrat demands .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

No political partisan, I hope, greeted the recent news that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had liver cancer with the craven hope this would force her off the bench and open up a seat on the nation’s highest court.
If that was you, delete your Twitter account, step away from politics, go back to church, embrace meditation, spend time with your family — really, do whatever it takes to regain some semblance of humanity. You need a break.
Ginsburg, 87, announced last month she’d been treated for the cancer but that chemotherapy had been “yielding positive results.” She says she intends to stay on the bench.
However, it was also impossible to ignore the obvious, grim possibility: There’s the potential of an open spot on the Supreme Court before November. There’s also the possibility — however slim — of retirements on the high court. This leaves a quandary for Republicans.
They control the Senate and the White House. That’s all you need to get a Supreme Court justice confirmed. The GOP-controlled Senate refused to consider Merrick Garland, Barack Obama’s nomination to the bench after the death of Antonin Scalia, citing the so-called “Biden Rule” — a very informal arrangement proposed by in a speech by then-Sen. Joseph Biden in 1992 under which a president would either refuse to nominate a justice in an election year or nominate a moderate acceptable to both parties.
Then again, Democrats vehemently opposed this, demanding Garland receive a hearing and an up-or-down vote in the GOP-controlled Senate. They were outraged he didn’t get either — and would have been outraged if the Senate didn’t approve the nomination. Since then, the Democrats have entertained thoughts of “court-packing” — expanding the size of the Supreme Court in order to sit more sympathetic, liberal justices — in order to rectify this grave injustice.
Now that the possibility exists that President Donald Trump might have the opportunity to appoint another Supreme Court justice, Democrats are threatening to pack the bench in retaliation if he puts forth a nomination. Mind you, they might pack the bench anyway, but they’re really going to do it if Trump appoints another justice.
“We knew basically they were lying in 2016, when they said, ‘Oh, we can’t do this because it’s an election year.’ We knew they didn’t want to do it because it was President Obama,” Virginia Democrat Sen. Tim Kaine said in an interview reported by NBC News on Monday.
“If they show that they’re unwilling to respect precedent, rules and history, then they can’t feign surprise when others talk about using a statutory option that we have that’s fully constitutional in our availability,” Kaine added. “I don’t want to do that. But if they act in such a way, they may push it to an inevitability. So they need to be careful about that.”
(Just to make the point clear, the NBC story was headlined: “Democrats warn GOP: Don’t fill a Supreme Court vacancy in 2020 or we’ll retaliate.”)
Democrat Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, meanwhile, said there’d be a “hue and cry” if Trump were to nominate a Supreme Court justice this year. Of course, she already wants to eliminate whatever advantage the Trump administration might have gotten in the federal courts by restructuring them, so I’m not exactly sure how this is a carrot-and-stick situation when all I see is stick.
“Regardless of whether they try to do it or not, there have already been discussions about what we can do with our courts to make them much more balanced in many ways,” Hirono told NBC. “Because the majority of the judges are white, male, young, with a particular orientation, ideological orientation.”
And the Democrats are going to pack the court with judges who are … more representative of the population, old and with no political orientation? I’m not going to make assumptions on the first count, but I’m pretty sure the last two aren’t happening.
As for former Vice President Joe Biden, he’s has come out against court-packing — for whatever that promise is worth if he manages to defeat Trump in November.
Last July, according Biden said in an interview with the website Iowa Starting Line that he was against the idea because “we’ll live to rue that day.” In an October primary debate, according to The Washington Post, he said that, “I would not get into court packing. We add three justices; next time around, we lose control, they add three justices. We begin to lose any credibility the court has at all.”
That said, the betting favorite for his running mate has a different view of the matter.
“We are on the verge of a crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court,” said California Democrat Sen. Kamala Harris in March of 2019, according to Politico. “We have to take this challenge head-on, and everything is on the table to do that.”
When you consider Harris is arguably the least left-leaning of the potential vice presidential picks left, that doesn’t inspire confidence in the matter. This isn’t just because a running mate is a statement of what a candidate’s values are and how those values have evolved during on the campaign trail. Biden’s pick is also considered consequential because there’s the question of how fit Biden is — and how soon a potential vice president would begin exerting policy power.
If the Supreme Court position opens up, two of the three Republicans who have any say in the matter of whether a nominee is advanced — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham — are in favor of advancing a nominee.
Should President Trump nominate a Supreme Court justice if a seat opens this year? 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: 95% (3006 Votes) No: 5% (151 Votes)
A spokesman for McConnell told NBC the situation was different this time around because the president’s party was controlling the Senate — unlike in 2016, when a Democrat was in the White House and the GOP was in control of the upper house.
As for Graham, he told NBC the ugly, partisan tenor of the confirmation hearings for now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 had made him amenable to considering a Supreme Court nominee in an election year.
“Yeah. We’ll cross that bridge. After Kavanaugh, the rules have changed as far as I’m concerned,” the South Carolina Republican said. “We’ll see what the market will bear if that ever happens.”
As for Trump, while he hasn’t gone on record, it would be difficult to see the president not putting forth a nominee.
Senate Majority Whip John Thune of South Dakota, meanwhile, said the GOP would move forward with the nomination process even if President Trump wasn’t re-elected the vacancy occurred in the lame-duck session, according to NBC.
Whether or not a court candidate would be confirmed either way would be another thing; GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska has told The Hill she would vote against an election-year nominee and former Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa — who blocked Garland’s nomination — said he “couldn’t move forward with it” were he still in charge of the committee.
Granted, we should all keep in mind the words of GOP Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina. According to CNN, when asked about the potential vacancy, he only said, “I am praying for Justice Ginsburg’s health. That’s all I’m really focused on right now.”
That’s fair enough, but the possibility needs to be considered. Inasmuch as this would invite retaliation from the Democrats if and when they regain power in the Senate and White House, it’s eminently likely retaliate anyway — and that it’s followed by a pattern of mutually assured destruction every time power switches hands.
Draft language for this year’s Democratic Party platform obtained by NBC News would call for “structural court reforms to increase transparency and accountability,” saying the GOP “packed our federal courts with unqualified, partisan judges who consistently rule for corporations, the wealthy, and Republican interests,” castigating them for “blocking a Democratic president from appointing a justice to the Supreme Court.”
That’s court-packing language — and it’s a direction the Democrats would have arguably moved in anyway, given that they saw the ability to have Garland confirmed as their God-given right.
If an opening occurs before the next presidential inauguration, and Republicans demur and don’t nominate a candidate, it’d arguably only slow a process Democrats are embracing anyhow — and prove to Republican voters the party establishment’s willingness to back down to Democrat demands.
CORRECTION, Aug. 4, 2020: This article originally misidentified the state represented by Senate Majority Whip John Thune. He represents South Dakota. It also misidentified the state represented by former Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley. Grassley represents Iowa.
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--2020-08-04--40 People Show Up To Paint Massive ‘Back the Blue’ Mural in Front of Police Headquarters

Well , here ’ s one mural you probably shouldn ’ t expect to see a lot of positive coverage about on political Twitter .
A group of roughly 40 people showed up Saturday night in front of police department headquarters in Tampa , Florida , to paint a massive “ Back the Blue ” mural , according to WTVT-TV Now , the Tampa city government , as well as opponents of the project , are peeved because the mural painters didn ’ t obtain the proper permits .
WTVT reported that the project was organized by Kelli Campbell as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We want to make sure that they know just because we aren ’ t the loudest , doesn ’ t mean we aren ’ t there and in numbers , ” she said .
TRENDING : I Looked Up What Happened When Sweden Refused To Shut Down - They Were Right , We Were Wrong “ There ’ s a huge force .
Our Back the Blue Florida group has 5,000 members in it , and that ’ s just a piece of the puzzle , of course.
” The mural , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ black , blue and white — the colors of the “ Thin Blue Line ” flag .
The issue of approval , however , is a thorny one .
Campbell said she had verbal approval from the office of Democratic Tampa Mayor Jane Castor .
However , the office said the group was still working through the approval process .
“ Any tribute to honor their service is welcome , ” Castor , a former police chief , told WTVT in a statement .
“ It ’ s unfortunate they didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our community could participate in showing their appreciation for the brave men and women that service our residents every day.
” Kristen Krutz , another one of the volunteers who helped organize the project , noted that there ’ s a double standard when it comes to the issue of permitting .
“ The reason why we decided to proceed without a permit is because Black Lives Matter has murals all over the city that say Black Lives Matter , and they were not permitted , ” Krutz told the Tampa Bay Times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Sidewalk in Same City with Massive BLM Street Mural Krutz said she filed a records request to see the permits for the Black Lives Matter murals and found none .
A city spokeswoman told the Times they garnered approval as part of Tampa ’ s “ Art on the Block ” program , which allowed murals to be painted throughout the city on June 27 .
That program appears to have been enacted by executive order , and only one Black Lives Matter mural is listed as being approved .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she referred to multiple murals or whether there are more that exist .
There are others whose problem with the “ Back the Blue ” mural had less to do with the permitting process and more to do with the temerity of expressing support for law enforcement .
The Times quoted Cam Parker , an artist who created a rainbow fist mural in Tampa , meant to show support for both the LGBT community and the Black Lives Matter movement .
The paper described him as “ embarrassed ” by the “ Back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said he can understand supporting law enforcement , but he feels the Back the Blue mural is a retaliation against the Black Lives Matter movement and its murals .
Parker said it feels like those who painted the mural are pushing back against people who are just asking not to be killed , ” the Times reported .
“ We ’ re not having fun talking about Black Lives Matter , ” Parker said .
“ I am now staunchly and like , unrelentingly using my voice to do what I can to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s not a fad , it ’ s not a trend , it ’ s not anything that is going away ever.
” I certainly have no problem with Parker using his voice to bring awareness to what he supports .
He , apparently , has a problem with other people doing the same thing .
Neither Parker nor any media outlet reporting on the mural found anyone involved with the “ Back the Blue ” mural indicating it was retaliation against the Black Lives Matter movement or that they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just asking not to be killed.
” They may have been pushing back against calls to defund the police or to treat them like violent lepers or militarized stormtroopers , sure , but that ’ s something entirely different .
“ They ’ re being defunded and things that they need and require to do their job are not going to be provided anymore , ” Krutz said .
“ Obviously , that would make anybody feel unappreciated , unwanted , and that ’ s the opposite of what we wanted them to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” That ’ s apparently an issue in 2020 .
Go figure .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Well, here’s one mural you probably shouldn’t expect to see a lot of positive coverage about on political Twitter.
A group of roughly 40 people showed up Saturday night in front of police department headquarters in Tampa, Florida, to paint a massive “Back the Blue” mural, according to WTVT-TV
Now, the Tampa city government, as well as opponents of the project, are peeved because the mural painters didn’t obtain the proper permits.
WTVT reported that the project was organized by Kelli Campbell as a move to improve police morale.
“We want to make sure that they know just because we aren’t the loudest, doesn’t mean we aren’t there and in numbers,” she said.
“There’s a huge force. Our Back the Blue Florida group has 5,000 members in it, and that’s just a piece of the puzzle, of course.”
The mural, a block long, is painted in black, blue and white — the colors of the “Thin Blue Line” flag.
The issue of approval, however, is a thorny one.
Should these police supporters have waited for a permit before painting the mural? 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: 15% (77 Votes) No: 85% (443 Votes)
Campbell said she had verbal approval from the office of Democratic Tampa Mayor Jane Castor. However, the office said the group was still working through the approval process.
“Any tribute to honor their service is welcome,” Castor, a former police chief, told WTVT in a statement.
“It’s unfortunate they didn’t see the permitting process through so that our community could participate in showing their appreciation for the brave men and women that service our residents every day.”
Kristen Krutz, another one of the volunteers who helped organize the project, noted that there’s a double standard when it comes to the issue of permitting.
“The reason why we decided to proceed without a permit is because Black Lives Matter has murals all over the city that say Black Lives Matter, and they were not permitted,” Krutz told the Tampa Bay Times.
Krutz said she filed a records request to see the permits for the Black Lives Matter murals and found none. A city spokeswoman told the Times they garnered approval as part of Tampa’s “Art on the Block” program, which allowed murals to be painted throughout the city on June 27.
That program appears to have been enacted by executive order, and only one Black Lives Matter mural is listed as being approved. It’s unclear whether Krutz was mistaken when she referred to multiple murals or whether there are more that exist.
There are others whose problem with the “Back the Blue” mural had less to do with the permitting process and more to do with the temerity of expressing support for law enforcement.
The Times quoted Cam Parker, an artist who created a rainbow fist mural in Tampa, meant to show support for both the LGBT community and the Black Lives Matter movement. The paper described him as “embarrassed” by the “Back the Blue” mural.
“Parker said he can understand supporting law enforcement, but he feels the Back the Blue mural is a retaliation against the Black Lives Matter movement and its murals. Parker said it feels like those who painted the mural are pushing back against people who are just asking not to be killed,” the Times reported.
“We’re not having fun talking about Black Lives Matter,” Parker said. “I am now staunchly and like, unrelentingly using my voice to do what I can to bring awareness and to let people know it’s not a fad, it’s not a trend, it’s not anything that is going away ever.”
I certainly have no problem with Parker using his voice to bring awareness to what he supports. He, apparently, has a problem with other people doing the same thing.
Neither Parker nor any media outlet reporting on the mural found anyone involved with the “Back the Blue” mural indicating it was retaliation against the Black Lives Matter movement or that they were “pushing back against people who are just asking not to be killed.” They may have been pushing back against calls to defund the police or to treat them like violent lepers or militarized stormtroopers, sure, but that’s something entirely different.
“They’re being defunded and things that they need and require to do their job are not going to be provided anymore,” Krutz said.
“Obviously, that would make anybody feel unappreciated, unwanted, and that’s the opposite of what we wanted them to see with the mural on the street.”
That’s apparently an issue in 2020. Go figure.
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--2020-08-04--US Sees Positive Development in Fight Against Coronavirus

New coronavirus cases in the U.S. dipped on Monday to a level not seen in roughly a month , according to the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center .
According to its data , Monday showed 45,368 new cases , coming on the heels of Sunday ’ s total of 47,580 cases .
New cases were last at this level on July 6 , when 44,953 new cases were diagnosed .
In Florida , where cases had been spiking throughout much of July , about 5,000 new cases were reported Monday , according to the Tampa Bay Times — the lowest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was tempered with sober advice from Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephen Hahn .
“ This virus is still with us , and it is around the country , and we ’ re seeing these cases come not just in the United States but around the world , ” he said , according to ABC News .
TRENDING : I Looked Up What Happened When Sweden Refused To Shut Down - They Were Right , We Were Wrong “ That ’ s really the message we want the American people to know , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Hahn said .
“ We need to get these case numbers down.
” Cases were declining but then spiked again in July as new parts of the nation , mostly in the South and West , saw large increases in cases .
As a result , many states that had loosened lockdown restrictions reimposed them in recent weeks .
In many former hotspots , cases have declined .
California Gov .
Gavin Newsom , who decided to shut down bars when his state ’ s infections and deaths began to climb @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the long haul .
“ We can quickly find ourselves back to where we were just a few weeks ago , a month ago , with significant increases if we do not maintain our vigilance , if we do not maintain our focus , ” Newsom said , according to the Los Angeles Times .
“ This virus is not going away .
It ’ s not just going to take Labor Day weekend off .
It ’ s not going to take Halloween off , the holidays off , ” the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ briefing on Monday , President Donald Trump said that while lockdowns can not remain in place forever , vigilance must .
“ To that end , I urge all Americans to continue to socially distance , wash your hands , wear a mask when you can not avoid crowded places , and to protect the elderly , ” Trump said .
“ Very , very important — protect the elderly .
It ’ s much different .
Young children have very strong immune systems .
We ’ ve learned how strong they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ average age of those who succumb to the virus is 78 years old .
That ’ s the average age .
“ It ’ s important for all Americans to recognize that a permanent lockdown is not a viable path toward producing the result that you want , or certainly not a viable path forward , and would ultimately inflict more harm than it would prevent .
“ As we ’ re seeing in foreign countries around the world where cases are once again surging — you have many places where we thought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great job , and they are doing a great job , but this is a very tough , invisible enemy — lockdowns do not prevent infection in the future .
They just don ’ t .
It comes back .
Many times , it comes back .
“ The purpose of a lockdown is to buy time to build capacity , especially as it respects to — with respect to hospitals , learn more about the disease and develop effective treatments , as we did in the United States.
” We are committed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

New coronavirus cases in the U.S. dipped on Monday to a level not seen in roughly a month, according to the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.
According to its data, Monday showed 45,368 new cases, coming on the heels of Sunday’s total of 47,580 cases. New cases were last at this level on July 6, when 44,953 new cases were diagnosed.
In Florida, where cases had been spiking throughout much of July, about 5,000 new cases were reported Monday, according to the Tampa Bay Times — the lowest number since mid-June.
The good news was tempered with sober advice from Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephen Hahn.
“This virus is still with us, and it is around the country, and we’re seeing these cases come not just in the United States but around the world,” he said, according to ABC News.
“That’s really the message we want the American people to know, that we have to take this seriously,” Hahn said. “We need to get these case numbers down.”
Cases were declining but then spiked again in July as new parts of the nation, mostly in the South and West, saw large increases in cases. As a result, many states that had loosened lockdown restrictions reimposed them in recent weeks. In many former hotspots, cases have declined.
In Navajo Nation, people travel 40+ miles for groceries. Thanks to a renewed interest in indigenous agriculture, they are staying home to farm, which has #coronavirus cases on a steady decline in an area that was formerly a #COVID19 epicenter. https://t.co/XaHUC2tFOn via @NPR — FoodPrint (@foodprintorg) August 1, 2020
Some good coronavirus news for Ohio: New cases down below 1,000 for three straight days and positive rate in testing continues to decline to 5.4% (7-day moving avg.) when it was at 6.3 in recent weeks. — Lucas Sullivan (@DispatchSully) August 3, 2020
The number of new coronavirus cases in Colorado dropped 18% last week, marking the first week-over-week decline since confirmed infections began increasing in the state a month-and-a-half ago. https://t.co/GCffQ4vF4J — The Denver Post (@denverpost) August 4, 2020
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who decided to shut down bars when his state’s infections and deaths began to climb, said changes must stay in place for the long haul.
“We can quickly find ourselves back to where we were just a few weeks ago, a month ago, with significant increases if we do not maintain our vigilance, if we do not maintain our focus,” Newsom said, according to the Los Angeles Times.
“This virus is not going away. It’s not just going to take Labor Day weekend off. It’s not going to take Halloween off, the holidays off,” the Democrat said.
During a White House briefing on Monday, President Donald Trump said that while lockdowns cannot remain in place forever, vigilance must.
“To that end, I urge all Americans to continue to socially distance, wash your hands, wear a mask when you cannot avoid crowded places, and to protect the elderly,” Trump said. “Very, very important — protect the elderly. It’s much different. Young children have very strong immune systems. We’ve learned how strong they are. But protect the elderly. The average age of those who succumb to the virus is 78 years old. That’s the average age.
Do you think President Trump has done a good job in managing the coronavirus fight? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 98% (1926 Votes) No: 2% (32 Votes)
“It’s important for all Americans to recognize that a permanent lockdown is not a viable path toward producing the result that you want, or certainly not a viable path forward, and would ultimately inflict more harm than it would prevent.
“As we’re seeing in foreign countries around the world where cases are once again surging — you have many places where we thought they were under control and doing a great job, and they are doing a great job, but this is a very tough, invisible enemy — lockdowns do not prevent infection in the future. They just don’t. It comes back. Many times, it comes back.
“The purpose of a lockdown is to buy time to build capacity, especially as it respects to — with respect to hospitals, learn more about the disease and develop effective treatments, as we did in the United States.”
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--2020-08-04--Suze Orman Undergoes Surgery To Remove Tumor: It Had To ‘Come Out Immediately’

Suze Orman has experienced a lot of success in her career .
She ’ s authored best-selling books , been recognized as one of The World ’ s 100 Most Powerful Women by Forbes and hosted her own show .
Her impressive resume has landed her the position of official personal finance educator for the U.S. Army , and she currently hosts her own podcast , “ Women & Money.
” Her Facebook “ About ” page lists her many accomplishments , and you ’ d be hard-pressed to find another woman who ’ s done as much as she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had a different kind of success recently after some rather debilitating news .
She first shared an update with her listeners through a podcast episode released July 23 .
TRENDING : I Looked Up What Happened When Sweden Refused To Shut Down - They Were Right , We Were Wrong “ They found a tumor on my spine that is benign , ” she said , according to People .
“ But it needs to come out immediately.
” “ So we will be getting on the plane and going to the top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this surgery.
” And when she said “ we will be getting on the plane and going , ” she meant that same day .
Despite the reassuring news that the tumor was not malignant , Orman would still be undergoing an operation with risks .
Knowing what she was about to face , Orman asked her listeners for their support .
“ Send prayers , send blessings , ” Orman said .
“ We ’ ll keep you updated .
But just know , that the most important thing in life is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health and well .
And to stay safe , stay strong and stay secure.
” Two days after the podcast was released , a new post on Orman ’ s Facebook page shared happy news .
“ Here on Saturday morning with an update from Suze & KT , ” the post from July 25 began .
“ Everything that was the unknown , has now become the known !
After 12 hours of a very difficult and delicate surgery on Thursday , Suze came through with flying colors , even to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is resting comfortably and now tackling her physical therapy homework !
RELATED : Chip and Joanna Gaines Share Big News : 'Fixer Upper ' Is Back But with 1 Major Change “ She is on the road to recovery and will be back soon !
She loves your prayers and support…keep em coming !
” According to a post from one of Orman ’ s team members , a week out from the surgery she was doing well and improving quickly , and it looks like it won ’ t be long until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ self .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Suze Orman has experienced a lot of success in her career. She’s authored best-selling books, been recognized as one of The World’s 100 Most Powerful Women by Forbes and hosted her own show.
Her impressive resume has landed her the position of official personal finance educator for the U.S. Army, and she currently hosts her own podcast, “Women & Money.”
Her Facebook “About” page lists her many accomplishments, and you’d be hard-pressed to find another woman who’s done as much as she has in her field.
But she had a different kind of success recently after some rather debilitating news. She first shared an update with her listeners through a podcast episode released July 23.
“They found a tumor on my spine that is benign,” she said, according to People. “But it needs to come out immediately.”
“So we will be getting on the plane and going to the top surgeon in the United States to do this surgery.”
And when she said “we will be getting on the plane and going,” she meant that same day. Despite the reassuring news that the tumor was not malignant, Orman would still be undergoing an operation with risks.
Knowing what she was about to face, Orman asked her listeners for their support.
“Send prayers, send blessings,” Orman said. “We’ll keep you updated. But just know, that the most important thing in life is to take care of ourselves, both health and well. And to stay safe, stay strong and stay secure.”
Two days after the podcast was released, a new post on Orman’s Facebook page shared happy news.
“Here on Saturday morning with an update from Suze & KT,” the post from July 25 began.
“Everything that was the unknown, has now become the known! After 12 hours of a very difficult and delicate surgery on Thursday, Suze came through with flying colors, even to the doctor’s amazement.
“She is resting comfortably and now tackling her physical therapy homework!
“She is on the road to recovery and will be back soon! She loves your prayers and support…keep em coming!”
According to a post from one of Orman’s team members, a week out from the surgery she was doing well and improving quickly, and it looks like it won’t be long until she’s back to her usual self.
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--2020-08-04--NFL Great Mike Ditka Blasts Anthem-Haters Again: ‘Bench Them’ Until They Respect the Country

Legendary NFL coach Mike Ditka ruffled a few feathers in an interview with TMZ last week when he offered a simple solution for athletes who have decided to use our country ’ s national anthem as a pulpit for their leftist politics .
“ If they don ’ t like the country , they don ’ t like our flag … get the hell out , ” the former Chicago Bears coach said of the return of anthem protests in professional sports .
Some argued that the 80-year-old simply doesn ’ t get it , or that he has oversimplified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ditka ’ s comments also quickly saw him decried as a racist by some on social media .
TRENDING : I Looked Up What Happened When Sweden Refused To Shut Down - They Were Right , We Were Wrong If you were to ask many fans of professional sports , though , the coach hit the nail on the head .
Discussions about a perception that America ’ s institutions are biased against minorities are free to be had .
But those conversations shouldn ’ t be held on the field , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where Americans used to be able to go to forget about life for a few hours and just enjoy watching a game .
Ditka , who coached one the greatest football teams to ever play in the NFL , the 1985 Bears , still keeps up with the game he loves .
But , like so many sports fans , he has little tolerance for the disrespect being shown to the country ’ s flag and anthem .
Ditka joined Fox News host Jesse Watters over the weekend to discuss the sudden collision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no apology for his previous remarks and instead doubled down , explaining how he would handle such blatant disrespect for the flag that so many Americans have died for .
Asked how he would have reacted if one of his players had knelt during the playing of the national anthem , Ditka was straightforward .
RELATED : Race To Sign Tom Brady Has 2 Clear Favorites , Several Long-Shot Possibilities “ They wouldn ’ t have played for us , ” the coach said .
“ It ’ s that simple.
” “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continued .
“ Until they found that it was honorable to respect the country .
“ This country has given them the opportunity to become millionaires .
You understand what I ’ m saying ?
“ You can ’ t play American football in Peru .
You can ’ t play it in England .
American football can only be played in America.
” “ And they make a lot of money doing it .
Enjoy it , respect it , but don ’ t act like a clown.
” Ditka , like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have paid their dues and tried to lead lives of greatness , has been around long enough to see the civil rights movement make great strides .
But the country , generally speaking , has gone backward with regard to racial unity , as the current neo-Marxist movement seeking to drive a wedge between Americans has been successful to a degree .
Ditka , whose life is intertwined with sports , doesn ’ t know what to make of it .
“ I played football my whole life and we had more black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did white , but there was never a problem , ” he told Fox News .
“ We played football .
It wasn ’ t about the color of a guy ’ s skin , it was about the way he played the game and what his contributions could be to society and to the school.
” Ditka ’ s continued comments against anthem kneeling will be most assuredly be construed to portray him as out of touch , bigoted or , at a minimum , behind the times .
As professional sports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Matter movement , players have become little more than empty political platforms .
They refuse to stand and honor the collective memory of those we ’ ve lost in places such as Valley Forge , Antietam , Saint-Mihiel , Okinawa , the Chosin Reservoir , Khe Sanh , Fallujah and Kamdesh .
Racial inequality , whether actual or perceived , is a complex issue .
But it ’ s a conversation that isn ’ t going to be resolved in the field of play .
Ditka , as always , offers blunt explanations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Sometimes , the most sensible answer to a complex issue is the one that is the most difficult to hear .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

[jwplayer ncVrgz0j]Legendary NFL coach Mike Ditka ruffled a few feathers in an interview with TMZ last week when he offered a simple solution for athletes who have decided to use our country’s national anthem as a pulpit for their leftist politics.
“If they don’t like the country, they don’t like our flag … get the hell out,” the former Chicago Bears coach said of the return of anthem protests in professional sports.
Some argued that the 80-year-old simply doesn’t get it, or that he has oversimplified a complex issue.
Of course, Ditka’s comments also quickly saw him decried as a racist by some on social media.
This doesn’t surprise me at all. Mike Dikta traded his helmet in for a white hood as soon as he retired from football. Racism hiding behind faux patriotism is still racism. ??♂ https://t.co/0wRTpyfMhB — David Mulugheta (@DavidMulugheta) July 26, 2020
If you were to ask many fans of professional sports, though, the coach hit the nail on the head.
Discussions about a perception that America’s institutions are biased against minorities are free to be had.
But those conversations shouldn’t be held on the field, the court, the diamond or anywhere else where Americans used to be able to go to forget about life for a few hours and just enjoy watching a game.
Do you agree with Mike Ditka? 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% (1723 Votes) No: 1% (10 Votes)
Ditka, who coached one the greatest football teams to ever play in the NFL, the 1985 Bears, still keeps up with the game he loves.
But, like so many sports fans, he has little tolerance for the disrespect being shown to the country’s flag and anthem.
Ditka joined Fox News host Jesse Watters over the weekend to discuss the sudden collision of sports and culture.
He offered no apology for his previous remarks and instead doubled down, explaining how he would handle such blatant disrespect for the flag that so many Americans have died for.
Asked how he would have reacted if one of his players had knelt during the playing of the national anthem, Ditka was straightforward.
“They wouldn’t have played for us,” the coach said. “It’s that simple.”
“So you’d bench them?” Watters asked.
“I would bench them,” the coach answered.
“That’s it,” Ditka continued. “Until they found that it was honorable to respect the country.
“This country has given them the opportunity to become millionaires. You understand what I’m saying?
“You can’t play American football in Peru. You can’t play it in England. American football can only be played in America.”
“And they make a lot of money doing it. Enjoy it, respect it, but don’t act like a clown.”
Ditka, like so many older, affable Americans who have paid their dues and tried to lead lives of greatness, has been around long enough to see the civil rights movement make great strides.
But the country, generally speaking, has gone backward with regard to racial unity, as the current neo-Marxist movement seeking to drive a wedge between Americans has been successful to a degree.
Ditka, whose life is intertwined with sports, doesn’t know what to make of it.
“I played football my whole life and we had more black football players on our team than we did white, but there was never a problem,” he told Fox News.
“We played football. It wasn’t about the color of a guy’s skin, it was about the way he played the game and what his contributions could be to society and to the school.”
Ditka’s continued comments against anthem kneeling will be most assuredly be construed to portray him as out of touch, bigoted or, at a minimum, behind the times.
As professional sports leagues continue to embrace the Black Lives Matter movement, players have become little more than empty political platforms.
They refuse to stand and honor the collective memory of those we’ve lost in places such as Valley Forge, Antietam, Saint-Mihiel, Okinawa, the Chosin Reservoir, Khe Sanh, Fallujah and Kamdesh.
Racial inequality, whether actual or perceived, is a complex issue.
But it’s a conversation that isn’t going to be resolved in the field of play.
Ditka, as always, offers blunt explanations that are not crafted to preserve feelings.
Sometimes, the most sensible answer to a complex issue is the one that is the most difficult to hear.
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--2020-08-04--Revolutionary Communist Party USA Leader Throws His Support Behind Biden

While condemning the time-honored bait-and-switch tactics of the Democratic Party , the leader of the Revolutionary Communist Party USA is calling on party members to support Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden against Republican President Donald Trump in November .
Bob Avakian , leader of the Communist Party USA , announced his support for Biden in a statement on the party ’ s website .
The party was founded by Avakian in 1975 .
A July article in The Jewish Voice discussing the current wave of unrest sweeping the U.S. noted : “ This wave of violence seems to be driven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ branch of The Revolutionary Communist Party , USA than the BLM movement itself ( which is also Marxist ) .
” Although much of Avakian ’ s statement is a diatribe against what he called the “ fascist ” tactics of the Trump administration , he said it will not be enough in November to cast a “ ‘ protest vote ’ for some candidate who has no chance of winning.
” He called on his followers to vote “ for the Democratic Party candidate , Biden , in order to effectively vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Up What Happened When Sweden Refused To Shut Down - They Were Right , We Were Wrong Although insisting that “ the struggle against this fascist regime needs to include voting against Trump by voting for Biden , ” Avakian said Biden is hardly his ideal candidate .
“ This is not because Biden ( and the Democratic Party in general ) have suddenly become something other than what they are : representatives and instruments of this exploitative , oppressive , and literally murderous system of capitalism-imperialism , ” he said .
Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ game that has worked well for them in the past .
“ It is true that , with every election , the Democrats run the same basic con game — blackmailing people who hate injustice and oppression to vote for them as the ‘ lesser evil , ' ” he wrote .
“ And the Democratic Party has done this , time after time after time , while itself representing and seeking to preside over this system of capitalism-imperialism which has white supremacy , male supremacy , environmental plunder and wars for empire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time as the Democrats make noises about , and take some steps to implement , minor ( and ultimately meaningless ) reforms to supposedly address these outrages.
” Avakian said this has reduced many to “ passive dependents on the Democratic Party and its role in the electoral process.
” But the best quality about Biden is that he is not Trump , Avakian suggested .
“ The question is not whether Biden and the Democrats represent something ‘ good , ’ or whether , in fundamental terms , the Democrats are ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he wrote .
“ Both of these parties are ruling class political parties , and none of their candidates represent anything ‘ good ’ in the most basic and essential sense .
“ Biden is not ‘ better ’ than Trump , in any meaningful way — except that he is not Trump and is not part of the move to consolidate and enforce fascist rule , with everything that means.
” Above all , Avakian wanted to be sure that his supporters understand one thing : “ Our fundamental goal , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NOTHING LESS !
” We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

While condemning the time-honored bait-and-switch tactics of the Democratic Party, the leader of the Revolutionary Communist Party USA is calling on party members to support Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden against Republican President Donald Trump in November.
Bob Avakian, leader of the Communist Party USA, announced his support for Biden in a statement on the party’s website.
The party was founded by Avakian in 1975. A July article in The Jewish Voice discussing the current wave of unrest sweeping the U.S. noted: “This wave of violence seems to be driven more by ANTIFA, which is a branch of The Revolutionary Communist Party, USA than the BLM movement itself (which is also Marxist).”
Although much of Avakian’s statement is a diatribe against what he called the “fascist” tactics of the Trump administration, he said it will not be enough in November to cast a “‘protest vote’ for some candidate who has no chance of winning.”
He called on his followers to vote “for the Democratic Party candidate, Biden, in order to effectively vote against Trump.”
Although insisting that “the struggle against this fascist regime needs to include voting against Trump by voting for Biden,” Avakian said Biden is hardly his ideal candidate.
“This is not because Biden (and the Democratic Party in general) have suddenly become something other than what they are: representatives and instruments of this exploitative, oppressive, and literally murderous system of capitalism-imperialism,” he said.
Democrats, Avakian said, are playing a game that has worked well for them in the past.
“It is true that, with every election, the Democrats run the same basic con game — blackmailing people who hate injustice and oppression to vote for them as the ‘lesser evil,'” he wrote.
Do you think this endorsement shows that Biden is a far-left candidate? 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% (183 Votes) No: 0% (0 Votes)
“And the Democratic Party has done this, time after time after time, while itself representing and seeking to preside over this system of capitalism-imperialism which has white supremacy, male supremacy, environmental plunder and wars for empire built into it, at the same time as the Democrats make noises about, and take some steps to implement, minor (and ultimately meaningless) reforms to supposedly address these outrages.”
Avakian said this has reduced many to “passive dependents on the Democratic Party and its role in the electoral process.”
But the best quality about Biden is that he is not Trump, Avakian suggested.
“The question is not whether Biden and the Democrats represent something ‘good,’ or whether, in fundamental terms, the Democrats are ‘better’ than the Republicans,” he wrote.
“Both of these parties are ruling class political parties, and none of their candidates represent anything ‘good’ in the most basic and essential sense.
“Biden is not ‘better’ than Trump, in any meaningful way — except that he is not Trump and is not part of the move to consolidate and enforce fascist rule, with everything that means.”
The endorsement made waves on Twitter:
China wants Biden.
Russia wants Biden.
Iran wants Biden.
Terrorists want Biden.
Communists want Biden.
Abortionists want Biden.
Felons want Biden.
Antifa wants Biden.
BLM wants Biden.
DSA wants Biden.
Illegal aliens want Biden.
Pedophiles want Biden. Get it? — Errol Webber For Congress (CA-37) (@ErrolWebber) July 29, 2020
Biden is a communist hates all Americans. He has even told hard working Americans he isn’t working for them so who is he working for? #China maybe #Russia Let’s investigate and thrrow him in prison. https://t.co/amOmtD4YIL — LockLoaded&Secure (@LockLoadSecure) August 4, 2020
“Angela Davis, who gained fame as a 1970s-era radical and was the Communist Party USA’s VP nominee in the 1980 and 1984 elections, told RT in an interview last month that the left should pick Mr. Biden because he can be ‘most effectively pressured’ into accepting their demands. https://t.co/JVdaFCdZnu — Steve Milloy (@JunkScience) August 4, 2020
IT IS OFFICIAL! Bob Avakian, the radical founder and leader of the Revolutionary Communist Party just endorsed Joe Biden and instructed fellow communists to support Biden in the election. #WakeUpAmerica the socialists & communists infiltrated the Democrats years ago look it up — Jimmy Lee (@CEOJimmyLee) August 4, 2020
Above all, Avakian wanted to be sure that his supporters understand one thing: “Our fundamental goal, and guiding star, remains: REVOLUTION — NOTHING LESS!”
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--2020-08-06--Breaking: Facebook Deletes Trump Post for 1st Time in History

Facebook has deleted a post by President Donald Trump for the first time , saying it violated its policy against spreading misinformation about the coronavirus .
The post in question featured a link to a Fox News video in which Trump says children are “ virtually immune ” to the virus .
Facebook said Wednesday that the “ video includes false claims that a group of people is immune from COVID-19 which is a violation of our policies around harmful COVID misinformation.
” A tweet from Trump with the same video remained up on Twitter as of Wednesday afternoon .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ been quicker than Facebook in recent months in labeling posts from the president that violate its policies against misinformation and abuse .
TRENDING : Always Remember Joe Biden Misled Everyone About Wife 's Death , Blamed Innocent Man for Years Twitter did not have an immediate comment .
This is the first time that Facebook has removed a post from Trump entirely , rather than labeling it , as it has done in the past .
Several studies suggest that children are less likely to become infected than adults and more likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ study involving 2,500 children published in April found that about 1 in 5 infected children were hospitalized versus 1 in 3 adults ; three children died .
The study lacks complete data on all the cases , but it also suggests that many infected children have no symptoms , which could allow them to spread the virus to others .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Facebook has deleted a post by President Donald Trump for the first time, saying it violated its policy against spreading misinformation about the coronavirus.
The post in question featured a link to a Fox News video in which Trump says children are “virtually immune” to the virus.
Facebook said Wednesday that the “video includes false claims that a group of people is immune from COVID-19 which is a violation of our policies around harmful COVID misinformation.”
A tweet from Trump with the same video remained up on Twitter as of Wednesday afternoon.
That’s even though Twitter has been quicker than Facebook in recent months in labeling posts from the president that violate its policies against misinformation and abuse.
Twitter did not have an immediate comment.
This is the first time that Facebook has removed a post from Trump entirely, rather than labeling it, as it has done in the past.
Several studies suggest that children are less likely to become infected than adults and more likely to have only mild symptoms.
A CDC study involving 2,500 children published in April found that about 1 in 5 infected children were hospitalized versus 1 in 3 adults; three children died.
The study lacks complete data on all the cases, but it also suggests that many infected children have no symptoms, which could allow them to spread the virus to others.
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.