westernjournal--2020-09-22--CNN’s Don Lemon: ‘We’re Going To Have To Blow Up the Entire System’ and Abolish the Electoral Colleg

CNN’s Don Lemon: ‘We’re Going To Have To Blow Up the Entire System’ and Abolish the Electoral College

When your ideas are so far to the left that even Chris Cuomo thinks they ’ re radical , you may have gone too far .
That ’ s what happened during a CNN segment on Monday night .
Don Lemon suggested that Democrats must “ blow up the entire system ” if a Trump Supreme Court nominee is confirmed by the Senate before the November election — a suggestion that stunned even the very liberal Cuomo .
“ We ’ re going to have to blow up the entire system , ” Lemon told his CNN colleague .
Lemon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
TRENDING : Schiff Accused DHS Insider of Lying to Congress , Still Accepts 'Whistleblower ' Complaint from Him “ And you know what we ’ re going to have to do … .
Honestly , from what your closing argument is , you ’ re gon na have to get rid of the Electoral College .
Because the people– “ “ Because the minority in this country decides who the judges are and they decide who the president is .
Is that fair ?
” Lemon asked .
“ Well you need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Cuomo said .
“ And if Democrats , if Joe Biden wins , Democrats can stack the courts , and they can do that amendment and they can get it passed , ” Lemon argued .
“ Well you need two-thirds vote in the Congress and three-quarters of the state legislatures , ” Cuomo said , clearly incredulous at Lemon ’ s radical assertion .
“ They may be able to do that , ” Lemon said .
RELATED : CNN Hosts Lemon and Cuomo Launch Into Unhinged Rant Against Poor White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amending the Constitution with an infuriating tone of moral superiority .
It seems incredible that even someone as far left as Lemon truly believes not only that Joe Biden will be elected president but also that he will have enough congressional and state support to amend the Constitution .
As Cuomo pointed out , it takes a two-thirds vote in both the Senate and the House of Representatives ( or a constitutional convention ) and ratification by three-quarters of the states to enact an amendment .
That ’ s an extremely high bar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parties are so ideologically divided .
The left is having a massive collective meltdown over Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s death and the Supreme Court seat left vacant in her wake .
They seem to honestly believe that Republicans , by holding a hearing on a Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year , are complete hypocrites who are rewriting the Constitution by their actions .
Yes , McConnell refused to allow Obama Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland a hearing in 2016 .
However , the circumstances were markedly different : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up for re-election ; second , the Senate and the presidency were held by different parties .
If McConnell is a hypocrite for supposedly changing his opinion , so are the Democrats .
Democrats from Obama to Biden , from Nancy Pelosi to Ginsberg herself , said in 2016 that a president ’ s Supreme Court nominee should get a Senate hearing even in an election year .
Now , many on the left are threatening more rioting and violence , stacking the Supreme Court with additional justices , and even adding states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pick is confirmed in advance of November ’ s election .
Admittedly , it ’ s hard to take their comments seriously , as the left was threatening all of that even before Ginsburg ’ s death .
Nevertheless , Lemon ’ s comments expose exactly what the left wants : to tear down the systems that have served this country for over 200 years in order to create a government that will allow them to ram through a radical anti-American agenda .
And all in reaction to the president and Senate simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear that the left has completely abandoned the Constitution , as well as any pretense of belief in the ideals on which America was founded .
Lemon ’ s comments are so insane that even Chris Cuomo can ’ t get behind them .
Unfortunately , much of the left ( or at least the loudest leftist voices ) agree that the country should be razed if the leftist agenda isn ’ t adopted wholesale .
“ Blowing up the system , ” including abolishing the Electoral College , isn ’ t a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a mainstream talking point of the modern left .
That ’ s extremely concerning , to say the least .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

When your ideas are so far to the left that even Chris Cuomo thinks they’re radical, you may have gone too far.
That’s what happened during a CNN segment on Monday night. Don Lemon suggested that Democrats must “blow up the entire system” if a Trump Supreme Court nominee is confirmed by the Senate before the November election — a suggestion that stunned even the very liberal Cuomo.
“We’re going to have to blow up the entire system,” Lemon told his CNN colleague.
“I don’t know about that,” Cuomo responded.
Lemon went on to attack the Electoral College.
“And you know what we’re going to have to do …. Honestly, from what your closing argument is, you’re gonna have to get rid of the Electoral College. Because the people–“
“I don’t see it,” Cuomo interjected.
“Because the minority in this country decides who the judges are and they decide who the president is. Is that fair?” Lemon asked.
Do you think abolishing the Electoral College would be a crazy idea? 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% (854 Votes) No: 1% (12 Votes)
“Well you need a constitutional amendment to do that,” Cuomo said.
“And if Democrats, if Joe Biden wins, Democrats can stack the courts, and they can do that amendment and they can get it passed,” Lemon argued.
“Well you need two-thirds vote in the Congress and three-quarters of the state legislatures,” Cuomo said, clearly incredulous at Lemon’s radical assertion.
“They may be able to do that,” Lemon said.
“Maybe,” Cuomo conceded, still apparently incredulous.
Lemon suggested stacking the courts and amending the Constitution with an infuriating tone of moral superiority. It seems incredible that even someone as far left as Lemon truly believes not only that Joe Biden will be elected president but also that he will have enough congressional and state support to amend the Constitution.
As Cuomo pointed out, it takes a two-thirds vote in both the Senate and the House of Representatives (or a constitutional convention) and ratification by three-quarters of the states to enact an amendment. That’s an extremely high bar, especially when the two major political parties are so ideologically divided.
The left is having a massive collective meltdown over Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death and the Supreme Court seat left vacant in her wake. They seem to honestly believe that Republicans, by holding a hearing on a Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year, are complete hypocrites who are rewriting the Constitution by their actions.
Yes, McConnell refused to allow Obama Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland a hearing in 2016. However, the circumstances were markedly different: First, Obama was term-limited and not up for re-election; second, the Senate and the presidency were held by different parties.
If McConnell is a hypocrite for supposedly changing his opinion, so are the Democrats. Democrats from Obama to Biden, from Nancy Pelosi to Ginsberg herself, said in 2016 that a president’s Supreme Court nominee should get a Senate hearing even in an election year.
Now, many on the left are threatening more rioting and violence, stacking the Supreme Court with additional justices, and even adding states to claim more senators if a Trump pick is confirmed in advance of November’s election.
Admittedly, it’s hard to take their comments seriously, as the left was threatening all of that even before Ginsburg’s death.
Nevertheless, Lemon’s comments expose exactly what the left wants: to tear down the systems that have served this country for over 200 years in order to create a government that will allow them to ram through a radical anti-American agenda.
And all in reaction to the president and Senate simply doing their jobs.
It’s clear that the left has completely abandoned the Constitution, as well as any pretense of belief in the ideals on which America was founded.
Lemon’s comments are so insane that even Chris Cuomo can’t get behind them. Unfortunately, much of the left (or at least the loudest leftist voices) agree that the country should be razed if the leftist agenda isn’t adopted wholesale.
“Blowing up the system,” including abolishing the Electoral College, isn’t a fringe idea. It’s become a mainstream talking point of the modern left.
That’s extremely concerning, to say the least.
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--2020-09-22--Video: Gun Rights Group Sends $50,000 Check to Kyle Rittenhouse’s Mother for Legal Defense

Clinton , Biden , and Schumer All Push To Wait for Election Before SCOTUS Nom , But What Did They @ @ @ @

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


westernjournal--2020-09-22--Video: Harris-Backed Bail Fund Freed Suspects Accused of Child Sex Assault, Other Sickening Crimes


westernjournal--2020-09-22--Identity of Woman Accused of Attempt To Poison Trump Revealed

The Canadian woman accused of sending President Donald Trump a letter containing the poison ricin has been identified as Pascale Ferrier of Quebec .
According to court papers filed Tuesday , Ferrier sent a letter to the White House and told the president to “ give up and remove your application for this election , ” the Independent reported .
The letter was intercepted at a U.S. government facility that screens mail addressed to Trump and an investigation indicated that the letter tested positive for ricin , officials told The Associated Press .
Ricin is a highly toxic substance produced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Ferrier was taken into custody by U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents on Sunday near Buffalo , New York , where she is expected to appear in federal court to face charges .
TRENDING : Schiff Accused DHS Insider of Lying to Congress , Still Accepts 'Whistleblower ' Complaint from Him According to law enforcement officials , the woman had a gun on her at the time of her arrest , CNN reported .
Cpl .
Charles Poirier , the spokesman for the Quebec division of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House was not the only one Ferrier is accused of sending , according to CBC News .
“ We believe a total of six letters were sent : one to the White House and five to Texas.
” Hidalgo County , Texas , Sheriff Eddie Guerra confirmed that he and three of his staff received letters tainted with ricin , but luckily no one was hurt .
The fifth letter is believed to have been sent to the Mission , Texas , police department .
Ferrier was arrested in Mission , Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fake driver ’ s license , possessing an unlicensed weapon and resisting arrest , according to court records .
She pleaded not guilty and spent 20 days in jail before the charge was dismissed .
RELATED : Singer Tommy DeVito , Founding Member of The Four Seasons , Dead at Age 92 While in jail , officials found she had overstayed a six-month visa and violated the terms of her passport by committing a crime .
She was then deported , according to The New York Times .
A response on Sept. 9 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s name allegedly agreed with someone who said they have been waiting years for someone to “ shoot trump in the face.
” The original tweet has since been deleted .
“ I just read this tweet .
I agree … Nobody did anything… It ’ s time to change !
# killtrump , ” the response said , according to the Independent .
The RCMP conducted a search of a condo in Saint-Hubert in Montreal in connection with the ricin-laced envelopes , although officials have not confirmed Ferrier lived at the residence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in handling chemicals and explosives led the search in the suburban municipality , and neighbors in the surrounding buildings were evacuated .
Stéphanie Félix , who lives near Saint-Hubert , told CBC she was shocked her quiet neighborhood was at the center of the major police probe worked on by RCMP and the FBI .
“ It makes you scared , ” she said .
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , it takes a “ deliberate act ” to try and poison someone with ricin .
There is no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Because no antidote exists for ricin , the most important factor is avoiding ricin exposure in the first place , ” the CDC says .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

The Canadian woman accused of sending President Donald Trump a letter containing the poison ricin has been identified as Pascale Ferrier of Quebec.
According to court papers filed Tuesday, Ferrier sent a letter to the White House and told the president to “give up and remove your application for this election,” the Independent reported.
The letter was intercepted at a U.S. government facility that screens mail addressed to Trump and an investigation indicated that the letter tested positive for ricin, officials told The Associated Press.
Ricin is a highly toxic substance produced from the waste of making castor oil.
Ferrier was taken into custody by U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents on Sunday near Buffalo, New York, where she is expected to appear in federal court to face charges.
Woman accused of mailing ricin to Trump identified as Pascale Ferrier https://t.co/1cNdvBS5Ep pic.twitter.com/tZNSpKGUK3 — New York Post (@nypost) September 22, 2020
According to law enforcement officials, the woman had a gun on her at the time of her arrest, CNN reported.
Are you afraid of poison traveling through the mail? 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: 58% (631 Votes) No: 42% (449 Votes)
Cpl. Charles Poirier, the spokesman for the Quebec division of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, said that the letter sent to the White House was not the only one Ferrier is accused of sending, according to CBC News.
“We believe a total of six letters were sent: one to the White House and five to Texas.”
Hidalgo County, Texas, Sheriff Eddie Guerra confirmed that he and three of his staff received letters tainted with ricin, but luckily no one was hurt.
The fifth letter is believed to have been sent to the Mission, Texas, police department.
Ferrier was arrested in Mission, Texas, in March 2019 for using a fake driver’s license, unlawfully carrying a weapon and resisting arrest, according to court records.
She pleaded not guilty and spent 20 days in jail before the charge was dismissed.
While in jail, officials found she had overstayed a six-month visa and violated the terms of her passport by committing a crime. She was then deported, according to The New York Times.
A response on Sept. 9 from a Twitter account with Ferrier’s name allegedly agreed with someone who said they have been waiting years for someone to “shoot trump in the face.” The original tweet has since been deleted.
“I just read this tweet. I agree … Nobody did anything… It’s time to change! #killtrump,” the response said, according to the Independent.
The Canadian woman charged for sending ricin to President Trump & law enforcement agencies in Texas was previously deported. Pascale Ferrier tried to cross back into the US on Sunday & was found carrying a gun. She recently tweeted about killing Trump. https://t.co/nvACsTHsTP pic.twitter.com/EnuKaViQwY — Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) September 22, 2020
The RCMP conducted a search of a condo in Saint-Hubert in Montreal in connection with the ricin-laced envelopes, although officials have not confirmed Ferrier lived at the residence.
A team of officers with expertise in handling chemicals and explosives led the search in the suburban municipality, and neighbors in the surrounding buildings were evacuated.
Stéphanie Félix, who lives near Saint-Hubert, told CBC she was shocked her quiet neighborhood was at the center of the major police probe worked on by RCMP and the FBI.
“It makes you scared,” she said.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, it takes a “deliberate act” to try and poison someone with ricin.
There is no known antidote for the poison.
“Because no antidote exists for ricin, the most important factor is avoiding ricin exposure in the first place,” the CDC says.
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--2020-09-22--Biden Backer Cardi B Hit with Lawsuit Over Alleged Defamation of Trump Supporter

Rapper Cardi B , who has endorsed and recently interviewed Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden , is being sued after she allegedly defamed supporters of President Donald Trump as “ racist ” online .
The vulgar rapper ’ s sister , Hennessy Carolina , as well as Hennessy ’ s girlfriend , Michelle Diaz , become involved in a dustup at a Long Island , New York , beach on Sept. 6 , and Cardi B shared video snippets of the encounter on Twitter that day .
One man in the video was wearing a signature red “ Make America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his support for President Donald Trump .
“ You wan na know why joe got ta talk to me Candice cause I have the # 1 song & yet my sister can ’ t go to the beach in the Hampton ’ s wit out trump supporters harassing cause they were by themselves & Santa Claus was harassing my sis GF all because they are a Afro/Hispanic gay couple , ” Cardi B tweeted , along with the video of the confrontation .
The video shows a heated confrontation , but the context @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DHS Insider of Lying to Congress , Still Accepts 'Whistleblower ' Complaint from Him WARNING : The following video contains vulgar language that some viewers may find offensive .
Cardi B also later shared audio of Carolina and Diaz discussing their vision of events , in which they claim they were targeted over their race and because they are in a lesbian relationship .
In a post on Instagram , the rapper labeled the beachgoers as “ racist MAGA supporters ” and claimed they harassed her sister and her sister ’ s girlfriend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fox News reported .
Cardi B wrote that the beachgoers were supporters of the president “ that are linching [ sic ] , racist cop shootings and killing black men all cause their leader make them feel like they could do so , ” the report said .
“ My sister couldn ’ t even park her car today with out this man harassing her girlfriend soon as the camera cane [ sic ] out they started being sweet , ” she said , according to Fox News .
That Instagram post has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ According to the people on the other end of the confrontation , though , the video shared by the rapper was heavily edited , and Carolina and Diaz were the aggressors .
RELATED : Singer Tommy DeVito , Founding Member of The Four Seasons , Dead at Age 92 The video shared by Cards B showed Carolina proclaiming , “ I ’ ll beat the f— outta you.
” An attorney for the Trump supporters defended his clients in a statement to WABC-TV in New York .
“ These peaceful Suffolk County residents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Smith Point beach with their families , when rap celebrity Hennessy Carolina suddenly approached them , raging , spitting , insulting , assaulting , defaming and threatening them , all the while videotaping them because one of them wore a MAGA hat , ” attorney John Ray told the outlet .
“ Then Hennessy , Cardi B and celebrity model Michelle Diaz deviously edited the videotape and published the edited version all over social media , across the world for all to see , and maliciously falsely labeled these residents and their families @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” the attorney said .
“ Real threats of harm were made .
They live in fear now .
Their reputations have been ruined .
We seek substantial damages , ” he said .
Carolina is being sued for alleged assault , battery , defamation and civil rights violations .
Cardi B was not present during the altercation , but she is being sued for defamation and civil rights violations , as is Diaz .
The altercation and Cardi B ’ s decision to share it online came just over two weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ edited interview for Elle magazine .
During the interview , Biden praised the 27-year-old rapper — whose sexually explicit song “ WAP ” is No .
1 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart — as being among a generation of people who will change the world .
“ You ’ re the smartest , the best-educated , the least-prejudiced and the most-engaged generation in American history , ” he told Cardi B .
Added Biden , “ And you ’ re going to change things .
You ’ re gon na change them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have such incredible hope .
I really mean it .
I ’ m not trying to be nice .
It ’ s a fact .
That ’ s what ’ s gon na change things.
” We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Rapper Cardi B, who has endorsed and recently interviewed Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, is being sued after she allegedly defamed supporters of President Donald Trump as “racist” online.
The vulgar rapper’s sister, Hennessy Carolina, as well as Hennessy’s girlfriend, Michelle Diaz, become involved in a dustup at a Long Island, New York, beach on Sept. 6, and Cardi B shared video snippets of the encounter on Twitter that day.
One man in the video was wearing a signature red “Make America Great Again” hat, apparently showing his support for President Donald Trump.
“You wanna know why joe gotta talk to me Candice cause I have the #1 song & yet my sister can’t go to the beach in the Hampton’s wit out trump supporters harassing cause they were by themselves & Santa Claus was harassing my sis GF all because they are a Afro/Hispanic gay couple,” Cardi B tweeted, along with the video of the confrontation.
The video shows a heated confrontation, but the context is unclear.
WARNING: The following video contains vulgar language that some viewers may find offensive.
You wanna know why joe gotta talk to me Candice cause I have the #1 song & yet my sister can’t go to the beach in the Hampton’s wit out trump supporters harassing cause they were by themselves & Santa Claus was harassing my sis GF all because they are a Afro/Hispanic gay couple https://t.co/OLQX2mrzbp pic.twitter.com/ISfJStODme — iamcardib (@iamcardib) September 6, 2020
Cardi B also later shared audio of Carolina and Diaz discussing their vision of events, in which they claim they were targeted over their race and because they are in a lesbian relationship.
Do you think Biden's decision to court celebrities such as Cardi B is evidence of how desperate Democrats have become? 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% (1124 Votes) No: 0% (5 Votes)
In a post on Instagram, the rapper labeled the beachgoers as “racist MAGA supporters” and claimed they harassed her sister and her sister’s girlfriend because they were nonwhite and gay, Fox News reported.
Cardi B wrote that the beachgoers were supporters of the president “that are linching [sic], racist cop shootings and killing black men all cause their leader make them feel like they could do so,” the report said.
“My sister couldn’t even park her car today with out this man harassing her girlfriend soon as the camera cane [sic] out they started being sweet,” she said, according to Fox News.
That Instagram post has since been deleted by the rapper.
According to the people on the other end of the confrontation, though, the video shared by the rapper was heavily edited, and Carolina and Diaz were the aggressors.
The video shared by Cards B showed Carolina proclaiming, “I’ll beat the f— outta you.”
An attorney for the Trump supporters defended his clients in a statement to WABC-TV in New York.
“These peaceful Suffolk County residents were quietly enjoying a Sunday at the Smith Point beach with their families, when rap celebrity Hennessy Carolina suddenly approached them, raging, spitting, insulting, assaulting, defaming and threatening them, all the while videotaping them because one of them wore a MAGA hat,” attorney John Ray told the outlet.
“Then Hennessy, Cardi B and celebrity model Michelle Diaz deviously edited the videotape and published the edited version all over social media, across the world for all to see, and maliciously falsely labeled these residents and their families as ‘N…s’ and as racists,” the attorney said.
“Real threats of harm were made. They live in fear now. Their reputations have been ruined. We seek substantial damages,” he said.
Carolina is being sued for alleged assault, battery, defamation and civil rights violations.
Cardi B was not present during the altercation, but she is being sued for defamation and civil rights violations, as is Diaz.
The altercation and Cardi B’s decision to share it online came just over two weeks after she interviewed Biden in a heavily edited interview for Elle magazine.
During the interview, Biden praised the 27-year-old rapper — whose sexually explicit song “WAP” is No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart — as being among a generation of people who will change the world.
“You’re the smartest, the best-educated, the least-prejudiced and the most-engaged generation in American history,” he told Cardi B.
Added Biden, “And you’re going to change things. You’re gonna change them. You’re the reason I have such incredible hope. I really mean it. I’m not trying to be nice. It’s a fact. That’s what’s gonna change things.”
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--2020-09-22--Walter Williams: If We’re Doing Reparations, Should African Nations Pay for Selling Innocent Black P

Walter Williams: If We’re Doing Reparations, Should African Nations Pay for Selling Innocent Black People?

Seventeenth-century poet and intellect John Milton predicted , “ When language in common use in any country becomes irregular and depraved , it is followed by their ruin and degradation.
” Gore Vidal , his 20th-century intellectual successor , elaborated , saying : “ As societies grow decadent , the language grows decadent , too .
Words are used to disguise , not to illuminate.
” Sloppy language permits people to get away with speaking and doing all manner of destructive nonsense without being challenged .
Let ’ s look at the concept of “ white privilege , ” the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American history relative to , and at the expense of , “ people of color.
” It appears to be utter nonsense to suggest that poor and destitute white people in Appalachia have white privilege .
How can one tell if a person has white privilege ?
One imagines that the academic elite , who coined the term , refer to white people of a certain socioeconomic status such as those living in the suburbs with the privilege of high-income amenities .
But here is a question : Do Nigerians in the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the New York Post this summer , 17 percent of all Nigerians in this country hold master ’ s degrees , 4 percent hold a doctorate and 37 percent hold a bachelor ’ s degree , according to the U.S. Census Bureau ’ s 2006 American Community Survey .
TRENDING : Schiff Accused DHS Insider of Lying to Congress , Still Accepts 'Whistleblower ' Complaint from Him By contrast , 19 percent of white people have a bachelor ’ s degree , 8 percent have master ’ s degrees and 1 percent have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ teach our young people that the U.S. became rich on the backs of free black labor .
That is utter nonsense .
Slavery does not have a very good record of producing wealth .
Think about it .
Slavery was all over the South and outlawed in most of the North .
I doubt that anyone would claim that the antebellum South was rich and the slave-starved North was poor .
The truth is just the opposite .
In fact , the poorest states and regions of our country were places where slavery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — while the richest states and regions were those where slavery was outlawed — Pennsylvania , New York , New Jersey and Massachusetts .
Speaking of holding people accountable for slavery , there is no way that Europeans could have captured millions of Africans .
They had African and Arab help .
There would not have been much black slavery in the U.S. , and the Western Hemisphere in general , without Africans exchanging other Africans to European slave traders at the coast for guns , mirrors , cloths , foreign alcoholic beverages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have called for a commission to study reparations , but I have not heard calls to hold the true perpetrators of American slavery accountable .
Should we demand that congressional Democrats haul representatives of Ghana , the Ivory Coast , Nigeria and Muslim states before Congress to condemn them for their role in American slavery and demand they pay reparations ?
Some of the greatest language mischief is related to terms such as racial “ disparities , ” “ gaps ” and “ disproportionality.
” These terms are taken as signs of injustice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ income of women is less than that of men .
Black and Hispanic students are suspended and expelled at higher rates than white students .
There are other race disparities and gaps all over the place .
For example , black people are 13 percent of the population but 80 percent of professional basketball players and 66 percent of professional football players , and on top of that , they ’ re some of the most highly paid players .
RELATED : Dennis Prager : If You Respect Black People and the Truth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consistent with leftist ideology , those numbers seem to suggest that there is some kind of injustice toward Asian , white and Hispanic basketball and football players .
But before we run off thinking that everything is hunky-dory for black players in football , how many times have you seen a black player kick an extra point in professional football ?
What should be done to address these and other gross disparities ?
How can we make basketball , football , dressage and ice hockey , classical music concert attendance , not to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
In general , we should ignore disproportionality .
There is no evidence , anywhere in the world , suggesting that people sort out in any activity according to their numbers in the general population .
The best thing that we can do is clean up our language .
That will have the added benefit of straightening out our thinking so that we do not permit leftists to get away with making us feel guilty and believing in utter nonsense .
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Seventeenth-century poet and intellect John Milton predicted, “When language in common use in any country becomes irregular and depraved, it is followed by their ruin and degradation.”
Gore Vidal, his 20th-century intellectual successor, elaborated, saying: “As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words are used to disguise, not to illuminate.”
Sloppy language permits people to get away with speaking and doing all manner of destructive nonsense without being challenged.
Let’s look at the concept of “white privilege,” the notion that white people have benefited in American history relative to, and at the expense of, “people of color.” It appears to be utter nonsense to suggest that poor and destitute white people in Appalachia have white privilege. How can one tell if a person has white privilege?
One imagines that the academic elite, who coined the term, refer to white people of a certain socioeconomic status such as those living in the suburbs with the privilege of high-income amenities. But here is a question: Do Nigerians in the U.S. have white privilege? As reported by the New York Post this summer, 17 percent of all Nigerians in this country hold master’s degrees, 4 percent hold a doctorate and 37 percent hold a bachelor’s degree, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2006 American Community Survey.
By contrast, 19 percent of white people have a bachelor’s degree, 8 percent have master’s degrees and 1 percent have doctorates.
What about slavery? Colleges teach our young people that the U.S. became rich on the backs of free black labor. That is utter nonsense. Slavery does not have a very good record of producing wealth.
Think about it. Slavery was all over the South and outlawed in most of the North. I doubt that anyone would claim that the antebellum South was rich and the slave-starved North was poor. The truth is just the opposite.
In fact, the poorest states and regions of our country were places where slavery flourished — Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia — while the richest states and regions were those where slavery was outlawed — Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts.
Do you think reparations for slavery is a ridiculous idea? 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% (304 Votes) No: 1% (3 Votes)
Speaking of holding people accountable for slavery, there is no way that Europeans could have captured millions of Africans. They had African and Arab help.
There would not have been much black slavery in the U.S., and the Western Hemisphere in general, without Africans exchanging other Africans to European slave traders at the coast for guns, mirrors, cloths, foreign alcoholic beverages and gold dust.
Congressional Democratic lawmakers have called for a commission to study reparations, but I have not heard calls to hold the true perpetrators of American slavery accountable. Should we demand that congressional Democrats haul representatives of Ghana, the Ivory Coast, Nigeria and Muslim states before Congress to condemn them for their role in American slavery and demand they pay reparations?
Some of the greatest language mischief is related to terms such as racial “disparities,” “gaps” and “disproportionality.” These terms are taken as signs of injustice that must be corrected. The median income of women is less than that of men. Black and Hispanic students are suspended and expelled at higher rates than white students.
There are other race disparities and gaps all over the place. For example, black people are 13 percent of the population but 80 percent of professional basketball players and 66 percent of professional football players, and on top of that, they’re some of the most highly paid players.
To be consistent with leftist ideology, those numbers seem to suggest that there is some kind of injustice toward Asian, white and Hispanic basketball and football players. But before we run off thinking that everything is hunky-dory for black players in football, how many times have you seen a black player kick an extra point in professional football?
What should be done to address these and other gross disparities? How can we make basketball, football, dressage and ice hockey, classical music concert attendance, not to mention incarceration, look more like America? In general, we should ignore disproportionality. There is no evidence, anywhere in the world, suggesting that people sort out in any activity according to their numbers in the general population.
The best thing that we can do is clean up our language. That will have the added benefit of straightening out our thinking so that we do not permit leftists to get away with making us feel guilty and believing in utter nonsense.
© 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--2020-09-22--The Topics for the First Presidential Debate Have Been Revealed

Fox News ’ Chris Wallace , the moderator of the first presidential debate of the 2020 campaign , has released the six topics the debate will cover for President Donald Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden , the Commission on Presidential Debates announced Tuesday .
The first of three debates between Trump and Biden is scheduled for Sept. 29 at Case Western Reserve University and Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland , Ohio .
“ The format for the first debate calls for six 15-minute time segments dedicated to topics announced in advance in order to encourage deep discussion of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the commission stated in a news release Tuesday , under the headline “ Moderator Announces Topics for First Presidential Debate.
” According to the release , Wallace will have the two square off over each other ’ s respective records in government .
The two will also be asked questions about the Supreme Court and also about the ongoing coronavirus pandemic .
TRENDING : Schiff Accused DHS Insider of Lying to Congress , Still Accepts 'Whistleblower ' Complaint from Him The Supreme Court questions are sure to be a hot topic following the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Friday .
Trump and Senate Republicans are forging ahead to nominate and confirm a replacement for Ginsburg on the court .
The Trump campaign has hit Biden hard for his refusal to produce a list of potential nominees for the high court .
Biden stated Monday in Wisconsin he would not release such a list because the nominees “ would be subject to intense criticism for a long time.
” The 77-year-old further refused to answer a question about Democratic threats to expand the court .
Biden also claimed in an interview @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court , or whether he intends to expand the court with more justices if he wins and Democrats take the Senate in November , he would allow Trump to “ shift the focus ” and control the narrative .
The subject could result in fireworks between the candidates .
According to the debate commission , Wallace will also ask both candidates about the economy , which is recovering following nationwide shutdowns earlier this year as a result of the pandemic .
Also on the table for discussion will be the subject of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” as well “ The Integrity of the Election.
” RELATED : AZ GOP Rips Biggest Newspaper in the State After Trump-Biden Story The commission noted that these topics are subject to change , should there be any “ news developments.
” The debate is scheduled to last for 90 minutes and will begin at 9 p.m .
ET .
Trump and Biden will meet for the second debate in Miami on Oct. 15 , and for one final debate in Nashville , Tennessee , on Oct. 22 .
The vice presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden ’ s running mate , California Sen. Kamala Harris , is scheduled for Oct. 7 in Salt lake City , Utah , according to the commission ’ s schedule .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Fox News’ Chris Wallace, the moderator of the first presidential debate of the 2020 campaign, has released the six topics the debate will cover for President Donald Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, the Commission on Presidential Debates announced Tuesday.
The first of three debates between Trump and Biden is scheduled for Sept. 29 at Case Western Reserve University and Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio.
“The format for the first debate calls for six 15-minute time segments dedicated to topics announced in advance in order to encourage deep discussion of the leading issues facing the country,” the commission stated in a news release Tuesday, under the headline “Moderator Announces Topics for First Presidential Debate.”
According to the release, Wallace will have the two square off over each other’s respective records in government.
The two will also be asked questions about the Supreme Court and also about the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.
The Supreme Court questions are sure to be a hot topic following the death of long-serving Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday.
Trump and Senate Republicans are forging ahead to nominate and confirm a replacement for Ginsburg on the court.
The Trump campaign has hit Biden hard for his refusal to produce a list of potential nominees for the high court.
Biden stated Monday in Wisconsin he would not release such a list because the nominees “would be subject to intense criticism for a long time.”
Do you think the debates will be the biggest factor in who wins the 2020 election? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 45% (2292 Votes) No: 55% (2856 Votes)
The 77-year-old further refused to answer a question about Democratic threats to expand the court.
Biden also claimed in an interview with WBAY-TV that by talking about the Supreme Court, or whether he intends to expand the court with more justices if he wins and Democrats take the Senate in November, he would allow Trump to “shift the focus” and control the narrative.
The subject could result in fireworks between the candidates.
According to the debate commission, Wallace will also ask both candidates about the economy, which is recovering following nationwide shutdowns earlier this year as a result of the pandemic.
Also on the table for discussion will be the subject of “Race and Violence in our Cities,” as well “The Integrity of the Election.”
The commission noted that these topics are subject to change, should there be any “news developments.”
The debate is scheduled to last for 90 minutes and will begin at 9 p.m. ET.
Trump and Biden will meet for the second debate in Miami on Oct. 15, and for one final debate in Nashville, Tennessee, on Oct. 22.
The vice presidential debate between Vice President Mike Pence and Biden’s running mate, California Sen. Kamala Harris, is scheduled for Oct. 7 in Salt lake City, Utah, according to the commission’s schedule.
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--2020-09-22--AOC Floats Impeaching Trump and AG Barr To Stop SCOTUS Nomination

The announcement of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s death sent shockwaves throughout Washington on Friday evening .
The realization that this liberal icon might be replaced by a conservative judge threw Democrats into a frenzy .
With Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer by her side during a news conference Sunday in Brooklyn , New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was asked whether she supported impeaching President Donald Trump or Attorney General William Barr in order to “ buy time ” and stop Republicans from filling the Supreme Court vacancy before the November election .
The congresswoman said yes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ table.
” Echoing remarks made earlier by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , the democratic socialist said there has been “ an enormous amount of law-breaking in the Trump administration ” and “ potentially law-breaking behavior ” by Barr , whom she declared “ unfit for office.
” “ That being said , these are procedures and decisions that are largely up to House Democratic leadership , ” Ocasio-Cortez said .
“ But I believe that also we must consider , again , all of the tools available to our disposal and that all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the table.
” TRENDING : Schiff Accused DHS Insider of Lying to Congress , Still Accepts 'Whistleblower ' Complaint from Him As Ocasio-Cortez , Pelosi and others on the left raise the idea of impeaching the president and his attorney general , they are overlooking one important fact : Not only is it legal for Trump to nominate a candidate to fill the vacant seat , it is his constitutional duty .
Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas , who knows a thing or two about the Constitution , noted in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allows impeachment for ‘ high crimes and misdemeanors . '
” “ Nominating a Supreme Court Justice does not meet that standard…to put it mildly , ” he said .
So why are AOC and other Democrats acting as if impeachment is even an option for them ?
Aside from the fact that lies fall off their tongues with great ease , the addition of a conservative justice to the Supreme Court — in addition to its impact on abortion and other issues — would toss a MOAB into their hopes for an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump to have a solid lead at the conclusion of in-person voting Nov. 3 , the mail-in ballots that will be counted after Election Day are likely to favor Biden .
The president has often pointed to the fact that mail-in votes are susceptible to fraud .
In a close race , the ensuing hostilities and turmoil over ballots very likely would require resolution by the Supreme Court .
RELATED : Hillary Clinton and AOC Just Announced They 're Voting in Person - Why Ca n't the Rest of America ?
The Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the most activist justices ever to sit on the court , would help steer Biden to victory in that scenario .
The confirmation of a Trump appointee to the court prior to the election would result in either a 5-4 or a 6-3 conservative advantage .
This would seemingly render the decision of Chief Justice John Roberts — the George W. Bush appointee whose swing votes have often sided with court ’ s liberals — irrelevant .
If Ginsburg ’ s seat were still vacant after the election , the court could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ event of a case related to the vote , possibly triggering a constitutional crisis .
Cruz , a member of the Republican legal team during the 2000 Bush v. Gore recount dispute in Florida , joined Fox News ’ Sean Hannity on Friday night to discuss this nightmare scenario .
Referring to the Florida recount , he told Hannity , “ For 37 days , the country did not know who the president was going to be .
And if we had a 4-4 court , it could have dragged on for weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election , Cruz said that “ Democrats and Joe Biden have made clear they intend to challenge this election .
They intend to fight the legitimacy of the election .
As you know , Hillary Clinton has told Joe Biden , ‘ Under no circumstances should you concede , you should challenge this election.
’ And we can not have Election Day come and go with a 4-4 court .
“ A 4-4 court that is equally divided can not decide anything , and I think we risk a constitutional crisis if we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , particularly when there is such a risk of a contested litigation and a contested election.
” In an excellent and informative article , National Review ’ s Dan McLaughlin noted that presidents have nominated candidates to fill Supreme Court vacancies in presidential election years on 29 occasions .
Interestingly , this piece was published Aug. 7 , six weeks prior to Ginsburg ’ s death .
Far from being an impeachable offense , McLaughlin argued , “ Choosing not to fill a vacancy would be a historically unprecedented act of unilateral disarmament @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of American history .
There is no chance that the Democrats , in the same position , would ever reciprocate , as their own history illustrates.
” “ Historically , throughout American history , when their party controls the Senate , presidents get to fill Supreme Court vacancies at any time — even in a presidential election year , even in a lame-duck session after the election , even after defeat .
Historically , when the opposite party controls the Senate , the Senate gets to block Supreme Court nominees sent up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hold the seat open for the winner .
Both of those precedents are settled by experience as old as the republic.
” As for the Republicans supposedly ramming through a confirmation just six weeks ahead of a presidential election , Sean Davis of The Federalist reminds us that three justices were confirmed in far less time .
From nomination to confirmation , the process took only 19 days for former Justice John Paul Stevens , 24 days for Roberts and 33 days for former Justice Sandra Day O ’ Connor .
AOC and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as they ’ ve done so many times before .
They ’ ve created a narrative that they will repeat over and over until the many people believe it .
This is no different from the Russian collusion hoax , the bogus case against Michael Flynn and Trump ’ s infamous July 2019 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky .
Indeed , it is the president ’ s constitutional duty to nominate a replacement for Ginsburg , and it is the Senate ’ s duty to vote on that nominee .
Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deception before it gains momentum .
This is an act of desperation and it must be met with strength and resolve .
The future of America depends on it .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

The announcement of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death sent shockwaves throughout Washington on Friday evening. The realization that this liberal icon might be replaced by a conservative judge threw Democrats into a frenzy.
With Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer by her side during a news conference Sunday in Brooklyn, New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was asked whether she supported impeaching President Donald Trump or Attorney General William Barr in order to “buy time” and stop Republicans from filling the Supreme Court vacancy before the November election.
The congresswoman said yes, impeachment should be “on the table.”
Echoing remarks made earlier by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the democratic socialist said there has been “an enormous amount of law-breaking in the Trump administration” and “potentially law-breaking behavior” by Barr, whom she declared “unfit for office.”
“That being said, these are procedures and decisions that are largely up to House Democratic leadership,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “But I believe that also we must consider, again, all of the tools available to our disposal and that all of these options should be entertained and on the table.”
Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer nods along as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says impeachment is “on the table” to prevent the filling of the Supreme Court vacancyhttps://t.co/0YlMBemSRM pic.twitter.com/DDJdvL4D6S — RNC Research (@RNCResearch) September 21, 2020
As Ocasio-Cortez, Pelosi and others on the left raise the idea of impeaching the president and his attorney general, they are overlooking one important fact: Not only is it legal for Trump to nominate a candidate to fill the vacant seat, it is his constitutional duty.
Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who knows a thing or two about the Constitution, noted in a tweet Sunday that the founding document “allows impeachment for ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.'”
“Nominating a Supreme Court Justice does not meet that standard…to put it mildly,” he said.
.@aoc and Pelosi calling for impeaching @realDonaldTrump The Constitution allow impeachment for “high crimes & misdemeanors.” Nominating a Supreme Court Justice does not meet that standard…to put it mildly. https://t.co/JdPjNiRiNA — Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) September 21, 2020
So why are AOC and other Democrats acting as if impeachment is even an option for them?
Aside from the fact that lies fall off their tongues with great ease, the addition of a conservative justice to the Supreme Court — in addition to its impact on abortion and other issues — would toss a MOAB into their hopes for an electoral trump card.
While many expect Trump to have a solid lead at the conclusion of in-person voting Nov. 3, the mail-in ballots that will be counted after Election Day are likely to favor Biden. The president has often pointed to the fact that mail-in votes are susceptible to fraud. In a close race, the ensuing hostilities and turmoil over ballots very likely would require resolution by the Supreme Court.
The Democrats had been hoping that Ginsburg, one of the most activist justices ever to sit on the court, would help steer Biden to victory in that scenario.
The confirmation of a Trump appointee to the court prior to the election would result in either a 5-4 or a 6-3 conservative advantage. This would seemingly render the decision of Chief Justice John Roberts — the George W. Bush appointee whose swing votes have often sided with court’s liberals — irrelevant.
If Ginsburg’s seat were still vacant after the election, the court could easily wind up deadlocked 4-4 in the event of a case related to the vote, possibly triggering a constitutional crisis.
Do you think the Democrats have any grounds to impeach President Trump or Attorney General Barr? 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% (12 Votes) No: 99% (1815 Votes)
Cruz, a member of the Republican legal team during the 2000 Bush v. Gore recount dispute in Florida, joined Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Friday night to discuss this nightmare scenario.
Referring to the Florida recount, he told Hannity, “For 37 days, the country did not know who the president was going to be. And if we had a 4-4 court, it could have dragged on for weeks and months.”
Speaking of the 2020 election, Cruz said that “Democrats and Joe Biden have made clear they intend to challenge this election. They intend to fight the legitimacy of the election. As you know, Hillary Clinton has told Joe Biden, ‘Under no circumstances should you concede, you should challenge this election.’ And we cannot have Election Day come and go with a 4-4 court.
“A 4-4 court that is equally divided cannot decide anything, and I think we risk a constitutional crisis if we do not have a nine-justice Supreme Court, particularly when there is such a risk of a contested litigation and a contested election.”
We are one vote away from losing our fundamental constitutional liberties. I believe @realDonaldTrump should nominate a successor next week and the Senate should take up and confirm that successor before Election Day. pic.twitter.com/pS8i860RTa — Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) September 19, 2020
In an excellent and informative article, National Review’s Dan McLaughlin noted that presidents have nominated candidates to fill Supreme Court vacancies in presidential election years on 29 occasions. Interestingly, this piece was published Aug. 7, six weeks prior to Ginsburg’s death.
Far from being an impeachable offense, McLaughlin argued, “Choosing not to fill a vacancy would be a historically unprecedented act of unilateral disarmament. It has never happened once in all of American history. There is no chance that the Democrats, in the same position, would ever reciprocate, as their own history illustrates.”
He continued:
“Historically, throughout American history, when their party controls the Senate, presidents get to fill Supreme Court vacancies at any time — even in a presidential election year, even in a lame-duck session after the election, even after defeat. Historically, when the opposite party controls the Senate, the Senate gets to block Supreme Court nominees sent up in a presidential election year, and hold the seat open for the winner. Both of those precedents are settled by experience as old as the republic.”
As for the Republicans supposedly ramming through a confirmation just six weeks ahead of a presidential election, Sean Davis of The Federalist reminds us that three justices were confirmed in far less time. From nomination to confirmation, the process took only 19 days for former Justice John Paul Stevens, 24 days for Roberts and 33 days for former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s formal Supreme Court nomination was sent to the Senate on June 22, 1993. Her confirmation hearing began on July 20, and the Senate voted to confirm her on August 3. The entire process took 42 days. https://t.co/Es6goc6mmo — Sean Davis (@seanmdav) September 19, 2020
AOC and Pelosi are trying to deceive Americans just as they’ve done so many times before. They’ve created a narrative that they will repeat over and over until the many people believe it. This is no different from the Russian collusion hoax, the bogus case against Michael Flynn and Trump’s infamous July 2019 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Indeed, it is the president’s constitutional duty to nominate a replacement for Ginsburg, and it is the Senate’s duty to vote on that nominee.
Republicans need to stop the Democrats’ latest deception before it gains momentum. This is an act of desperation and it must be met with strength and resolve. The future of America depends on 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--2020-09-22--First Four Facts You Should Know About Amy Coney Barrett

Following the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , it is now up to President Donald J. Trump to nominate a justice to fill her seat .
Trump has said he will be announcing his nomination by the end of the week .
Near the top of the president ’ s list of potential nominees is Judge Amy Coney Barrett .
Here are the first four facts you need to know about her : Barrett clerked for the late Justice Antonin Scalia after graduating from Notre Dame Law School , according to Politico .
TRENDING : Schiff Accused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Still Accepts 'Whistleblower ' Complaint from Him Like Scalia , Barrett is an originalist who views the Constitution as a document that must be read according to its original meaning .
According to her , treating the Constitution as a living document open to new interpretations over time takes away all of its powers and protections .
“ In some respects we should look at that [ inflexibility ] as a good thing .
… It ’ s a floor , we don ’ t want to go below this , ” she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Notre Dame ’ s student newspaper .
“ We don ’ t want an entirely flexible Constitution because then we would have no constitutional protection at all.
” Barrett made it known that she believes life begins at conception during a lecture series at Notre Dame , according to a Notre Dame Magazine article from 2013 .
During the lecture , Barrett first shared her personal pro-life convictions before calling Roe v. Wade into question .
Liberal activists and politicians are overwhelmingly concerned that Barrett would be the final straw leading to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
RELATED : The Topics for the First Presidential Debate Have Been Revealed Barrett has noted that the argument over abortion has now shifted from whether a woman has a right to an abortion to whether the state has a right to publicly fund abortions .
“ I think it is very unlikely at this point that the court is going to overturn Roe , or Roe as curbed by [ Planned Parenthood v. ] Casey .
The fundamental element , that the woman has a right to choose abortion , will probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to The Observer .
“ The controversy right now is about funding .
It ’ s a question of whether abortions will be publicly or privately funded.
” Barrett is praised by conservatives and derided by liberals for her devout Catholic faith .
In her own words , however , her personal religious faith has nothing to do with her judgment in a courtroom .
When asked what role the faith of a nominee should play in the confirmation process , Barrett replied “ none ” according to a transcript of her answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I think that when you step back and you think about the debate about whether someone ’ s religion has any bearing on their fitness for office , it seems to me that the premise of that question is that people of faith would have a uniquely difficult time separating out their moral commitments from their obligation to apply the law , ” Barrett added .
“ And I think people of faith should reject that premise … most people have moral convictions , whether or not they come from faith @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who are not religious , have deeply held moral convictions .
And it is just as important for those people to be sure … to set aside personal moral convictions and personal preferences and follow the law.
” Born on Jan. 28 , 1972 , Barrett is only 48 years old .
If she is nominated and confirmed , that would make Barrett the youngest justice currently serving on the Supreme Court .
That also means that if she is chosen to replace Ginsburg , Barrett would likely remain on the bench @ @ @ @ @ @ @ By all accounts , Amy Coney Barrett ’ s age , beliefs and experience make her a prime candidate for SCOTUS consideration .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Following the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it is now up to President Donald J. Trump to nominate a justice to fill her seat.
Trump has said he will be announcing his nomination by the end of the week.
Near the top of the president’s list of potential nominees is Judge Amy Coney Barrett.
Here are the first four facts you need to know about her:
The Next Scalia
Barrett clerked for the late Justice Antonin Scalia after graduating from Notre Dame Law School, according to Politico.
Like Scalia, Barrett is an originalist who views the Constitution as a document that must be read according to its original meaning.
According to her, treating the Constitution as a living document open to new interpretations over time takes away all of its powers and protections.
“In some respects we should look at that [inflexibility] as a good thing. … It’s a floor, we don’t want to go below this,” she said, according to The Observer, Notre Dame’s student newspaper.
“We don’t want an entirely flexible Constitution because then we would have no constitutional protection at all.”
Pro-Life
Barrett made it known that she believes life begins at conception during a lecture series at Notre Dame, according to a Notre Dame Magazine article from 2013.
During the lecture, Barrett first shared her personal pro-life convictions before calling Roe v. Wade into question.
Liberal activists and politicians are overwhelmingly concerned that Barrett would be the final straw leading to the eventual overturning of the landmark 1973 decision.
Barrett has noted that the argument over abortion has now shifted from whether a woman has a right to an abortion to whether the state has a right to publicly fund abortions.
“I think it is very unlikely at this point that the court is going to overturn Roe, or Roe as curbed by [Planned Parenthood v.] Casey. The fundamental element, that the woman has a right to choose abortion, will probably stand,” Barrett said, according to The Observer.
“The controversy right now is about funding. It’s a question of whether abortions will be publicly or privately funded.”
Devout Catholic
Barrett is praised by conservatives and derided by liberals for her devout Catholic faith.
In her own words, however, her personal religious faith has nothing to do with her judgment in a courtroom.
I agree with pretty much every word of this answer from Barrett on this question: pic.twitter.com/EYx9z4A4wV — Michael Wear (@MichaelRWear) September 21, 2020
When asked what role the faith of a nominee should play in the confirmation process, Barrett replied “none” according to a transcript of her answer tweeted out by political strategist Michael Wear.
“I think that when you step back and you think about the debate about whether someone’s religion has any bearing on their fitness for office, it seems to me that the premise of that question is that people of faith would have a uniquely difficult time separating out their moral commitments from their obligation to apply the law,” Barrett added.
“And I think people of faith should reject that premise … most people have moral convictions, whether or not they come from faith. People who have no faith, people who are not religious, have deeply held moral convictions. And it is just as important for those people to be sure … to set aside personal moral convictions and personal preferences and follow the law.”
48 Years Old
Born on Jan. 28, 1972, Barrett is only 48 years old.
If she is nominated and confirmed, that would make Barrett the youngest justice currently serving on the Supreme Court.
That also means that if she is chosen to replace Ginsburg, Barrett would likely remain on the bench for several decades yet to come.
By all accounts, Amy Coney Barrett’s age, beliefs and experience make her a prime candidate for SCOTUS consideration.
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--2020-09-22--House Democrats Pass Resolution Condemning ‘Anti-Asian Sentiment’ in Reference to COVID

Democrats continually prove themselves to be a party of censorship .
House Resolution 908 , which was introduced back in March by Democratic Rep. Grace Meng of New York , was approved in the House of Representatives last week .
The resolution comes down to this : Don ’ t name or speak of COVID-19 in any way that indicates its place of origin , such as calling it “ Chinese Virus , ” “ Wuhan Virus , ” and “ Kung-flu , ” because such terms have “ perpetuated anti-Asian stigma.
” TRENDING : Schiff Accused DHS Insider of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ' Complaint from Him Yes , nicknaming the Chines virus as such and criticizing China ’ s handling of its spread is being equated with racism .
Surprise .
The resolution calls on public officials to “ condemn and denounce ” such rhetoric , and do their part in stopping the supposed threats that Asian-Americans face since the White House has publicly identified the virus as originating from Wuhan , China .
It also calls on law enforcement to “ investigate and document all credible reports of hate crimes and incidents and threats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States.
” A reported uptick in crimes and discrimination against Asians in the U.S. since January is cited as a result of the national conversation about COVID-19 : “ … [ S ] ince January 2020 , there has been a dramatic increase in reports of hate crimes and incidents against those of Asian descent , ” the resolution states .
It also cites World Health Organization and Centers for Disease Control officials who affirm the notion that saying “ Wuhan Virus ” is “ wrong , ” misleading , and ultimately becomes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Now , a simple resolution like Meng ’ s normally concerns “ the operation of either the House of Representatives or Senate alone , ” therefore it isn ’ t passed onto the president for approval .
It doesn ’ t apply to anyone else except the House .
It doesn ’ t have jurisdiction over all public officials or law enforcement agencies as the language might suggest .
So what ’ s really the point ?
According to Reuters , Rep. Kevin McCarthy said the resolution was a waste of time when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal with .
RELATED : China Sneaking 'Propaganda ' Onto US Campuses Through Confucius Institute : State Department You can guess how the Democrats voted on the resolution — only three abstained .
However , 14 Republicans joined the Democrats in approval while 20 didn ’ t vote .
House Democrats , under the leadership of Speaker Nancy Pelosi , are publicly declaring that government officials should withhold the truth regarding COVID-19 , refrain from speaking out on holding China accountable for the spread of the coronavirus , and that law-enforcement agents should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bring such criminals to justice .
Meanwhile , measures that could provide real COVID-19 relief to American citizens remain in limbo , as USA Today reported , putting the U.S. economy in danger of a “ double dip ” recession .
It ’ s not hard to see where Democratic priorities are .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Democrats continually prove themselves to be a party of censorship.
House Resolution 908, which was introduced back in March by Democratic Rep. Grace Meng of New York, was approved in the House of Representatives last week.
The resolution comes down to this: Don’t name or speak of COVID-19 in any way that indicates its place of origin, such as calling it “Chinese Virus,” “Wuhan Virus,” and “Kung-flu,” because such terms have “perpetuated anti-Asian stigma.”
My #HRes908 condemning anti-Asian sentiment related to #COVID19 just passed the House. ? We reject racism. Thankful 4 my colleagues’ support. It’s on @senatemajldr 2 allow the Senate 2 pass the Senate version of my resolution by @SenDuckworth, @SenKamalaHarris & @maziehirono. pic.twitter.com/xnUfIzDEuk — Grace Meng (@RepGraceMeng) September 17, 2020
Yes, nicknaming the Chinese virus as such and criticizing China’s handling of its spread is being equated with racism. Surprise.
The resolution calls on public officials to “condemn and denounce” such rhetoric, and do their part in stopping the supposed threats that Asian-Americans face since the White House has publicly identified the virus as originating from Wuhan, China.
It also calls on law enforcement to “investigate and document all credible reports of hate crimes and incidents and threats against the Asian-American community in the United States.”
A reported uptick in crimes and discrimination against Asians in the U.S. since January is cited as a result of the national conversation about COVID-19: “…[S]ince January 2020, there has been a dramatic increase in reports of hate crimes and incidents against those of Asian descent,” the resolution states.
Do you think this resolution was a waste of lawmakers' time? 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% (4156 Votes) No: 1% (22 Votes)
It also cites World Health Organization and Centers for Disease Control officials who affirm the notion that saying “Wuhan Virus” is “wrong,” misleading, and ultimately becomes an “enemy of public health.”
Now, a simple resolution like Meng’s normally concerns “the operation of either the House of Representatives or Senate alone,” therefore it isn’t passed onto the president for approval.
It doesn’t apply to anyone else except the House. It doesn’t have jurisdiction over all public officials or law enforcement agencies as the language might suggest.
So what’s really the point?
According to Reuters, Rep. Kevin McCarthy said the resolution was a waste of time when the House had more important issues to deal with.
The resolution was passed 243-164.
You can guess how the Democrats voted on the resolution — only three abstained. However, 14 Republicans joined the Democrats in approval while 20 didn’t vote.
House Democrats, under the leadership of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, are publicly declaring that government officials should withhold the truth regarding COVID-19, refrain from speaking out on holding China accountable for the spread of the coronavirus, and that law-enforcement agents should hyperfocus on “hate crimes” and bring such criminals to justice.
Meanwhile, measures that could provide real COVID-19 relief to American citizens remain in limbo, as USA Today reported, putting the U.S. economy in danger of a “double dip” recession.
It’s not hard to see where Democratic priorities are.
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--2020-09-22--Biden Refuses To Answer Whether He’d Attempt To Pack the Supreme Court with Additional Judges

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden refused to answer this week when asked if he would agree to expanding the Supreme Court by justices , should he win the election in November .
Biden was campaigning in Manitowoc , Wisconsin , on Monday when he sat down for an interview with WBAY-TV .
Biden was asked about President Donald Trump ’ s intention to nominate a replacement on the high court following the Friday death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , and if Trump ’ s transparency on publicly releasing the names of potential court nominees would induce Biden to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , no president has announced his picks that early , ” Biden told WBAY ’ s Brittany Schmidt .
“ Number 2 , if I were to do that , I find myself in a position where they would be subject to intense criticism for a long time because if I am elected — and enough Republicans screw up the courage to say ‘ let ’ s wait until the election is over to see who wins ’ — If I were picked , they wouldn ’ t get a hearing until January @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just not appropriate to put them in that spot.
” TRENDING : Schiff Accused DHS Insider of Lying to Congress , Still Accepts 'Whistleblower ' Complaint from Him Biden then refused to answer a follow-up with regard to whether he would expand the court with more liberal justices if he and Democrats gain power in the coming months .
“ It ’ s a legitimate question , but let me tell you why I ’ m not going answer that question , ” he said .
“ Because it will shift the focus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] wants .
He never wants to talk about the issue at hand and he always tries to change the subject .
“ Let ’ s say I answer that question , then the whole debate ’ s gon na be about what Biden said or didn ’ t say , Biden said he would or wouldn ’ t. ” Biden continued , “ The discussion should be about why [ Trump ] is moving in a direction that ’ s totally inconsistent with what the Founders wanted .
The Constitution says voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make the pick and the Senate gets to decide.
” While Biden was hesitant to answer whether he would support packing the high court , other Democrats have been more transparent on the issue .
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has been adamant that “ nothing is off the table for Democrats ” in the fight against Trump .
“ Let me be clear : If Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans move forward with this , then nothing is off the table for next year , ” Schumer said Saturday while speaking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Politico reported .
RELATED : AZ GOP Rips Biggest Newspaper in the State After Trump-Biden Story “ Nothing is off the table , ” he reiterated .
When asked about what House Democrats intend to do to obstruct Trump on the Supreme Court , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was cryptic but ominous .
“ We have arrows in our quiver that I ’ m not about to discuss right now , but the fact is , we have a big challenge in our country , ” she told ABC ’ s George @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out another round of impeachment hearings .
Legacy Rep. Joe Kennedy III of Massachusetts has been the Democrat who has shown the most transparency on the issue : Democrats last attempted to pack the Supreme Court in 1937 , when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed adding as many as six new justices to the court after he was met with resistance to some of his New Deal legislation .
The controversy cost Roosevelt political capital and the plan was , of course , never enacted .
We are committed to truth and accuracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our editorial standards .

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden refused to answer this week when asked if he would agree to expanding the Supreme Court by justices, should he win the election in November.
Biden was campaigning in Manitowoc, Wisconsin, on Monday when he sat down for an interview with WBAY-TV.
Biden was asked about President Donald Trump’s intention to nominate a replacement on the high court following the Friday death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and if Trump’s transparency on publicly releasing the names of potential court nominees would induce Biden to do the same.
“Not at all, no president has announced his picks that early,” Biden told WBAY’s Brittany Schmidt.
“Number 2, if I were to do that, I find myself in a position where they would be subject to intense criticism for a long time because if I am elected — and enough Republicans screw up the courage to say ‘let’s wait until the election is over to see who wins’ — If I were picked, they wouldn’t get a hearing until January, February, and it’s just not appropriate to put them in that spot.”
Biden then refused to answer a follow-up with regard to whether he would expand the court with more liberal justices if he and Democrats gain power in the coming months.
“It’s a legitimate question, but let me tell you why I’m not going answer that question,” he said.
“Because it will shift the focus, that’s what [Trump] wants. He never wants to talk about the issue at hand and he always tries to change the subject.
“Let’s say I answer that question, then the whole debate’s gonna be about what Biden said or didn’t say, Biden said he would or wouldn’t.”
Biden continued, “The discussion should be about why [Trump] is moving in a direction that’s totally inconsistent with what the Founders wanted. The Constitution says voters get to pick a president who gets to make the pick and the Senate gets to decide.”
While Biden was hesitant to answer whether he would support packing the high court, other Democrats have been more transparent on the issue.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has been adamant that “nothing is off the table for Democrats” in the fight against Trump.
“Let me be clear: If Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans move forward with this, then nothing is off the table for next year,” Schumer said Saturday while speaking with other Democrats on a conference call, Politico reported.
Do you think confirming a new SCOTUS justice before the election could hurt Republicans? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 9% (4 Votes) No: 91% (42 Votes)
“Nothing is off the table,” he reiterated.
When asked about what House Democrats intend to do to obstruct Trump on the Supreme Court, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was cryptic but ominous.
“We have arrows in our quiver that I’m not about to discuss right now, but the fact is, we have a big challenge in our country,” she told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos Sunday.
In a slightly bizarre exchange, Stephanopoulos asks if the House would impeach Trump or Barr if Senate GOP tries to vote on a SCOTUS nom during lame duck session (to stall the confirmation), and Pelosi refuses to rule it out: “We have our options. We have arrows in our quiver.” pic.twitter.com/aoXPh6cFlt — JERRY DUNLEAVY (@JerryDunleavy) September 20, 2020
Pelosi has not ruled out another round of impeachment hearings.
Legacy Rep. Joe Kennedy III of Massachusetts has been the Democrat who has shown the most transparency on the issue:
If he holds a vote in 2020, we pack the court in 2021. It’s that simple. — Rep. Joe Kennedy III (@RepJoeKennedy) September 19, 2020
Democrats last attempted to pack the Supreme Court in 1937, when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed adding as many as six new justices to the court after he was met with resistance to some of his New Deal legislation.
The controversy cost Roosevelt political capital and the plan was, of course, never enacted.
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--2020-09-22--Trump Honors Football Players Suspended for Carrying Pro-Police Flag

President Donald Trump honored two Ohio football players who were suspended from their team and then reinstated for carrying flags recognizing first responders on the field before a football game on Sept. 11 .
At a rally in Swanton , Ohio , the Republican president called Brady Williams and Jarad Bentley of Little Miami High School to the stage to recognize them for their actions ahead of a football game on the anniversary of the terror attacks , WKYC-TV reported .
“ I want to congratulate you .
You ’ ve become famous , ” Trump told the students .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ And everyone out here loves you and appreciates you.
” He added , “ Thank you for supporting the heroes in our law enforcement.
” TRENDING : Schiff Accused DHS Insider of Lying to Congress , Still Accepts 'Whistleblower ' Complaint from Him When Willams and Bentley were denied permission to carry flags onto the field before the game , they chose to do it anyway .
Bentley carried out a “ thin red line ” flag honoring firefighters , while Williams carried out a “ thin blue line ” flag to honor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a police officer in the area and Bentley ’ s is a firefighter .
The students were suspended indefinitely from the team after Little Miami Superintendent Gregory Power said the flags were “ political , ” WKRC-TV reported .
Williams and Bentley have both been reinstated to the team after an investigation by the school ’ s officials .
Bobbie Grice , Little Miami school board president , told The Cincinnati Enquirer that the young men are back on active status .
RELATED : Singer Tommy DeVito , Founding Member of The Four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The results show that there were no political motivations behind this display of support for first responders on 9/11 , but there were stances of insubordination , ” Grice said .
“ Moving forward , Little Miami is returning the players to active status and this matter will be addressed as an Athletic Department Code of Conduct issue , with any potential consequences to be handled by coaching staff.
” Grice said the only flags that would be allowed on the field for the remainder of the season would be the American flag @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The story gained national attention after Power told WKRC that he suspended the two boys because “ we can ’ t have students who decide to do something anyway after they ’ ve been told that they shouldn ’ t be doing it.
” We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

President Donald Trump honored two Ohio football players who were suspended from their team and then reinstated for carrying flags recognizing first responders on the field before a football game on Sept. 11.
At a rally in Swanton, Ohio, the Republican president called Brady Williams and Jarad Bentley of Little Miami High School to the stage to recognize them for their actions ahead of a football game on the anniversary of the terror attacks, WKYC-TV reported.
“I want to congratulate you. You’ve become famous,” Trump told the students.
“You’re doing great! And everyone out here loves you and appreciates you.”
He added, “Thank you for supporting the heroes in our law enforcement.”
When Willams and Bentley were denied permission to carry flags onto the field before the game, they chose to do it anyway.
Bentley carried out a “thin red line” flag honoring firefighters, while Williams carried out a “thin blue line” flag to honor police officers:
Two Little Miami football players pay the price for civil disobedience. They were told not to carry onto the field thin blue line and thin red line flags at their 9/11 game. They did anyway. The school has now suspended them from the team indefinitely. #ThinBlueLine #ThinRedLine pic.twitter.com/19y9GAvaxr — David Winter (@DavidWinterTV) September 14, 2020
Williams’ father is a police officer in the area and Bentley’s is a firefighter.
The students were suspended indefinitely from the team after Little Miami Superintendent Gregory Power said the flags were “political,” WKRC-TV reported.
Williams and Bentley have both been reinstated to the team after an investigation by the school’s officials.
Bobbie Grice, Little Miami school board president, told The Cincinnati Enquirer that the young men are back on active status.
Do you think these students deserved to be suspended from the team? 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% (16 Votes) No: 99% (2695 Votes)
“The results show that there were no political motivations behind this display of support for first responders on 9/11, but there were stances of insubordination,” Grice said.
“Moving forward, Little Miami is returning the players to active status and this matter will be addressed as an Athletic Department Code of Conduct issue, with any potential consequences to be handled by coaching staff.”
Grice said the only flags that would be allowed on the field for the remainder of the season would be the American flag and the school’s spirit flag.
The story gained national attention after Power told WKRC that he suspended the two boys because “we can’t have students who decide to do something anyway after they’ve been told that they shouldn’t be doing 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--2020-09-22--NFL Player Wears Name of Slain Police Officer on Helmet

It is , of course , a scene as common to professional sports post-George Floyd as a high-five or a screaming coach : names or phrases associated with liberal causes célèbres .
What this achieves is unclear .
It ’ s obvious those names and phrases have been chosen upstairs .
In the case of the NBA , the league didn ’ t even make any pretense that the phrases that appeared on the back of player jerseys originated anywhere but from a league-approved effort , with 29 messages officially vetted by league officials .
Never mind that some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ useless ( “ Vote , ” “ Ally , ” “ Justice ” ) and some of them barely made sense ( “ Love Us ” and “ Listen to Us , ” some of the most adored and listened to people on Earth were apparently saying ) .
In the NFL , meanwhile , the entire league put “ End Racism ” on the back of the end zone .
( Thank heavens someone had the good sense to come out against racism .
It ’ s high time , I say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Insider of Lying to Congress , Still Accepts 'Whistleblower ' Complaint from Him On a more personal level , the league also decided to honor what it called victims of racism by letting each player pick one “ victim ” to put on the back of their helmet .
This led to one of the more misguided efforts to virtue-signal on the team level , that of the Pittsburgh Steelers to put the name of Antwon Rose Jr. on the back of their helmets for the entire season .
And yet , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instances of personal bravery — the decision of Steelers offensive captain Maurkice Pouncey to take the name of Rose off the back of his helmet and replace it with that of a slain police officer .
On the surface level , the decision to honor Rose seemed so easy .
An unarmed black 17-year-old , he was shot and killed as he was running away from East Pittsburgh police after fleeing a traffic stop in 2018 .
The story put forth by the Steelers was that they wanted to be “ unified ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the decision was made to go with Rose .
There were problems with this choice from the outset , however .
First , while Rose may have been unarmed , there was plenty of reason for police to potentially assume Rose was dangerous .
He was in a vehicle that was suspected of having been used in a drive-by shooting earlier in the day , and police said there was “ ballistic damage to the rear window , ” according to the Philadelphia Tribune .
While Rose was unarmed , two guns were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had gunshot residue on his hand , although prosecutors would eventually conclude another one of the teens committed the shooting .
( Zaijuan Hester would plead guilty to the charges . )
Meanwhile , the officer who was charged with Rose ’ s death was acquitted .
Pouncey is a supporter of police causes .
While he put Rose ’ s name on the back of his helmet during the first game of the season , the Steelers center said in a statement on Instagram that he “ inadvertently supported a cause of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entire background of the case.
” And so , he wore the name of slain Pittsburgh police officer Eric Kelly instead on Sunday : RELATED : Female ESPN Reporter Roasted After Saying Steelers QB Grabbed Another Player 's 'Private Parts' Kelly , a black police officer , was killed during a 2009 standoff after responding to a call for backup after working an overnight shift .
Officers Paul Sciullo and Stephen Mayhle had already been killed by Richard Poplawski while responding to a domestic disturbance .
According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette , Kelly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , left behind a wife and three children .
Inasmuch as either could be declared a victim of racism , Kelly had more claim to it than Rose .
According to The New York Times , Poplawski had an extensive history of bigotry online , including a detestation of blacks , race-mixing and the “ Zionist occupation.
” And something that would have hit home for Pouncey : After the Steelers won the Super Bowl in 2008 , Poplawski posted about how football itself was little more than “ negroball.
” He was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wasn ’ t the only Steelers player who decided against wearing Rose ’ s name on the back of his helmet for Sunday ’ s game against the Denver Broncos , although none of the other players chose Eric Kelly .
Running back Benny Snell chose Breonna Taylor , while defensive end Stephon Tuitt and wide receiver James Washington left the space reserved for names blank .
Tackle Alejandro Villanueva — the former Army Ranger who made news during the 2017 spate of anthem-kneeling in the NFL by being the only Steeler to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during the one week in which the whole league decided it was woker than Colin Kaepernick — had already taped over Rose ’ s name during the first week of games and replaced it with Alwyn Cashe , an Army sergeant and Medal of Honor candidate killed in Afghanistan back in 2005 .
He continued that in the second week .
The rest of the team , however , continued to go with Rose .
That , in part , seems to be because the decision was made for them .
Vince Williams @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was no vote taken .
So why Rose ?
Safety Minkah Fitzpatrick said that was the idea of the “ people upstairs.
” And that ’ s really the ticket here : the idea that getting woke finally doesn ’ t mean going broke .
This time , the American people really want sociopolitical messages thrown in their faces when they sit down to watch a sports game .
Let ’ s just make sure they ’ re the right ones .
Unarmed black teenager on the back of all the team ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ people upstairs , ” provided no one does their due diligence .
However , you don ’ t even need to think about why Eric Kelly wasn ’ t in the mix .
In fact , the only real courage here is honoring a slain police officer when that ’ s become terminally unfashionable — even though he ’ s the only real victim of racism here .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

It is, of course, a scene as common to professional sports post-George Floyd as a high-five or a screaming coach: names or phrases associated with liberal causes célèbres.
What this achieves is unclear. It’s obvious those names and phrases have been chosen upstairs.
In the case of the NBA, the league didn’t even make any pretense that the phrases that appeared on the back of player jerseys originated anywhere but from a league-approved effort, with 29 messages officially vetted by league officials.
Never mind that some of them were so generic as to be useless (“Vote,” “Ally,” “Justice”) and some of them barely made sense (“Love Us” and “Listen to Us,” some of the most adored and listened to people on Earth were apparently saying).
In the NFL, meanwhile, the entire league put “End Racism” on the back of the end zone. (Thank heavens someone had the good sense to come out against racism. It’s high time, I say.)
On a more personal level, the league also decided to honor what it called victims of racism by letting each player pick one “victim” to put on the back of their helmet.
This led to one of the more misguided efforts to virtue-signal on the team level, that of the Pittsburgh Steelers to put the name of Antwon Rose Jr. on the back of their helmets for the entire season.
And yet, in this effort came one of the few instances of personal bravery — the decision of Steelers offensive captain Maurkice Pouncey to take the name of Rose off the back of his helmet and replace it with that of a slain police officer.
On the surface level, the decision to honor Rose seemed so easy. An unarmed black 17-year-old, he was shot and killed as he was running away from East Pittsburgh police after fleeing a traffic stop in 2018. The story put forth by the Steelers was that they wanted to be “unified” about who to choose — and so the decision was made to go with Rose.
There were problems with this choice from the outset, however.
First, while Rose may have been unarmed, there was plenty of reason for police to potentially assume Rose was dangerous. He was in a vehicle that was suspected of having been used in a drive-by shooting earlier in the day, and police said there was “ballistic damage to the rear window,” according to the Philadelphia Tribune.
While Rose was unarmed, two guns were recovered from the vehicle and Rose himself had gunshot residue on his hand, although prosecutors would eventually conclude another one of the teens committed the shooting. (Zaijuan Hester would plead guilty to the charges.)
Meanwhile, the officer who was charged with Rose’s death was acquitted.
Pouncey is a supporter of police causes. While he put Rose’s name on the back of his helmet during the first game of the season, the Steelers center said in a statement on Instagram that he “inadvertently supported a cause of which I did not fully comprehend the entire background of the case.”
And so, he wore the name of slain Pittsburgh police officer Eric Kelly instead on Sunday:
Maurkice Pouncey honors fallen police officer Eric Kelly for Steelers game against Broncos https://t.co/1OClG9t76F pic.twitter.com/FT5WC5jFa9 — ?dubvLIVE.com??➡?? (@dubvNOW) September 20, 2020
Kelly, a black police officer, was killed during a 2009 standoff after responding to a call for backup after working an overnight shift. Officers Paul Sciullo and Stephen Mayhle had already been killed by Richard Poplawski while responding to a domestic disturbance. According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Kelly, a 14-year veteran of the force, left behind a wife and three children.
Inasmuch as either could be declared a victim of racism, Kelly had more claim to it than Rose. According to The New York Times, Poplawski had an extensive history of bigotry online, including a detestation of blacks, race-mixing and the “Zionist occupation.”
And something that would have hit home for Pouncey: After the Steelers won the Super Bowl in 2008, Poplawski posted about how football itself was little more than “negroball.”
He was sentenced to death in 2011.
Pouncey wasn’t the only Steelers player who decided against wearing Rose’s name on the back of his helmet for Sunday’s game against the Denver Broncos, although none of the other players chose Eric Kelly.
Do you agree with Maurkice Pouncey's decision to honor Eric Kelly on his helmet? 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% (115 Votes) No: 1% (1 Votes)
Running back Benny Snell chose Breonna Taylor, while defensive end Stephon Tuitt and wide receiver James Washington left the space reserved for names blank.
Tackle Alejandro Villanueva — the former Army Ranger who made news during the 2017 spate of anthem-kneeling in the NFL by being the only Steeler to stand for “The Star-Spangled Banner” during the one week in which the whole league decided it was woker than Colin Kaepernick — had already taped over Rose’s name during the first week of games and replaced it with Alwyn Cashe, an Army sergeant and Medal of Honor candidate killed in Afghanistan back in 2005. He continued that in the second week.
The rest of the team, however, continued to go with Rose.
That, in part, seems to be because the decision was made for them. Vince Williams, a linebacker, had said there was no vote taken. So why Rose? Safety Minkah Fitzpatrick said that was the idea of the “people upstairs.”
And that’s really the ticket here: the idea that getting woke finally doesn’t mean going broke.
This time, the American people really want sociopolitical messages thrown in their faces when they sit down to watch a sports game. Let’s just make sure they’re the right ones. Unarmed black teenager on the back of all the team’s helmets? It sounds great to the “people upstairs,” provided no one does their due diligence.
However, you don’t even need to think about why Eric Kelly wasn’t in the mix. In fact, the only real courage here is honoring a slain police officer when that’s become terminally unfashionable — even though he’s the only real victim of racism 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.