westernjournal--2020-09-30--Trump Blasts Biden’s Brains: You Graduated Last in Class, Don’t Use the Word ‘Smart’ with Me

During Tuesday night ’ s presidential debate , Democratic nominee Joe Biden implied he was smarter than President Donald Trump .
In response , the president pointed out the fact that Biden graduated near the bottom of his class in law school .
TRENDING : Report : Dem Senators Worried About Feinstein Ahead of Monumental SCOTUS Battle : 'She 's Not Sure What She 's Doing' “ Did you use the word ‘ smart ’ ?
” Trump asked his political opponent .
“ So you said you went to Delaware State , but you forgot the name of your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Delaware State .
You graduated either the lowest or almost the lowest in your class.
” “ Don ’ t ever use the word ‘ smart ’ with me .
Don ’ t ever use that word .
Because , you know what , there ’ s nothing smart about you , Joe.
” Trump was right about Biden graduating near the bottom of his class .
During his time at the Syracuse University College of Law , Joe Biden graduated 76th in a class of 85 students .
Back in May @ @ @ @ @ @ @ archived footage of Biden from 1987 describing his educational achievements .
“ I went to law school on a full academic scholarship , the only one in my class to have a full academic scholarship , ” Biden said .
“ The first year in law school , I decided I didn ’ t want to be in law school and ended up in the bottom two-thirds of my class.
” RELATED : Trump Challenges Biden To 'Name One ' Law Enforcement Group That Supports Him - Met with Total Silence “ And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went back to law school and , in fact , ended up in the top half of my class.
” Reporters in the video then discredit every one of those claims .
“ Biden now concedes he did not graduate in the top half of his law school class , that he does not have three degrees from college and that he was not named outstanding political science student in college , ” one reporter said in the video .
“ Newsweek says Biden actually went to school on a half-scholarship , ended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and won only one degree , not three , ” said another , referencing a Newsweek article that panned Biden ’ s false statements .
During a 1987 interview with The New York Times , Biden admitted that he did not , in fact , graduate in the top half of his class .
” I did not graduate in the top half of my class at law school and my recollection of this was inaccurate , ” Biden said , according to The Times .
We are committed to truth and accuracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our editorial standards .

During Tuesday night’s presidential debate, Democratic nominee Joe Biden implied he was smarter than President Donald Trump.
Trump didn’t take kindly to Biden’s words.
In response, the president pointed out the fact that Biden graduated near the bottom of his class in law school.
TRUMP: “There’s nothing smart about you Joe” ??? pic.twitter.com/ne8nuRLmy4 — Benny (@bennyjohnson) September 30, 2020
“Did you use the word ‘smart’?” Trump asked his political opponent.
“So you said you went to Delaware State, but you forgot the name of your college. You didn’t go to Delaware State. You graduated either the lowest or almost the lowest in your class.”
“Don’t ever use the word ‘smart’ with me. Don’t ever use that word. Because, you know what, there’s nothing smart about you, Joe.”
Does Joe Biden lie about his record? 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% (3039 Votes) No: 1% (20 Votes)
Trump was right about Biden graduating near the bottom of his class.
During his time at the Syracuse University College of Law, Joe Biden graduated 76th in a class of 85 students.
Back in May, then-Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale shared archived footage of Biden from 1987 describing his educational achievements.
“I went to law school on a full academic scholarship, the only one in my class to have a full academic scholarship,” Biden said. “The first year in law school, I decided I didn’t want to be in law school and ended up in the bottom two-thirds of my class.”
“And then decided I wanted to stay, went back to law school and, in fact, ended up in the top half of my class.”
Reporters in the video then discredit every one of those claims.
“Biden now concedes he did not graduate in the top half of his law school class, that he does not have three degrees from college and that he was not named outstanding political science student in college,” one reporter said in the video.
“Newsweek says Biden actually went to school on a half-scholarship, ended up near the bottom of his class and won only one degree, not three,” said another, referencing a Newsweek article that panned Biden’s false statements.
During a 1987 interview with The New York Times, Biden admitted that he did not, in fact, graduate in the top half of his class.
”I did not graduate in the top half of my class at law school and my recollection of this was inaccurate,” Biden said, according to The Times.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-10-01--Victor Davis Hanson: The Media’s Treatment of Trump’s COVID Adviser Dr. Scott Atlas Is Out of Line

The news media until recently had rarely criticized the medical advice of experts — especially those who worked for federal bureaucracies , international organizations or elite universities .
Yet the much-praised Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus , director-general of the World Health Organization , has demonstrably weakened the effort to fight COVID-19 .
During the critical initial weeks of the virus ’ spread , Tedros parroted Chinese propaganda .
He falsely assured a complacent world that the virus was likely not transmissible between humans and did not warrant travel bans .
That Tedros was the first WHO director not to have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media .
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel is known to the public for his past advocacy of the Obama administration ’ s Affordable Care Act .
Although he now advises 77-year-old presidential candidate Joe Biden , Emanuel once wrote an article for The Atlantic titled “ Why I hope to die at 75 , ” contending that that life after age 75 is , and should be , mostly over — now an eerie idea in a time of a pandemic that targets the elderly .
Emanuel has often weighed in on the COVID-19 pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggesting that some acquired collective immunity and a viable vaccine are not likely to come soon .
Yet Emanuel also has been largely exempt from media criticism .
No reporters have questioned his epidemiological expertise despite his background as an oncologist specializing in breast cancer .
The esteemed Dr. Anthony Fauci , director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , has given conflicting advice on the use of masks , quarantining and the methods of viral transmission .
Yet such inconsistency is either ignored or chalked up by the media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a new epidemic .
So why — other than politics — is there now a concerted media attack on Dr. Scott Atlas , an adviser to the Trump administration on COVID-19 policy ?
Atlas has had a distinguished career as one of the world ’ s top neuroradiologists .
He has become a national expert on public health policy , especially in the cost-benefit analysis of government programs .
After COVID-19 arrived in the U.S. , Atlas consistently warned that government must follow science , not politics , in doing the least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He has reminded us that those under 65 rarely die from COVID-19 and that those infected who are younger than 20 usually do not show any serious symptoms .
Accordingly , Atlas has urged the states to focus more resources on the most vulnerable — those over 65 , who account for the vast majority of COVID-19 deaths — and allow younger Americans to re-enter schools and the workforce with appropriate caution .
Atlas has also warned that the available test data on COVID-19 ’ s infectiousness , spread and morbidity must be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who feel sick are more like to get tested .
He argues that those with some natural protection from the virus , either through antibodies from an asymptotic past infection or through T-cells , may be a far larger group than previously thought .
But most importantly , Atlas has warned that government must be careful not to endanger Americans with draconian lockdowns that curtail needed medical examinations , procedures and treatments .
Just as dangerous as the disease may be quarantine-related spikes in mental illness , substance abuse , child and spousal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Children may be suffering irreparable harm from being locked down and kept out of school .
Atlas has shown that these policy choices unfortunately entail bad options and even worse ones , rather than good choices and even better alternatives .
He has not played down the dangers of COVID-19 but rather has reminded us to look at scientific data that often belies media sensationalism .
Many in the media , some of his former colleagues at Stanford Medical School and some other Stanford faculty members have claimed that Atlas — a colleague @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has acted unprofessionally .
They allege that he has downplayed the lethality of the virus , implying that he is aiding the administration ’ s efforts to ease out of the quarantine .
Yet few if any of these complainants have cited supporting evidence , either from what Atlas has written or said .
Often the accusations turn puerile , suggesting that Atlas can ’ t be a public health expert because he was originally a neuroradiologist .
In fact , rarely reported is that many members of the Stanford community are honored @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for its diversity of expert scientific opinion on the virus .
Nobel Prize-winning biophysicist Michael Levitt of Stanford , along with several stellar Stanford epidemiologists , have been praised worldwide for their careful critiques of often media-generated misconceptions — especially on the overreliance on COVID-19 positive test data to calibrate viral prevalence and morbidly .
How ironic that some critics fault Atlas for not following science , but they do so in a fashion that is completely … well , unscientific .
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or endorsed by the owners of this website .
If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal , you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

The news media until recently had rarely criticized the medical advice of experts — especially those who worked for federal bureaucracies, international organizations or elite universities.
Yet the much-praised Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director-general of the World Health Organization, has demonstrably weakened the effort to fight COVID-19.
During the critical initial weeks of the virus’ spread, Tedros parroted Chinese propaganda. He falsely assured a complacent world that the virus was likely not transmissible between humans and did not warrant travel bans.
That Tedros was the first WHO director not to have a medical degree was seldom cited by the media.
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel is known to the public for his past advocacy of the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act.
Although he now advises 77-year-old presidential candidate Joe Biden, Emanuel once wrote an article for The Atlantic titled “Why I hope to die at 75,” contending that that life after age 75 is, and should be, mostly over — now an eerie idea in a time of a pandemic that targets the elderly.
Emanuel has often weighed in on the COVID-19 pandemic, sometimes in overly pessimistic fashion by suggesting that some acquired collective immunity and a viable vaccine are not likely to come soon.
Yet Emanuel also has been largely exempt from media criticism. No reporters have questioned his epidemiological expertise despite his background as an oncologist specializing in breast cancer.
The esteemed Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has given conflicting advice on the use of masks, quarantining and the methods of viral transmission. Yet such inconsistency is either ignored or chalked up by the media to the usual learning curve of dealing with a new epidemic.
So why — other than politics — is there now a concerted media attack on Dr. Scott Atlas, an adviser to the Trump administration on COVID-19 policy?
Atlas has had a distinguished career as one of the world’s top neuroradiologists. He has become a national expert on public health policy, especially in the cost-benefit analysis of government programs.
After COVID-19 arrived in the U.S., Atlas consistently warned that government must follow science, not politics, in doing the least amount of harm to its people. He has reminded us that those under 65 rarely die from COVID-19 and that those infected who are younger than 20 usually do not show any serious symptoms.
Accordingly, Atlas has urged the states to focus more resources on the most vulnerable — those over 65, who account for the vast majority of COVID-19 deaths — and allow younger Americans to re-enter schools and the workforce with appropriate caution.
Atlas has also warned that the available test data on COVID-19’s infectiousness, spread and morbidity must be handled with care, given that those who feel sick are more like to get tested.
He argues that those with some natural protection from the virus, either through antibodies from an asymptotic past infection or through T-cells, may be a far larger group than previously thought.
But most importantly, Atlas has warned that government must be careful not to endanger Americans with draconian lockdowns that curtail needed medical examinations, procedures and treatments.
Just as dangerous as the disease may be quarantine-related spikes in mental illness, substance abuse, child and spousal abuse and depression from lost livelihoods. Children may be suffering irreparable harm from being locked down and kept out of school.
Atlas has shown that these policy choices unfortunately entail bad options and even worse ones, rather than good choices and even better alternatives. He has not played down the dangers of COVID-19 but rather has reminded us to look at scientific data that often belies media sensationalism.
Do you think this is just another establishment media smear? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 96% (263 Votes) No: 4% (10 Votes)
Many in the media, some of his former colleagues at Stanford Medical School and some other Stanford faculty members have claimed that Atlas — a colleague of mine at the Hoover Institution — has acted unprofessionally.
They allege that he has downplayed the lethality of the virus, implying that he is aiding the administration’s efforts to ease out of the quarantine.
Yet few if any of these complainants have cited supporting evidence, either from what Atlas has written or said. Often the accusations turn puerile, suggesting that Atlas can’t be a public health expert because he was originally a neuroradiologist.
In fact, rarely reported is that many members of the Stanford community are honored by its medical school receiving global acclaim for its diversity of expert scientific opinion on the virus.
Nobel Prize-winning biophysicist Michael Levitt of Stanford, along with several stellar Stanford epidemiologists, have been praised worldwide for their careful critiques of often media-generated misconceptions — especially on the overreliance on COVID-19 positive test data to calibrate viral prevalence and morbidly.
How ironic that some critics fault Atlas for not following science, but they do so in a fashion that is completely … well, unscientific.
© 2020 TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-10-01--Democrats’ New COVID Bill Removes Police Funding, Drawing GOP Outrage

As anti-police rioters call for defunding the police , House Democrats are no longer interested in putting money for police programs in the latest coronavirus relief bill .
The most recent version of the $ 2.2 trillion HEROES Act does not include $ 600 million for police programs that were in earlier versions of the mammoth legislation , according to Fox News .
Those earlier versions included $ 300 million for Community Oriented Police Services Programs , whose funds go toward hiring additional officers , and $ 300 million for Byrne Justice Assistance Grants , which allow local departments buy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that other funding streams have emerged to address the need for PPE .
That cut no ice with Republican Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana , who equated the action to pandering to mobs calling for defunding the police , .
“ House Democrats have fully embraced the radical left ’ s movement to defund the police , ” Scalise said in a statement to Fox .
“ Democrats ’ so-called ‘ Heroes Act ’ removes $ 600 million from a previous version of the bill that was intended for real heroes : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went on to claim Democrats “ have no respect for law and order in our communities.
” “ In the face of violent rioting and looting , our law enforcement officers need our help more than ever , but Speaker Pelosi and her liberal lieutenants are abandoning these officers in plain sight , ” he added .
“ It ’ s shameful.
” During a House Rules Committee hearing , Democratic Rep. Nita Lowey of New York conceded the bill does not add funding but said that “ [ in ] no way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican Rep .
Rob Woodall of Georgia argued police officers mattered to Democrats in the spring , but not after a summer of anti-police protests .
“ In the spring you believed local police departments are worthy of $ 300 million in investment , you recognized that need .
But in this HEROES Act , I can ’ t find that at all .
It appears to have disappeared , ” Woodall said .
In a Wednesday statement , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell castigated House Democrats for their actions .
“ Now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than fashionable on the far left , Democrats have actually taken out hundreds of millions of dollars for hiring and assisting police officers , ” he said .
“ Their so-called sequel to the HEROES Act has decided that cops are not heroes after all .
House Democrats couldn ’ t miss a chance to ‘ defund the police , ' ” he added .
“ This latest bill from the Speaker is no more serious than any of their other political stunts going back months .
If they continue to refuse to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hurt.
” The latest version of the HEROES Act doles out $ 1,200 to every taxpayer , including illegal immigrants who pay taxes , restores unemployment benefits to $ 600 weekly in federal assistance through January and adds funds for the Paycheck Protection Program to distribute to small businesses and nonprofit organizations .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

As anti-police rioters call for defunding the police, House Democrats are no longer interested in putting money for police programs in the latest coronavirus relief bill.
The most recent version of the $2.2 trillion HEROES Act does not include $600 million for police programs that were in earlier versions of the mammoth legislation, according to Fox News.
Those earlier versions included $300 million for Community Oriented Police Services Programs, whose funds go toward hiring additional officers, and $300 million for Byrne Justice Assistance Grants, which allow local departments buy personal protective equipment.
The Democratic explanation is that other funding streams have emerged to address the need for PPE.
That cut no ice with Republican Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, who equated the action to pandering to mobs calling for defunding the police,.
“House Democrats have fully embraced the radical left’s movement to defund the police,” Scalise said in a statement to Fox.
“Democrats’ so-called ‘Heroes Act’ removes $600 million from a previous version of the bill that was intended for real heroes: state and local law enforcement.”
He went on to claim Democrats “have no respect for law and order in our communities.”
Have the Democrats become anti-police? 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% (3857 Votes) No: 0% (10 Votes)
“In the face of violent rioting and looting, our law enforcement officers need our help more than ever, but Speaker Pelosi and her liberal lieutenants are abandoning these officers in plain sight,” he added. “It’s shameful.”
During a House Rules Committee hearing, Democratic Rep. Nita Lowey of New York conceded the bill does not add funding but said that “[in] no way does that mean defunding the police.”
Republican Rep. Rob Woodall of Georgia argued police officers mattered to Democrats in the spring, but not after a summer of anti-police protests.
“In the spring you believed local police departments are worthy of $300 million in investment, you recognized that need. But in this HEROES Act, I can’t find that at all. It appears to have disappeared,” Woodall said.
In a Wednesday statement, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell castigated House Democrats for their actions.
“Now that supporting law enforcement has become less than fashionable on the far left, Democrats have actually taken out hundreds of millions of dollars for hiring and assisting police officers,” he said.
“Their so-called sequel to the HEROES Act has decided that cops are not heroes after all. House Democrats couldn’t miss a chance to ‘defund the police,'” he added.
“This latest bill from the Speaker is no more serious than any of their other political stunts going back months. If they continue to refuse to get serious then American families will continue to hurt.”
The latest version of the HEROES Act doles out $1,200 to every taxpayer, including illegal immigrants who pay taxes, restores unemployment benefits to $600 weekly in federal assistance through January and adds funds for the Paycheck Protection Program to distribute to small businesses and nonprofit organizations.
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--2020-09-30--Trump’s Savaging of Critical Race Theory Was the Best Point He Made in the Entire Debate

The left has artfully manipulated language to make any opposition to their radical agenda seem extreme and racist .
For instance , a Marxist revolutionary group uses the phrase “ Black Lives Matter ” as its moniker and mantra to make it all but impossible for average folks to publicly voice opposition to the group , lest they lose their livelihood and good name to cancel culture ( or at the very least , get unfriended by their old college roommates on social media ) .
Another example is seen in the use of the term “ critical race theory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of garbage course colleges create to complete an equally useless , non-scholarly major of the same name .
Instead , it ’ s actually a sinister reincarnation of the kind of bigoted indoctrination that is typically reserved for whatever group a society wishes to “ otherize.
” It has recently wormed its way into the lexicon of human resources managers in the private and public sectors alike , including several federal government agencies .
Luckily , President Donald Trump is undeterred by the threat of being labeled a racist , which the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since 2015 , bolstered by their audience of useful idiots who lack of even a modicum of the critical thinking skills to see past the tactic .
Trump has moved to ban the propagation of critical race theory in federal agencies .
He has also attacked efforts to implant the ideology in the minds of America ’ s future generations , calling it “ a Marxist doctrine holding that America is a wicked and racist nation , that even young children are complicit in oppression and that our entire society must be radically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate with former Vice President Joe Biden , the Democratic nominee in the 2020 election , Trump was asked about the ban on training seminars which use taxpayer money to teach government employees that the country is racist .
Fox News host Chris Wallace , who moderated the debate , posed a question about the Trump administration ’ s move while conflating critical race theory with “ racial sensitivity training.
” “ This month , your administration directed federal agencies to end racial sensitivity training that addresses white privilege or critical race theory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did you decide to do that , to end racial sensitivity training ?
And do you believe that there is systemic racism in this country , sir ?
” “ I ended it because it ’ s racist , ” Trump replied .
“ I ended it because a lot of people were complaining that they were asked to do things that were absolutely insane , that it was a radical revolution that was taking place in our military , in our schools , all over the place .
“ And you know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ What is radical about racial sensitivity training ?
” Wallace asked , either intentionally or unintentionally equating critical race theory with racial sensitivity training once again .
“ If you were a certain person , you had no status in life , it was sort of a reversal , ” Trump began .
RELATED : Biden Accidentally Exposes Exactly What Dems Want with the Supreme Court “ And if you look at the people , we were paying people hundreds of thousands of dollars to teach very bad ideas and frankly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continued .
“ And really , they were teaching people to hate our country , and I ’ m not going to do that .
I ’ m not going to allow that to happen .
“ We have to go back to the core values of this country .
They were teaching people that our country is a horrible place , it ’ s a racist place .
And they were teaching people to hate our country and I ’ m not going to allow that to happen , ” Trump concluded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He ’ s the racist , ” was Biden ’ s unoriginal reply .
Besides the fact that critical race theory and racial sensitivity training are — or at least ought to be — vastly different in scope and purpose , Trump was undeterred from answering the question the way folks at home were hoping : In arguably his best moment of the debate , he honestly called out critical race theory for perpetuating racism .
When it comes to public schools ( over which Trump has admittedly less control when it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ training seminars within federal agencies ) , Trump has proposed a better sort of alternative , teaching schoolchildren about the rich history that made America great while not marginalizing white children or any other race .
Shouldn ’ t that be the aim of any curriculum concerned with equality ?
The president instinctively understands how toxic it is to teach one race that they should be denied a voice because of their perceived privilege , or that any inequality of outcome is related only to oppression rather than personal responsibility .
The country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history of racism , but rather fortified by its ultimate triumph over actual systemic racism and transformation into a society that treats everyone equally under the law .
Of course , Trump ’ s critics will paint him as a vicious racist despite the fact that he is brave enough to fight for true equality that does not discriminate based on skin color — white , black , brown or otherwise .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

The left has artfully manipulated language to make any opposition to their radical agenda seem extreme and racist.
For instance, a Marxist revolutionary group uses the phrase “Black Lives Matter” as its moniker and mantra to make it all but impossible for average folks to publicly voice opposition to the group, lest they lose their livelihood and good name to cancel culture (or at the very least, get unfriended by their old college roommates on social media).
Another example is seen in the use of the term “critical race theory,” which sounds innocuously like the kind of garbage course colleges create to complete an equally useless, non-scholarly major of the same name.
Instead, it’s actually a sinister reincarnation of the kind of bigoted indoctrination that is typically reserved for whatever group a society wishes to “otherize.”
It has recently wormed its way into the lexicon of human resources managers in the private and public sectors alike, including several federal government agencies.
Luckily, President Donald Trump is undeterred by the threat of being labeled a racist, which the leftist media has already been doing so since 2015, bolstered by their audience of useful idiots who lack of even a modicum of the critical thinking skills to see past the tactic.
Trump has moved to ban the propagation of critical race theory in federal agencies. He has also attacked efforts to implant the ideology in the minds of America’s future generations, calling it “a Marxist doctrine holding that America is a wicked and racist nation, that even young children are complicit in oppression and that our entire society must be radically transformed.”
During Tuesday night’s debate with former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee in the 2020 election, Trump was asked about the ban on training seminars which use taxpayer money to teach government employees that the country is racist.
Fox News host Chris Wallace, who moderated the debate, posed a question about the Trump administration’s move while conflating critical race theory with “racial sensitivity training.”
Do you agree with President Trump that critical race theory is itself racist? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 99% (431 Votes) No: 1% (4 Votes)
“This month, your administration directed federal agencies to end racial sensitivity training that addresses white privilege or critical race theory,” Wallace began. “Why did you decide to do that, to end racial sensitivity training? And do you believe that there is systemic racism in this country, sir?”
“I ended it because it’s racist,” Trump replied. “I ended it because a lot of people were complaining that they were asked to do things that were absolutely insane, that it was a radical revolution that was taking place in our military, in our schools, all over the place.
“And you know it, and so does everybody else.”
“What is radical about racial sensitivity training?” Wallace asked, either intentionally or unintentionally equating critical race theory with racial sensitivity training once again.
“If you were a certain person, you had no status in life, it was sort of a reversal,” Trump began.
“And if you look at the people, we were paying people hundreds of thousands of dollars to teach very bad ideas and frankly, very sick ideas,” he continued.
“And really, they were teaching people to hate our country, and I’m not going to do that. I’m not going to allow that to happen.
“We have to go back to the core values of this country. They were teaching people that our country is a horrible place, it’s a racist place. And they were teaching people to hate our country and I’m not going to allow that to happen,” Trump concluded.
“Nobody’s doing that. He’s the racist,” was Biden’s unoriginal reply.
Besides the fact that critical race theory and racial sensitivity training are — or at least ought to be — vastly different in scope and purpose, Trump was undeterred from answering the question the way folks at home were hoping: In arguably his best moment of the debate, he honestly called out critical race theory for perpetuating racism.
When it comes to public schools (over which Trump has admittedly less control when it comes to curriculum than he does over training seminars within federal agencies), Trump has proposed a better sort of alternative, teaching schoolchildren about the rich history that made America great while not marginalizing white children or any other race.
Shouldn’t that be the aim of any curriculum concerned with equality?
The president instinctively understands how toxic it is to teach one race that they should be denied a voice because of their perceived privilege, or that any inequality of outcome is related only to oppression rather than personal responsibility.
The country is not fatally flawed because of its history of racism, but rather fortified by its ultimate triumph over actual systemic racism and transformation into a society that treats everyone equally under the law.
Of course, Trump’s critics will paint him as a vicious racist despite the fact that he is brave enough to fight for true equality that does not discriminate based on skin color — white, black, brown or otherwise.
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--2020-09-30--Ben Shapiro: Here’s What Finally Made Us Leave California

My family and my company are leaving California .
My parents moved to California four decades ago .
I grew up here .
For 33 of the 36 years I ’ ve spent on this planet , I ’ ve lived here .
I was born at St. Joseph ’ s in Burbank ; I attended elementary school at Edison Elementary ; I went to college at UCLA .
I co-founded a major media company here , with 75 employees in Los Angeles .
I met my wife here ; all three of my kids are native Californians .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country .
The climate is incredible .
The scenery is amazing .
The people are generally warm , and there ’ s an enormous amount to do .
We ’ re leaving because all the benefits of California have steadily eroded — and then suddenly collapsed .
Meanwhile , all the costs of California have steadily increased — and then suddenly skyrocketed .
It can be difficult to spot the incremental encroachment of a terrible disease , but once the final ravages set in , it becomes obvious that the illness is fatal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , where bad governance has turned a would-be paradise into a burgeoning dystopia .
When my family moved to North Hollywood , I was 11 .
We lived in a safe , clean suburb .
Yes , Los Angeles had serious crime and homelessness problems , but those were problems relegated to pockets of the city — problems that , with good governance , we thought could eventually be healed .
Instead , the government allowed those problems to metastasize .
As of 2011 , Los Angeles County counted fewer than 40,000 homeless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had skyrocketed to 66,000 .
Suburban areas have become the sites of homeless encampments .
Nearly every city underpass hosts a tent city ; the city , in its kindness , has put out porta-potties to reduce the possibility of COVID-19 spread .
Police are forbidden in most cases from either moving transients or even moving their garbage .
Nearly every public space in Los Angeles has become a repository for open waste , needles and trash .
The most beautiful areas of Los Angeles , from Santa Monica beach to my suburb @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have personally witnessed drug use , public urination and public nudity .
Looters were allowed free reign in the middle of the city during the Black Lives Matter riots ; Rodeo Drive was closed at 1 p.m. , and citizens were curfewed at 6 p.m. To combat these trends , local and state governments have gamed the statistics , reclassifying offenses and letting prisoners go free .
Meanwhile , the police have become targets for public ire .
In July , the city of Los Angeles slashed police funding , cutting the force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decade .
At the same time , taxes have risen .
California ’ s top marginal income tax rate is now 13.3 percent ; legislators want to raise it to 16.8 percent .
California is also home to a 7.25 percent sales tax , a 50-cent gas tax and a bevy of other taxes that drain the wallet and burden business .
RELATED : John Stossel : Stupid Government Policies , Not Climate Change , Are To Blame for Wildfires California has the worst regulatory climate in America , according to CEO Magazine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The public-sector unions essentially make public policy , running up the debt while providing fewer and fewer actual services .
California ’ s public education system is a massive failure , and even its once-great colleges are now burdened by the stupidities of political correctness , including an unwillingness to use standardized testing .
And still , the state legislature is dominated by Democrats .
California is not on a trajectory toward recovery ; it is on a trajectory toward oblivion .
Taxpayers are moving out — now including my family and my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic and the widespread rioting and looting , outmigration jumped 38 percent , rising for the seventh straight year .
That number will increase again this year .
I want my kids to grow up safe .
I want them to grow up in a community with a future , with more freedom and safety than I grew up with .
California makes that impossible .
So , goodbye , Golden State .
Thanks for the memories .
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owners of this website .
If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal , you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

My family and my company are leaving California.
It’s heartbreaking.
My parents moved to California four decades ago. I grew up here. For 33 of the 36 years I’ve spent on this planet, I’ve lived here.
I was born at St. Joseph’s in Burbank; I attended elementary school at Edison Elementary; I went to college at UCLA. I co-founded a major media company here, with 75 employees in Los Angeles. I met my wife here; all three of my kids are native Californians.
This is the most beautiful state in the country. The climate is incredible. The scenery is amazing. The people are generally warm, and there’s an enormous amount to do.
And we’re leaving.
We’re leaving because all the benefits of California have steadily eroded — and then suddenly collapsed. Meanwhile, all the costs of California have steadily increased — and then suddenly skyrocketed.
It can be difficult to spot the incremental encroachment of a terrible disease, but once the final ravages set in, it becomes obvious that the illness is fatal. So, too, with California, where bad governance has turned a would-be paradise into a burgeoning dystopia.
Do you think more businesses will be leaving California in coming months? 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% (440 Votes) No: 0% (2 Votes)
When my family moved to North Hollywood, I was 11. We lived in a safe, clean suburb. Yes, Los Angeles had serious crime and homelessness problems, but those were problems relegated to pockets of the city — problems that, with good governance, we thought could eventually be healed.
Instead, the government allowed those problems to metastasize. As of 2011, Los Angeles County counted fewer than 40,000 homeless; as of 2020, that number had skyrocketed to 66,000. Suburban areas have become the sites of homeless encampments. Nearly every city underpass hosts a tent city; the city, in its kindness, has put out porta-potties to reduce the possibility of COVID-19 spread.
Police are forbidden in most cases from either moving transients or even moving their garbage. Nearly every public space in Los Angeles has become a repository for open waste, needles and trash.
The most beautiful areas of Los Angeles, from Santa Monica beach to my suburb, have become wrecks. My children have personally witnessed drug use, public urination and public nudity. Looters were allowed free reign in the middle of the city during the Black Lives Matter riots; Rodeo Drive was closed at 1 p.m., and citizens were curfewed at 6 p.m.
To combat these trends, local and state governments have gamed the statistics, reclassifying offenses and letting prisoners go free. Meanwhile, the police have become targets for public ire. In July, the city of Los Angeles slashed police funding, cutting the force to its lowest levels in over a decade.
At the same time, taxes have risen. California’s top marginal income tax rate is now 13.3 percent; legislators want to raise it to 16.8 percent. California is also home to a 7.25 percent sales tax, a 50-cent gas tax and a bevy of other taxes that drain the wallet and burden business.
California has the worst regulatory climate in America, according to CEO Magazine’s survey of 650 CEOs. The public-sector unions essentially make public policy, running up the debt while providing fewer and fewer actual services.
California’s public education system is a massive failure, and even its once-great colleges are now burdened by the stupidities of political correctness, including an unwillingness to use standardized testing.
And still, the state legislature is dominated by Democrats. California is not on a trajectory toward recovery; it is on a trajectory toward oblivion.
Taxpayers are moving out — now including my family and my company. In 2019, before the pandemic and the widespread rioting and looting, outmigration jumped 38 percent, rising for the seventh straight year. That number will increase again this year.
I want my kids to grow up safe. I want them to grow up in a community with a future, with more freedom and safety than I grew up with. California makes that impossible.
So, goodbye, Golden State. Thanks for the memories.
© 2020 CREATORS.COM
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-09-30--Biden Accidentally Exposes Exactly What Dems Want with the Supreme Court

The Sept. 18 death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg kicked off what may soon be known as the most bitterly partisan battle Capitol Hill has seen in decades .
On Tuesday night at the first of three 2020 presidential debates , however , Democratic challenger and former Vice President Joe Biden unknowingly revealed exactly the reason conservatives can not allow the American left to win out on that front — the utter disregard its members have for proper constitutional law .
Asked by Fox News moderator Chris Wallace to explain his opposition to recently tapped Trump administration Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ addressed nothing of substance with regard to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit judge ’ s fitness to serve in the role , instead highlighting concerns her confirmation may impede and roll back progressive policy-making efforts .
“ What ’ s at stake here is the president has made it clear he wants to get rid of the Affordable Care Act .
He ’ s been running on that .
He ran on that and he has been governing on that , ” Biden said at the first presidential debate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Supreme Court right now trying to get rid of the Affordable Care Act , which will strip 20 million people from having insurance.
” “ I ’ m not opposed to the justice .
She seems like a very fine person .
But she ’ s written before she went on the bench , which is her right , that she thinks that the Affordable Care Act is not constitutional , ” he added .
“ And if it ’ s struck down , what happens ?
Women ’ s rights are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could … pay more money because she has a pre-existing condition of pregnancy.
” The claim epitomized a variety of previous remarks made by Biden and his Democratic allies , many of whom have already promised to oppose the nomination of Barrett over its proximity to the presidential election or partisan policy disagreements with the judge .
Of course , the figures opposing on policy grounds have almost all managed to misunderstand or misconstrue Barrett ’ s judicial public positions on previous Supreme Court rulings .
Take , for instance , Barrett ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the Affordable Care Act , which she voiced in a 2017 legal review published by Notre Dame Law School .
It had not been a distaste for the legislation itself , but the grounds upon which it was upheld by the Roberts court in “ National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius ” that led the legal scholar to argue the court ruled incorrectly .
“ [ Chief Justice John ] Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute , ” Barrett wrote .
“ He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health insurance as a tax , which permitted him to sustain the statute as a valid exercise of the taxing power ; had he treated the payment as the statute did — as a penalty — he would have had to invalidate the statute as lying beyond Congress ’ s commerce power.
” Such a position falls comfortably under the umbrella of Barrett ’ s self-described reverence for originalism — a judicial philosophy in which the original text of the Constitution and intent of the Founding Fathers is deemed the highest value when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adherent to current party orthodoxy have no understanding or respect for the original intent of the Founding Fathers , nor do they care to discuss law or judicial decision on legal merit alone .
The modern Democratic policymaker looks at Barrett ’ s opposition to their favored legislation and sees not judicial principle , but the prospect of yet another opposing partisan and conservative roadblock on the nation ’ s highest court — a reality exemplified in recent comments from by Sens .
Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Kamala Harris of California , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schumer of New York .
“ Because of Justice Ginsburg , people could get the job of their dreams , earn equal pay for their work , marry the person they love , and enjoy the full rights and privileges of citizenship that they deserve — free of discrimination , ” Harris tweeted Tuesday .
The statement was quickly followed up by Schumer , who similarly wrote , “ If Judge Barrett is confirmed , a far-right majority on the court could turn back the clock on health care , women ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights , civil rights , LGBTQ+ rights , environmental protections , DACA , and more .
Democrats are fighting for the American people.
” That Senate Democrats remain unanimous in suggesting the stoppage of this nomination will make or break their policy efforts going forward is incredibly telling , however , revealing just how distorted the left ’ s view of the Supreme Court really is .
For them , the federal judiciary is nothing more than another avenue by which to move the political football .
Previous efforts to ensure the confirmation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Elena Kagan — and recent threats to pack the court only serve to solidify the notion that , when Democrats consider court appointments , judicial philosophy is not on the table so much as implications for policy .
Should Senate Republicans blink and fail to confirm Judge Barrett this fall , such is the future of the federal judiciary : a distorted purpose , a disregard for the law and a deep-seated politicization of the dignified third branch of government .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our @ @ @ @ @ @ @

The Sept. 18 death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg kicked off what may soon be known as the most bitterly partisan battle Capitol Hill has seen in decades.
On Tuesday night at the first of three 2020 presidential debates, however, Democratic challenger and former Vice President Joe Biden unknowingly revealed exactly the reason conservatives cannot allow the American left to win out on that front — the utter disregard its members have for proper constitutional law.
Asked by Fox News moderator Chris Wallace to explain his opposition to recently tapped Trump administration Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, Biden addressed nothing of substance with regard to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit judge’s fitness to serve in the role, instead highlighting concerns her confirmation may impede and roll back progressive policy-making efforts.
“What’s at stake here is the president has made it clear he wants to get rid of the Affordable Care Act. He’s been running on that. He ran on that and he has been governing on that,” Biden said at the first presidential debate Tuesday. “He’s in the Supreme Court right now trying to get rid of the Affordable Care Act, which will strip 20 million people from having insurance.”
“I’m not opposed to the justice. She seems like a very fine person. But she’s written before she went on the bench, which is her right, that she thinks that the Affordable Care Act is not constitutional,” he added.
“And if it’s struck down, what happens? Women’s rights are fundamentally changed. Once again a woman could … pay more money because she has a pre-existing condition of pregnancy.”
Joe Biden argues for waiting until after the election to fill Supreme Court vacancy, and focuses on Amy Coney Barrett’s opposition to the Affordable Care Act: “The insurance companies are going to love this” https://t.co/XoIMrd5i2b pic.twitter.com/buGqza5uCk — CBS News (@CBSNews) September 30, 2020
The claim epitomized a variety of previous remarks made by Biden and his Democratic allies, many of whom have already promised to oppose the nomination of Barrett over its proximity to the presidential election or partisan policy disagreements with the judge.
Do you think Democrats are distorting the role of the Supreme Court? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 99% (4637 Votes) No: 1% (37 Votes)
Of course, the figures opposing on policy grounds have almost all managed to misunderstand or misconstrue Barrett’s judicial public positions on previous Supreme Court rulings.
Take, for instance, Barrett’s apparently controversial and allegedly partisan opinion on the Affordable Care Act, which she voiced in a 2017 legal review published by Notre Dame Law School. It had not been a distaste for the legislation itself, but the grounds upon which it was upheld by the Roberts court in “National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius” that led the legal scholar to argue the court ruled incorrectly.
“[Chief Justice John] Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute,” Barrett wrote. “He construed the penalty imposed on those without health insurance as a tax, which permitted him to sustain the statute as a valid exercise of the taxing power; had he treated the payment as the statute did — as a penalty — he would have had to invalidate the statute as lying beyond Congress’s commerce power.”
Such a position falls comfortably under the umbrella of Barrett’s self-described reverence for originalism — a judicial philosophy in which the original text of the Constitution and intent of the Founding Fathers is deemed the highest value when assessing the constitutionality of legislation.
Coincidentally, therein lies the problem.
Democrats adherent to current party orthodoxy have no understanding or respect for the original intent of the Founding Fathers, nor do they care to discuss law or judicial decision on legal merit alone.
The modern Democratic policymaker looks at Barrett’s opposition to their favored legislation and sees not judicial principle, but the prospect of yet another opposing partisan and conservative roadblock on the nation’s highest court — a reality exemplified in recent comments from by Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Kamala Harris of California, as well as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York.
I will not be meeting with Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee. We need to treat this nomination like the illegitimate power grab it is. pic.twitter.com/KwmtQ27miP — Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) September 29, 2020
“Because of Justice Ginsburg, people could get the job of their dreams, earn equal pay for their work, marry the person they love, and enjoy the full rights and privileges of citizenship that they deserve — free of discrimination,” Harris tweeted Tuesday.
“Her legacy is at stake.”
Because of Justice Ginsburg, people could get the job of their dreams, earn equal pay for their work, marry the person they love, and enjoy the full rights and privileges of citizenship that they deserve—free of discrimination. Her legacy is at stake. — Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) September 29, 2020
The statement was quickly followed up by Schumer, who similarly wrote, “If Judge Barrett is confirmed, a far-right majority on the court could turn back the clock on health care, women’s rights, workers’ rights, voting rights, civil rights, LGBTQ+ rights, environmental protections, DACA, and more. Democrats are fighting for the American people.”
If Judge Barrett is confirmed, a far-right majority on the court could turn back the clock on health care, women’s rights, workers’ rights, voting rights, civil rights, LGBTQ+ rights, environmental protections, DACA, and more. Democrats are fighting for the American people. — Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) September 29, 2020
That Senate Democrats remain unanimous in suggesting the stoppage of this nomination will make or break their policy efforts going forward is incredibly telling, however, revealing just how distorted the left’s view of the Supreme Court really is.
For them, the federal judiciary is nothing more than another avenue by which to move the political football.
Previous efforts to ensure the confirmation of activist judges — like Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — and recent threats to pack the court only serve to solidify the notion that, when Democrats consider court appointments, judicial philosophy is not on the table so much as implications for policy.
Should Senate Republicans blink and fail to confirm Judge Barrett this fall, such is the future of the federal judiciary: a distorted purpose, a disregard for the law and a deep-seated politicization of the dignified third branch of government.
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--2020-09-30--Tim Graham: New PBS Special Literally Compares Trained Killer Trump to Halo-Wearing Biden

Here ’ s Exhibit A for how shameless PBS looks during the fall presidential election campaign .
On Sept. 22 , PBS ’ “ Frontline ” aired a two-hour documentary on the presidential election called “ The Choice , ” as it does every four years .
The quick review : Donald Trump is a vicious “ killer ” and bully .
Joe Biden is “ Obama ’ s trusted partner.
” It began with President Trump ’ s hostile experts such as biographer Gwenda Blair , who said : “ Donald ’ s father ’ s overall message to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; be a killer .
Do what you have to to win.
” Narrator Will Lyman added Trump “ was determined to live up to his father ’ s ideal : Be a ‘ killer . '
” Young Donald was sent to military school , where it was a “ five-year lesson in how to be a bully.
” Washington Post reporter Marc Fisher set the scene : “ Donald Trump yelled at his classmates .
He pushed them around .
He even used a broomstick as a weapon against classmates who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he told them what to do .
… He became one of the student leaders who had a number of kids under him in the dormitories , and he ruled the dormitory life with an iron fist.
” The narrator summed up : “ Inside that brutal world , Donald had found his place .
… With his father and mother by his side , Donald graduated .
He ’ d become a killer , learned the power of bullying to get ahead , a method he ’ d carry into the future.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the tone changed entirely .
“ Joey Biden ’ s crisis was stuttering , ” narrated Lyman .
The viewer was told a cruel nun at his Catholic school mocked his stuttering .
His sister , Valerie Biden Owens , touted how their mother went to the nun and said , “ If you ever , ever , ever do that again , I ’ m going to come back , and I ’ m going to knock your bonnet right off your head .
Do we understand each other ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , harassed , ridiculed : He was hell-bent on beating the stutter .
… He kept pushing — against the stutter , the bullies — and it paid off.
” All this overt pro-Democratic messaging was just in the first 15 minutes of the film .
It did not improve .
Fast-forward through the biographies .
After tugging heartstrings by covering all the tragic deaths in Biden ’ s family — the loss of his wife and daughter in a car accident in 1972 , and his son Beau Biden to cancer in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ playing the “ Access Hollywood ” tape and talking about how deeply racist his family is .
Biden got a free pass on anything he has ever done that would upset minorities , from opposition to school busing in the 1970s to the 1994 crime bill .
Democrat Bakari Sellers said : “ Joe Biden has the Obama halo ; everybody knows that .
That is the cleansing of Joe Biden and everything that may have happened.
” Former Washington Post reporter Wesley Lowery added : “ Even if they don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a good-faith actor .
That means a lot .
To a community of people who have been betrayed and oppressed and tricked and lied to , someone who you can trust at their word , that goes a very long way.
” RELATED : Victor Davis Hanson : The Media 's Treatment of Trump 's COVID Adviser Dr. Scott Atlas Is Out of Line The concluding sermon came from another Washington Post reporter , Dan Balz : “ Policy is not the choice that ’ s on the ballot this year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is a choice of temperament .
It is a choice of persona and personality .
That ’ s always a factor in our presidential campaigns , but I don ’ t think it ’ s ever been as big a factor as it will be in November.
” Policy is not on the ballot ?
Forget defunding the police , “ Medicare for All , ” the “ Green New Deal ” or gun control .
Don ’ t vote for the “ killer.
” Vote for the man with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not subtle .
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website .
If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal , you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Here’s Exhibit A for how shameless PBS looks during the fall presidential election campaign. On Sept. 22, PBS’ “Frontline” aired a two-hour documentary on the presidential election called “The Choice,” as it does every four years.
The quick review: Donald Trump is a vicious “killer” and bully. Joe Biden is “Obama’s trusted partner.”
It began with President Trump’s hostile experts such as biographer Gwenda Blair, who said: “Donald’s father’s overall message to his children was … compete; win; be a killer. Do what you have to to win.” Narrator Will Lyman added Trump “was determined to live up to his father’s ideal: Be a ‘killer.'”
Young Donald was sent to military school, where it was a “five-year lesson in how to be a bully.”
Washington Post reporter Marc Fisher set the scene: “Donald Trump yelled at his classmates. He pushed them around. He even used a broomstick as a weapon against classmates who didn’t listen to him when he told them what to do. … He became one of the student leaders who had a number of kids under him in the dormitories, and he ruled the dormitory life with an iron fist.”
The narrator summed up: “Inside that brutal world, Donald had found his place. … With his father and mother by his side, Donald graduated. He’d become a killer, learned the power of bullying to get ahead, a method he’d carry into the future.”
Then the documentary turned to Biden, and the tone changed entirely. “Joey Biden’s crisis was stuttering,” narrated Lyman.
The viewer was told a cruel nun at his Catholic school mocked his stuttering. His sister, Valerie Biden Owens, touted how their mother went to the nun and said, “If you ever, ever, ever do that again, I’m going to come back, and I’m going to knock your bonnet right off your head. Do we understand each other?”
The narrator intoned: “Bullied, harassed, ridiculed: He was hell-bent on beating the stutter. … He kept pushing — against the stutter, the bullies — and it paid off.”
Do you think PBS is just as biased as the rest of the establishment media? 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% (66 Votes) No: 3% (2 Votes)
All this overt pro-Democratic messaging was just in the first 15 minutes of the film. It did not improve.
Fast-forward through the biographies. After tugging heartstrings by covering all the tragic deaths in Biden’s family — the loss of his wife and daughter in a car accident in 1972, and his son Beau Biden to cancer in 2015 — the documentary taunted Trump by playing the “Access Hollywood” tape and talking about how deeply racist his family is.
Biden got a free pass on anything he has ever done that would upset minorities, from opposition to school busing in the 1970s to the 1994 crime bill.
Democrat Bakari Sellers said: “Joe Biden has the Obama halo; everybody knows that. That is the cleansing of Joe Biden and everything that may have happened.”
Former Washington Post reporter Wesley Lowery added: “Even if they don’t agree with him, they think he’s a good-faith actor. That means a lot. To a community of people who have been betrayed and oppressed and tricked and lied to, someone who you can trust at their word, that goes a very long way.”
The concluding sermon came from another Washington Post reporter, Dan Balz: “Policy is not the choice that’s on the ballot this year. It is a choice of character. It is a choice of temperament. It is a choice of persona and personality. That’s always a factor in our presidential campaigns, but I don’t think it’s ever been as big a factor as it will be in November.”
Policy is not on the ballot? Forget defunding the police, “Medicare for All,” the “Green New Deal” or gun control.
Don’t vote for the “killer.” Vote for the man with the “Obama halo.” This hustle is not subtle.
© 2020 CREATORS.COM
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-09-30--Op-Ed: Who Is Behind All of This?

Op-Ed: Who Is Behind All of This?

As soon as she learned of Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s death , she ran to the Satanic Temple , entered for the first time and immediately became a Satanist .
The usual .
HuffPost tells us this story so nonchalantly as if one were accustomed to making decisions like this .
You know — getting a haircut , having a beer , allying with Satan .
So the left ’ s new bleaching endeavor is to normalize the devil .
The grandmothers of our grandmothers used to say , “ You are judged by the company you keep.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and mother in her 40s who says she is “ not the type of person who would normally consider becoming a Satanist , ” which is reassuring , because for a moment we thought that Jamie was one of those people who would consider becoming a Satanist .
But just in case we doubt her word , in the article she is quick to explain that she often goes for a walk with her children to get ice cream and that she has a garage full of “ scooters and soccer balls.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us that she is a normal , loving mother , and that if she has joined the Satanic Temple it is only because Ginsburg ’ s death left her no alternative .
I suppose that praying for the eternal rest of her soul was not an option for Jamie , who from now on — perhaps she is unaware — is the devil ’ s advocate .
Not to discredit her story : It is likely that the devil called Jamie urgently when he learned that Amy Coney Barrett could take the place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s open bar of death in the leading Western power .
After all , Satan can ’ t stand beauty , hates life and squirms at generosity .
He hates Barrett and her beautiful family , and I highly doubt that he has the same minimal sympathy for a guy like Trump , who has ended U.S. warmongering and campaigned for the lives of the unborn .
Unless you have a soul the color of soot , it ’ s impossible not to admire Barrett .
Her style .
Her way of talking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sincere convictions .
She represents me .
And she represents anyone who seeks beauty , goodness and truth .
I apologize for my frankness : Ginsburg may have been an honest and hardworking lady , but the ideas she supported were a pile of crap .
No one has said that charity should be at odds with the truth .
Ginsburg voted for all the left ’ s causes that seek to destroy the family and murder the weakest .
It ’ s no wonder Jamie ran into the arms of the Satanists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as she believes , but rather good .
And she was not running toward anti-fascist rebellion but toward evil .
Nevertheless , I don ’ t blame her : She may not know it , but Satan is the king of lies and has obviously deceived her .
Of course , the devil best deceives those who are willing to be deceived , that is , someone who says they are “ not the type of person who would normally consider becoming a Satanist.
” RELATED : Satanist Ex-Soldier Gets 2 1/2 Years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Crimes I have bad news for the Democrats .
Satan is a dangerous ally .
He — and in this he agrees with Kamala Harris — hates life , hates marriage and particularly hates the family , because it is the only moral education that is not in the hands of progressive and manipulative educators .
Imagine the gagging Baphomet must have suffered when he saw Barrett leaving the house with all of those beautiful , multiracial , kind and very well-behaved children .
HuffPost can dedicate as many articles as it wishes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its determination to deny that the Satanic Temple has anything to do with Satan , which is like saying that Las Vegas has nothing to do with casinos .
Rolling Stone tried it in August : “ The Satanic Temple is a religion that believes in benevolence and empathy among all people , rejects tyrannical authority , and advocates for common sense and justice.
” In the 19th century , even a wicked man like Baudelaire warned his favorite opium smokers of the present and the future : “ The greatest trick the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he doesn ’ t exist.
” These Satanic Temple guys live surrounded by Satanic symbology , demonic rituals and proclamations that seem to be drawn from the Biden-Harris moral program .
They say they don ’ t worship Satan and I can ’ t think of a better way to worship him than by lying to themselves and others .
Just to give you a little perspective : Churches have been burning for months under strange circumstances .
Evil is raging against Trump , a president who decides to bet on life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett .
You can leave the blindfold on as long as you want and keep reading HuffPost .
You can continue to hate Trump and think that Biden is an exemplary Christian .
In reality , this is a free country and you can do whatever you want as long as you bear the consequences , including watching the Democrats ruin your country ’ s economy in less than six months .
But the truth is the roots of evil are being stirred , the most diabolical thing in society , and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of something — even a small word or some fleeting gesture — we are doing well at this crucial moment in history .
That is the beautiful part of this sad story .
As for everything else , Jamie ’ s supposedly casual and normalized path , feeling the call of the Satanic Temple and recounting it with proselytizing pride in the news , says little about Jamie but a lot about who is really behind it all .
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the owners of this website .
If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal , you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

As soon as she learned of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, she ran to the Satanic Temple, entered for the first time and immediately became a Satanist. The usual.
HuffPost tells us this story so nonchalantly as if one were accustomed to making decisions like this. You know — getting a haircut, having a beer, allying with Satan.
So the left’s new bleaching endeavor is to normalize the devil. The grandmothers of our grandmothers used to say, “You are judged by the company you keep.”
The protagonist is Jamie, a lawyer and mother in her 40s who says she is “not the type of person who would normally consider becoming a Satanist,” which is reassuring, because for a moment we thought that Jamie was one of those people who would consider becoming a Satanist.
But just in case we doubt her word, in the article she is quick to explain that she often goes for a walk with her children to get ice cream and that she has a garage full of “scooters and soccer balls.”
I think she is trying to tell us that she is a normal, loving mother, and that if she has joined the Satanic Temple it is only because Ginsburg’s death left her no alternative. I suppose that praying for the eternal rest of her soul was not an option for Jamie, who from now on — perhaps she is unaware — is the devil’s advocate.
Not to discredit her story: It is likely that the devil called Jamie urgently when he learned that Amy Coney Barrett could take the place of Ginsburg and end the culture’s open bar of death in the leading Western power.
After all, Satan can’t stand beauty, hates life and squirms at generosity. He hates Barrett and her beautiful family, and I highly doubt that he has the same minimal sympathy for a guy like Trump, who has ended U.S. warmongering and campaigned for the lives of the unborn.
Unless you have a soul the color of soot, it’s impossible not to admire Barrett. Her style. Her way of talking. Her precious family. And her sincere convictions.
Can you believe that someone would turn to Satanism because of politics? 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: 52% (278 Votes) No: 48% (253 Votes)
She represents me. And she represents anyone who seeks beauty, goodness and truth. I apologize for my frankness: Ginsburg may have been an honest and hardworking lady, but the ideas she supported were a pile of crap.
No one has said that charity should be at odds with the truth. Ginsburg voted for all the left’s causes that seek to destroy the family and murder the weakest.
It’s no wonder Jamie ran into the arms of the Satanists. She was not fleeing fascism, as she believes, but rather good. And she was not running toward anti-fascist rebellion but toward evil.
Nevertheless, I don’t blame her: She may not know it, but Satan is the king of lies and has obviously deceived her.
Of course, the devil best deceives those who are willing to be deceived, that is, someone who says they are “not the type of person who would normally consider becoming a Satanist.”
I have bad news for the Democrats. Satan is a dangerous ally. He — and in this he agrees with Kamala Harris — hates life, hates marriage and particularly hates the family, because it is the only moral education that is not in the hands of progressive and manipulative educators.
Imagine the gagging Baphomet must have suffered when he saw Barrett leaving the house with all of those beautiful, multiracial, kind and very well-behaved children.
HuffPost can dedicate as many articles as it wishes to normalizing Satanism. And that includes its determination to deny that the Satanic Temple has anything to do with Satan, which is like saying that Las Vegas has nothing to do with casinos.
Rolling Stone tried it in August: “The Satanic Temple is a religion that believes in benevolence and empathy among all people, rejects tyrannical authority, and advocates for common sense and justice.”
In the 19th century, even a wicked man like Baudelaire warned his favorite opium smokers of the present and the future: “The greatest trick the devil ever pulls is convincing the world that he doesn’t exist.”
These Satanic Temple guys live surrounded by Satanic symbology, demonic rituals and proclamations that seem to be drawn from the Biden-Harris moral program. They say they don’t worship Satan and I can’t think of a better way to worship him than by lying to themselves and others.
Just to give you a little perspective: Churches have been burning for months under strange circumstances. Evil is raging against Trump, a president who decides to bet on life and protect the unborn. And now Barrett.
You can leave the blindfold on as long as you want and keep reading HuffPost. You can continue to hate Trump and think that Biden is an exemplary Christian.
In reality, this is a free country and you can do whatever you want as long as you bear the consequences, including watching the Democrats ruin your country’s economy in less than six months.
But the truth is the roots of evil are being stirred, the most diabolical thing in society, and it may be that it’s because of something — even a small word or some fleeting gesture — we are doing well at this crucial moment in history. That is the beautiful part of this sad story.
As for everything else, Jamie’s supposedly casual and normalized path, feeling the call of the Satanic Temple and recounting it with proselytizing pride in the news, says little about Jamie but a lot about who is really behind it all.
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-09-30--Harris Takes After Biden, Dodges Question on Packing Court

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his running mate , Sen. Kamala Harris of California , continue to dodge questions about whether they intend to pack the Supreme Court with more justices , should voters choose them in November .
While Biden has now refused to answer the question on more than one occasion , Harris on Tuesday also sidestepped questions about landing the high court with more justices following Biden ’ s debate in Cleveland with President Donald Trump .
During the debate , Biden told moderator Chris Wallace about court packing , “ Whatever position I take on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Biden said .
“ The issue is the American people should speak .
You should go out and vote .
You ’ re in voting now .
… I ’ m not going to answer the question.
” Biden also refused to answer the question on Sunday when speaking to reporters .
Biden sidestepped the same question just days before that on Sept. 21 in an interview with WBAY-TV .
If voters were seeking clarity on the issue with Harris Tuesday night , they were disappointed .
John Dickerson with CBS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the debate , and described Biden ’ s answer as “ a straight-up dodge.
” “ Well , I think he ’ s very clear , John , which is that he is focused , as we all should be , on the next 35 days , ” Harris said .
“ He is focused on , one , the process by which we ’ re even having the conversation about the United States Supreme Court.
” RELATED : Trump 's Savaging of Critical Race Theory Was the Best Point He Made in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Harris would get to touching the issue , which would violate all norms with regard to the court .
Harris had another chance later Tuesday night to offer clarity when speaking with CNN ’ s Jake Tapper about the issue .
Tapper reminded Harris that Democrats are calling for packing the court , should Senate Republicans vote to confirm SCOTUS nominee Amy Coney Barrett .
“ Neither you , nor Joe Biden , are willing to give a straight answer about whether or not you ’ re willing to entertain [ the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ We are 35 days away from an election that is probably the most important election of our lifetime and , our children ’ s lifetime , and there is nothing about these next 35 days that Joe or I will take for granted , ” Harris said .
“ And so the focus right now is on reminding people that we have this election that is very much in play.
” Harris went on to state that the nominating process of Barrett is in “ the spirit of hypocrisy , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ packing the high court , which Tapper surprisingly noted .
Tapper told Harris , “ I will respectfully note that you also declined to answer that question.
” “ I don ’ t understand , Abby , why they won ’ t answer that question , ” Tapper commented to his network colleague , Abby Phillip .
For once , Tapper and a plurality of conservatives and other undecided voters might be on the same page .
Why can ’ t Biden or Harris just say , one way or the other , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threats from Democrats in the House and Senate about adding more justices to the high court ?
Is this the Democrats ’ presidential version of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ’ s infamous 2010 plea that lawmakers needed to first pass a behemoth health care reform bill so the country could find out what was in it ?
Does the country have to elect two radical leftist candidates to the White House in order to find out if they intend to further violate structural norms with regard to the judiciary ?
Not only has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regard to his policy positions and his health , but now he and Harris have outright refused to answer questions about how they will govern if they are elected .
At this point we can probably assume statehood for Puerto Rico , Washington , D.C. , and even Seattle ’ s ill-fated CHOP might potentially be on the horizon , giving Democrats control of the Senate forever and always .
Nothing is off the table .
Of course , by continually refusing to answer the question about packing the Supreme Court , at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Harris have essentially answered it .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris of California, continue to dodge questions about whether they intend to pack the Supreme Court with more justices, should voters choose them in November.
While Biden has now refused to answer the question on more than one occasion, Harris on Tuesday also sidestepped questions about landing the high court with more justices following Biden’s debate in Cleveland with President Donald Trump.
During the debate, Biden told moderator Chris Wallace about court packing, “Whatever position I take on that, that will become the issue,” Biden said. “The issue is the American people should speak. You should go out and vote. You’re in voting now. … I’m not going to answer the question.”
Joe Biden continues to leave the door open to packing the Court. Unless Cal Cunningham denounces Biden, then North Carolinians should fully expect him to side with his benefactor Schumer & vote to pack the Court with activists who will impose the liberal agenda from the bench. pic.twitter.com/qbGX4N5FIa — Thom Tillis (@ThomTillis) September 30, 2020
Biden also refused to answer the question on Sunday when speaking to reporters.
Joe Biden refuses to say whether he’d pack the court because his answer would become “a big issue”https://t.co/lebpOnxDh1 pic.twitter.com/CFWGkm0U7I — RNC Research (@RNCResearch) September 27, 2020
Biden sidestepped the same question just days before that on Sept. 21 in an interview with WBAY-TV.
1) Democrats are the ones vowing to pack the court, unprompted 2) Following the constitution is not “violating” the constitution Biden won’t answer the question because he has no control over his radical base, who are after power by any means necessarypic.twitter.com/exqn0VnDwN — Elizabeth Harrington (@LizRNC) September 24, 2020
If voters were seeking clarity on the issue with Harris Tuesday night, they were disappointed.
John Dickerson with CBS News questioned Harris about the issue following the debate, and described Biden’s answer as “a straight-up dodge.”
“Well, I think he’s very clear, John, which is that he is focused, as we all should be, on the next 35 days,” Harris said. “He is focused on, one, the process by which we’re even having the conversation about the United States Supreme Court.”
CBS News’ John Dickerson calls out Democrat Sen. Kamala Harris for Joe Biden’s “straight up dodge” on packing the Supreme Court pic.twitter.com/ssTIaQx6Rq — Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) September 30, 2020
That was as close as Harris would get to touching the issue, which would violate all norms with regard to the court.
Harris had another chance later Tuesday night to offer clarity when speaking with CNN’s Jake Tapper about the issue.
Tapper reminded Harris that Democrats are calling for packing the court, should Senate Republicans vote to confirm SCOTUS nominee Amy Coney Barrett.
“Neither you, nor Joe Biden, are willing to give a straight answer about whether or not you’re willing to entertain [the idea of packing the court].”
Do you think the Biden/Harris campaign's refusal to answer questions about Supreme Court packing will hurt them with undecided voters? 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: 93% (802 Votes) No: 7% (57 Votes)
Harris again evaded the question.
“We are 35 days away from an election that is probably the most important election of our lifetime and, our children’s lifetime, and there is nothing about these next 35 days that Joe or I will take for granted,” Harris said.
“And so the focus right now is on reminding people that we have this election that is very much in play.”
Kamala Harris for the second time tonight refuses to directly answer a question about court-packing. She did not close the door on it, noting they can deal with it “later.” Tapper notes at the end that Harris dodged again. pic.twitter.com/0hCStWKZ4y — Joe Gierut (@Joe_Gierut) September 30, 2020
Harris went on to state that the nominating process of Barrett is in “the spirit of hypocrisy,” but refused to answer the question about packing the high court, which Tapper surprisingly noted.
Tapper told Harris, “I will respectfully note that you also declined to answer that question.”
“I don’t understand, Abby, why they won’t answer that question,” Tapper commented to his network colleague, Abby Phillip.
For once, Tapper and a plurality of conservatives and other undecided voters might be on the same page.
Why can’t Biden or Harris just say, one way or the other, if they intend to make good on threats from Democrats in the House and Senate about adding more justices to the high court?
Is this the Democrats’ presidential version of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s infamous 2010 plea that lawmakers needed to first pass a behemoth health care reform bill so the country could find out what was in it?
Does the country have to elect two radical leftist candidates to the White House in order to find out if they intend to further violate structural norms with regard to the judiciary?
Not only has Biden’s campaign been opaque with regard to his policy positions and his health, but now he and Harris have outright refused to answer questions about how they will govern if they are elected.
At this point we can probably assume statehood for Puerto Rico, Washington, D.C., and even Seattle’s ill-fated CHOP might potentially be on the horizon, giving Democrats control of the Senate forever and always.
Nothing is off the table.
Of course, by continually refusing to answer the question about packing the Supreme Court, at least five times cumulatively, both Biden and Harris have essentially answered it.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-09-30--Video: Amid Economic Turmoil, AOC Demands Cuomo, de Blasio Raise Taxes on New Yorkers

Trump Challenges Biden To 'Name One ' Law Enforcement Group That Supports Him - Met with Total Silence

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


westernjournal--2020-09-30--Video: Debate Night Preview – 4 Things To Expect as Trump Squares Off with Biden

There ’ s more to expect from tonight ’ s debate than just a blowout for Trump .
STORY : @ @ @


westernjournal--2020-09-30--Video: Trump Challenges Biden To ‘Name One’ Law Enforcement Group That Supports Him – Met with Total

Video: Trump Challenges Biden To ‘Name One’ Law Enforcement Group That Supports Him – Met with Total Silence


westernjournal--2020-09-30--California Begins Process of Awarding Reparations to Black Americans

California will develop a detailed plan for granting reparations to black Americans under a new law Gov .
Gavin Newsom signed Wednesday .
The law creates a nine-member task force to come up with proposals for how the state could provide reparations to black Americans , what form those reparations might take and who would be eligible to receive them .
The reparations would not be limited to slavery , but the law requires the task force to give special consideration for black people who are descendants of slaves .
The task force ’ s recommendations would not be binding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report to the state Legislature one year after its first meeting .
“ This is not just about California , this is about making an impact , and a dent , across the rest of the country , ” Newsom said moments after signing the bill during a ceremony broadcast on his YouTube channel .
Slavery was never legal in California .
It entered the Union in 1850 as a free state .
But the state did let slave owners bring their slaves to California .
The Legislature also passed a law making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ return them to their owners .
A similar proposal to study reparations for black Americans was first introduced in Congress in 1989 .
It never passed , but Congress held a hearing on the proposal last year .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

California will develop a detailed plan for granting reparations to black Americans under a new law Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Wednesday.
The law creates a nine-member task force to come up with proposals for how the state could provide reparations to black Americans, what form those reparations might take and who would be eligible to receive them.
The reparations would not be limited to slavery, but the law requires the task force to give special consideration for black people who are descendants of slaves.
The task force’s recommendations would not be binding. The task force must give a report to the state Legislature one year after its first meeting.
Do you think black Americans should be given reparations? 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% (2 Votes) No: 99% (147 Votes)
“This is not just about California, this is about making an impact, and a dent, across the rest of the country,” Newsom said moments after signing the bill during a ceremony broadcast on his YouTube channel.
Slavery was never legal in California. It entered the Union in 1850 as a free state.
But the state did let slave owners bring their slaves to California. The Legislature also passed a law making it legal to arrest runaway slaves and return them to their owners.
A similar proposal to study reparations for black Americans was first introduced in Congress in 1989.
It never passed, but Congress held a hearing on the proposal last year.
[jwplayer y2kA6B4M]
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--2020-09-30--Video: Trump Wins Debate in 1 Phrase – Joe, I’ve Done More in 47 Months Than You Did in 47 Years

Was this the strongest line of the night from Trump ?
STORY : http : //w-j.co/s/648f9


westernjournal--2020-09-30--Video: Trump Dares Biden To Say He’s for Law & Order, Biden Says I’m for Law ‘And a Little Bit of Or

Video: Trump Dares Biden To Say He’s for Law & Order, Biden Says I’m for Law ‘And a Little Bit of Order’


westernjournal--2020-09-30--Video: Trump Nails Chris Wallace in First 10 Minutes – ‘I Guess I’m Debating You, Not’ Biden