theblaze--2020-09-21--Chris Matthews calls Trump 'presidential' for his response to Ginsburg death, and liberals are melti

Chris Matthews calls Trump 'presidential' for his response to Ginsburg death, and liberals are melting down online

Chris Matthews calls Trump 'presidential ' for his response to Ginsburg death , and liberals are melting down online

Former MSNBC host Chris Matthews was the object of a furious backlash after he offered praise for President Donald Trump and his response to the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The iconic liberal pundit offered his appraisal of the president in a short tweet on Monday.
"Trump is right to show respect for RBG. True presidential behavior. Far too rare," said Matthews.
The president was first made aware of the death of the women's rights advocate on Friday when asked by reporters about it after he spoke at a campaign rally in Minnesota. The president called Ginsburg an "amazing woman who led an amazing life." The White House later released a statement praising Ginsburg for her lifetime of accomplishments.
'Pathetic suck-up!'
Despite the muted criticism tacked on at the end of his tweet, Matthews immediately faced the ire of liberals and other critics of the president on social media.
"Oh geez, @HardballChris, give me a f**king break. Really, you're such a pathetic suck-up!" replied Democratic strategist Jon Cooper.
"Oh look, it's Chris Matthews being terrible, how shocking! I'm so glad you're not on TV anymore #stfu," said writer Tara Dublin.
"I swear to god that Chris Matthews never really made it past 1996 in terms of his perception of American politics. The man seems to be stuck in a time when the national discourse was shaped by white men saying things about each other," replied LGBT advocate Charlotte Clymer.
"When you're desperate to be even more of a joke than you already are," said Democratic strategist Adam Parkhomenko.
"So glad you aren't on the air. Some people never learn," said screenwriter Bruno Amato.
Others made biting references to the accusations of sexual harassment that forced Matthews to leave his MSNBC show in March after two decades.
"Gonna just throw it out there that Chris Matthews isn't exactly an expert on respecting women," said disability advocate Kendall Brown.
Here's more on the death of Ginsburg:


theblaze--2020-09-21--NYPD officer arrested, charged with spying for Chinese government

The accused is also an Army reservist who obtained secret clearance

A New York City police officer and U.S. Army reservist was arrested on Monday, accused of spying on behalf of the Chinese government for the past several years.
What are the details?
The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York announced that Officer Baimadajie Angwang, 33, was arrested for "acting as an illegal agent of the People's Republic of China as well as committing wire fraud, making false statements and obstructing an official proceeding."
Federal authorities claim that Angwang, a naturalized U.S. citizen and ethnic Tibetan native to China, "allegedly acted at the direction and control of officials at the PRC Consulate in New York City" since "at least 2014," using his position to spy at the behest of China while serving at the NYPD's community affairs unit.
CNBC reported that Angwang was born in the autonomous region of Tibet, and used his position as an officer to report back to Chinese officials "on the activities of other ethnic Tibetans in the New York area."
The New York Post reported that according to court documents, Angwang "stated that his motivation to be promoted in the NYPD was to assist the PRC and bring "glory to China," and that if he was not able to be promoted within the department, "he stated that 'he might as well be a government employee in China.'"
Officer accused of lying on military form
Angwang is also accused of lying in order to obtain secret clearance as a member of the military.
The Department of Justice news release noted:
As part of his employment with the U.S. Army Reserve, Angwang maintained a "SECRET"-level security clearance. According to court documents, in 2019, Angwang completed and electronically submitted an SF-86C form for a background investigation. On the form, Angwang lied by denying that he had contacts with a foreign government or its consulate and by denying that he had close and continuing contacts with foreign nationals, including his family members who live in the PRC, some of whom are affiliated with the People's Liberation Army.
"The defendant allegedly violated the trust of his community and the New York City Police Department on behalf of a foreign power, the People's Republic of China," Assistant FBI Director Alan E. Kohler said in a statement. "This type of conduct simply cannot be tolerated. This case serves as yet another reminder that China represents the biggest counterintelligence threat to the United States and that the FBI and our partners will be aggressive in investigating and stopping such activities within our nation."
If convicted on all charges, Angwang could face 55 years in federal prison.


theblaze--2020-09-21--Lindsey Graham tells Senate Judiciary Democrats there will be hearings on President Trump's SCOTUS n

Lindsey Graham tells Senate Judiciary Democrats there will be hearings on President Trump's SCOTUS nomination

Lindsey Graham tells Senate Judiciary Democrats there will be hearings on President Trump 's SCOTUS nomination 'After the treatment of @ @ @ @ @ have a different view of the judicial-confirmation process '

Protests outside the home of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) will not stop him from holding confirmation hearings on President Donald Trump's next Supreme Court nomination.
In a letter sent Monday to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chairman Graham announced his intention to hold confirmation hearings for Trump's nominee this year.
After offering condolences for the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death, Graham explained that the Republican majority in 2016 acted constitutionally in refusing to begin confirmation hearings for President Barack Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland.
"When the American people elected a Republican Senate majority in 2014, Americans did so because we committed to checking and balancing the end of President Obama's lame duck presidency," the letter states. "We did so. We followed the precedent and that the Senate has followed for 140 years: since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president's Supreme Court nominee during an election year."
But this year, the presidency and the Senate majority are both held by the Republican Party.
"Because our Senate majority committed to confirming President Trump's excellent judicial nominees — and particularly because we committed to supporting his Supreme Court nominees — the American people expanded the Republican majority in 2018," Graham wrote. "We should honor that mandate. And unlike in 2016, President Trump is currently standing for reelection: the people will have a say in his choices."
In 2016, Graham opposed holding confirmation hearings for Garland and called on his critics to "use my words against me" if he ever changed his position.
"I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said, 'Let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination,'" he said. "And you could use my words against me and you'd be absolutely right."
But in his letter Graham explains that his views have changed after witnessing how Justice Brett Kavanaugh was severely mistreated by Senate Democrats and the media during his confirmation hearings. He asks his colleagues to compare how Republican nominees Kavanaugh, Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito were treated vs. Democratic nominees to the court, including Ginsburg herself.
"I now have a different view of the judicial-confirmation process," Graham wrote. "It's clear that there already is one set of rules for a Republican president and one set of rules for a Democrat president."
"I therefore think it is important that we proceed expeditiously to process any nomination made by President Trump to fill this vacancy," he continued. "I am certain that if the shoe were on the other foot, you would do the same."


theblaze--2020-09-21--Mitch McConnell debunks 'myth' that the GOP won't have time to confirm a SCOTUS nominee

Mitch McConnell debunks 'myth ' that the GOP wo n't have time to confirm a SCOTUS nominee It took him @ @ @

Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took to the floor of the Senate Monday to debunk claims that the Senate does not have sufficient time to consider a Supreme Court nominee before the general election in November.
Citing historical precedent, McConnell argued that the Senate has plenty of time to confirm a nominee and promised that there will be a vote on President Donald Trump's nominee this year.
"President Trump's nominee for this vacancy will receive a vote on the floor of the Senate," McConnell said, reiterating a statement he issued Friday after the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 87, passed away from complications due to pancreatic cancer.
"Now already, some of the same individuals who tried every conceivable dirty trick to obstruct Justice [Neil] Gorsuch and Justice [Brett] Kavanaugh are lining up to proclaim the third time will be the charm," he continued.
"The American people are about to witness an astonishing parade of misrepresentations about the past, misstatements about the present, and more threats against our institutions from the same people who've already been saying for months — well before this — already been saying for months they want to pack the court."
Already, Democrats and some in the media have misrepresented the so-called "McConnell rule," claiming the Republicans are hypocrites for promising to move forward with a Supreme Court nomination during an election year after previously refusing to consider President Barack Obama's nominee Merrick Garland to fill Justice Scalia's vacancy on the court in 2016. Though Democrats say McConnell's 2016 position was no Supreme Court confirmations during an election year, McConnell's actual position was that if the presidency and the Senate majority are of different political parties and cannot agree on a nominee, then the American people may resolve the matter with an election.
This year there is a GOP majority in the Senate and President Trump is a Republican president. Republicans have the constitutional power to fill a Supreme Court presidency and they say it is their obligation to do so.
McConnell also addressed "incorrect" claims that the Senate does not have time to complete the confirmation process before the election.
"We are already hearing incorrect claims that there is not sufficient time to examine and confirm a nominee," McConnell said. "We can debunk this myth in about 30 seconds."
"As of today there are 43 days until Nov. 3 and 104 days until the end of this Congress," McConnell said. "The late iconic Justice John Paul Stevens was confirmed by the Senate 19 days after this body formally received his nominations — 19 days from start to finish."
"Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, another iconic jurist, was confirmed 33 days after her nomination. For the late Justice Ginsburg herself it was just 42 days. Justice Stevens' entire confirmation process could've been played out twice between now and Nov. 3 with time to spare. And Justice Ginsburg herself could've been confirmed twice between now and the end of the year, with time to spare.
"The Senate has more than sufficient time to process a nomination. History and precedent make that perfectly clear."
So far only two Senate Republicans have publicly stated their opposition to confirming Trump's nominee before the election.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) told reporters Friday she will not vote to confirm a new SCOTUS justice until after inauguration day, saying "fair is fair," presumably in reference to Republicans refusing to confirm Garland.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) issued a statement Saturday giving her support to holding confirmation hearings on Trump's nominee before the election but opposing a confirmation vote until afterward.
"In order for the American people to have faith in their elected officials, we must act fairly and consistently — no matter which political party is in power. President Trump has the constitutional authority to make a nomination to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, and I would have no objection to the Senate Judiciary Committee's beginning the process of reviewing his nominee's credentials," she said.
"In fairness to the American people, who will either be re-electing the president or selecting a new one, the decision on a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court should be made by the president who is elected on November 3rd."
On Friday, Sen. Mitt Romney's (R-Utah) communications director Liz Johnson refuted a claim that Romney "committed" to not confirming a nominee until after Inauguration Day.
Romney is reportedly waiting to meet with Sen. McConnell at Tuesday's GOP conference lunch before making a statement on his position.


theblaze--2020-09-21--Antifa militants smash up SUV with terrified dog inside — and believe it or not, driver reportedly i

Antifa militants smash up SUV with terrified dog inside — and believe it or not, driver reportedly is anti-Trump

Antifa militants smash up SUV with terrified dog inside — and believe it or not , driver reportedly is anti-Trump @ @ @ @ @ here , motherf***er ! '

It was another banner day for the Antifa faithful — and this time their antics took place amid a Saturday counterprotest in a park under sunny Philadelphia skies.
What happened?
Seems there were rumblings that the Proud Boys had a rally planned in Clark Park, which — according to the Philadelphia Inquirer — is located in "one of the most progressive, racially diverse neighborhoods in the city."
"Clark Park remains a place where folks from all walks of life come to recreate and to convene and to just be," Jamie Gauthier, who represents the neighborhood on the city council, said in a speech, according to the paper. "The white supremacist hate group that plan to come here today, they set out to disrupt all of that."
But the Inquirer noted that while the Proud Boys never showed, about 500 "locals" did arrive in the afternoon to oppose the controversial, conservative group.
More from the paper:
Social media posts claimed there was a Proud Boys presence at the park, with members saying they were there disguised as journalists to gather information about leftist activists, but they did not engage in organized demonstrations.
A Proud Boys social media page claimed the event, which had been promoted for at least two weeks, was always intended to be a fake, and was a ploy to expose Antifa violence.
BlazeTV's Elijah Schaffer noted that at one point a member of the crowd opposed to President Donald Trump came alongside content creator James Klug and — in a move of apparent intimidation — smacked the ground hard with a bat. But Schaffer said the crowd turned on the anti-Trump man — confusing him for a Trump supporter and calling him a Nazi — and chased him out of the park.
The Proud Boys social media site said the man isn't with the organization, the Inquirer noted.
Here's the clip. (Content warning: Language):
Soon after Antifa militants who were administering the man's expulsion followed the man to his SUV and proceeded to smash it up — with a "terrified" dog inside, Schaffer said.
The leftist militants broke the vehicle's rear window — with the dog barking and poking its head into shards of glass — and continually kicked the side panels.
"Get the f*** out of here, motherf***er!" one Antifa member hollered at the man before he pulled out of his parking spot and drove off.
One of the Antifa faithful threw a large rock at the escaping vehicle for good measure:
(Content warning: Language):


theblaze--2020-09-21--New York Times stealth-edits a highly criticized claim of the 1619 Project about America's founding

New York Times stealth-edits a highly criticized claim of the 1619 Project about America 's founding

The New York Times' 1619 Project has quietly gotten a significant edit that changes a foundational perspective of the project — and the thing it has been most criticized for, Quillette reported.
The 1619 Project, primarily created by reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones, was an ambitious set of historical essays that sought to frame the founding of America from a different perspective. Instead of viewing 1776 as the beginning of the nation's history, the project operated on a perspective that put 1619, the year the first African slaves were brought to North America.
Here's how this idea was presented in the project initially:
The 1619 Project is a major initiative from The New York Times observing the anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country's history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are.
This aspect of the project was heavily criticized. Hannah-Jones has repeatedly been attacked for attempting to essentially rewrite history to fit her preferred narrative about America as a fundamentally racist nation. Hannah-Jones herself has repeatedly reinforced this intention, and branding around the project has emphasized it.
"I argue that 1619 is our true founding," Hannah-Jones wrote in an August 2019 tweet. "Also, look at the banner pic in my profile."
At the time of that tweet, Hannah-Jones' banner picture showed "July 4, 1776" crossed out and "August 20, 1619" written below it. The thread in the below tweets references numerous times Hannah-Jones has referenced 1619 as the true founding of America, as well as her attempts to deny having done so.
As of Sept. 18, Quillette found that the Times statement introducing the 1619 Project had been edited in a small but significant way. Now it states:
The 1619 Project is an ongoing initiative from The New York Times Magazine that began in August 2019, the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country's history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.
President Donald Trump and numerous other conservatives have been critical of the 1619 Project, and aggressively opposed it being taught in schools. Trump signed an executive order last week to establish the 1776 Commission, which is an effort to ensure "patriotic education" is emphasized in public schools.


theblaze--2020-09-21--Left threatens violence if Trump nominates SCOTUS judge

On Monday 's episode of `` Good Morning Mug Club , '' Steven Crowder gave his take on the recent @ @ @ @ @ Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Black Lives Matter riots , and much more .
Watch the @ @ @ @ @ Use promo code LWC to save $ 10 on one year of BlazeTV .
Want @ @ @ @ @ To enjoy more of Steven 's uncensored late-night comedy that 's actually funny , join @ @ @ @ @ place for all of Crowder uncensored and on demand .

On Monday's episode of "Good Morning Mug Club," Steven Crowder gave his take on the recent death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Black Lives Matter riots, and much more. Watch the clip below for details.
Weekend Violence Update: Ruth Bader Ginsburg RIOTS | Louder With Crowder youtu.be
Use promo code LWC to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.
Want more from Steven Crowder?
To enjoy more of Steven's uncensored late-night comedy that's actually funny, join Mug Club — the only place for all of Crowder uncensored and on demand.


theblaze--2020-09-21--Black man goes on profane rant against 'Antifa' rioters stirring up trouble in Portland: 'You ain't

Black man goes on profane rant against 'Antifa' rioters stirring up trouble in Portland: 'You ain't from here, motherf***er!'

Black man goes on profane rant against 'Antifa ' rioters stirring up trouble in Portland : 'You ai n't from @ @ @ @ @

The moment a black man purporting to be a Portland, Oregon, resident went off on demonstrators has gone viral.
In the video, the black man can be heard shouting at a group of protesters, complaining that they are not from the area and are only there to cause problems.
What are the details?
Journalist Andy Ngo shared the video Sunday evening on Twitter, captioning it, "You ain't from here motherf—er! An angry black Portland driver gets out of his car and yells at the antifa rioters. They're stunned and speechless."
In the video, an unnamed black man can be seen exiting his vehicle.
He is dressed in a pair of shorts, a T-shirt, and a hat, and begins accusing the group of coming to Portland to stir up trouble.
As he gets out, he says, "I've got something to say. Yeah. What do you represent? You don't represent this motherf***er!"
He turns on those filming and at least one demonstrator in close proximity, saying, "Whose house is there? Whose house is this at the corner right here? You don't know! Because you ain't from here, motherf***er! But you come here and got a little motherf***er situation for us, how we're supposed to be. You ain't from here, you got a little situation for us, n****."
"You ain't from this motherf***er!" he shouts. "You don't know what we went through, motherf***er!
At the time of this writing, Ngo's video has been viewed more than 231,000 times.
(Content warning: rough language:)
Anything else?
Journalist Kitty Shackleford shared a concerning clip to Twitter on Sunday featuring two men in a pickup truck surrounded by demonstrators on a Portland street.
As protesters converge on the truck, members demand its occupants "say Black Lives Matter."
The camera focuses on the truck's passenger being confronted by the mob as its members order to him to "say Black Lives Matter, homie!"
"It lets us know that you're cool!" another person can be heard shouting from the crowd.
It goes south from there.
"Say f***ing Black Lives Matter right now!" another person demands.
A subsequent clip from the same social media user shares what appears to be the same truck with its passenger window smashed.
The driver of the vehicle can be heard asking, "Who did this? You f***ing p***y! Who did it?"


theblaze--2020-09-21--Meghan McCain unloads on 'The View' over Democrats' behavior ahead of SCOTUS nomination: Dems will d

Meghan McCain unloads on 'The View' over Democrats' behavior ahead of SCOTUS nomination: Dems will do 'anything and everything to smear any conservative'

Meghan McCain unloads on 'The View ' over Democrats ' behavior ahead of SCOTUS nomination : Dems will do 'anything @ @ @ @ @ conservative' She might not be wrong about this

Sparks flew on Monday's broadcast of "The View" when the co-hosts discussed President Donald Trump's plans to announce a nominee to replace late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg by the end of the week.
Ginsburg died Friday at the age of 87 following recurring bouts of cancer.
What are the details?
Conservative co-host Meghan McCain squared off against her fellow co-hosts over the news, proclaiming that she backs Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) announcement that the Senate will vote on Ginsburg's successor before the November general election.
"One of my biggest concerns is if we have a contested election in 2020, and it's split like it was in 2000, we have to have a full court ruling on it," she explained. "The potential for constitutional chaos is absolutely the most imminent it has been in my modern lifetime."
McCain pointed out that while she agrees with her fellow co-hosts who said McConnell is a hypocrite over the announcement after he refused to confirm former President Barack Obama's nominee in 2016, she believes that the circus surrounding Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation could occur once more due to political division and underhanded dealings.
"Democrats on their side will do anything and everything to smear any conservative," she insisted.
Co-host Sara Haines insisted that the focus should not be on rushing a SCOTUS nomination in the 45 days preceding the election.
"In the shadow of what's been left behind after Ruth Bader Ginsburg's passing, the irony of what type of human she was, and what we're seeing in our politicians is disheartening," she said.
McCain fired back, "At the same time, you have people on the left who are screaming that they're gonna pack the courts and create violence and you're gonna see chaos that we've never seen if Mitch McConnell does this. Everyone is behaving badly across the board, and the deep politicizing that happened after she passed is true, and while you're correct that the majority of Americans are against repealing Roe v. Wade, 47% of Americans are pro-life."
"Every time I talk about it on this show, it's received as if it's this vast minority in the country," McCain said. "It's not. I'm telling you, for people who are pro-life, not never-Trumpers ... for people like me, it is a meat and potatoes issue, much like guns. It will get people out [to vote], period."
Haines then went on to read a quote from Amy Coney Barrett — purported to be a potential SCOTUS nominee — but McCain wasn't having any of it.
"I would be very careful slandering her, Sara, before she's even been put forth," McCain warned. "This is what I'm talking about with the Kavanaugh stuff!"
Co-host Whoopi Goldberg had to pull the plug on the segment, and, quickly cutting to commercial, yelled, "Everybody stop! We're going. We'll be back."


theblaze--2020-09-21--Justice Dept. labels NYC, Portland, and Seattle as 'anarchist jurisdictions,' will seek to withdraw

Justice Dept. labels NYC, Portland, and Seattle as 'anarchist jurisdictions,' will seek to withdraw federal funds

Justice Dept .
labels NYC , Portland , and Seattle as 'anarchist jurisdictions , ' will seek to withdraw federal @ @ @ @ @ federal tax dollars to be wasted '

The Department of Justice has labeled New York City, Seattle, and Portland, Oregon, as "anarchist jurisdictions," a designation that could lead to a withdrawal of federal funding from those cities, according to the New York Post.
The three cities earned the designation for efforts to reduce police funding, or for their response to the race riots that started in late May after the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. White House budget director Russ Vought will reportedly issue guidance about cutting funding to the cities in the coming weeks.
"When state and local leaders impede their own law enforcement officers and agencies from doing their jobs, it endangers innocent citizens who deserve to be protected, including those who are trying to peacefully assemble and protest," Attorney General William Barr said in a statement. "We cannot allow federal tax dollars to be wasted when the safety of the citizenry hangs in the balance.
"It is my hope that the cities identified by the Department of Justice today will reverse course and become serious about performing the basic function of government and start protecting their own citizens," the statement continued.
Earlier this month, President Donald Trump issued a memo expressing a desire for Seattle, Portland, New York City, and Washington, D.C., to have federal funding reviewed in light of their response to unrest.
"My Administration will not allow Federal tax dollars to fund cities that allow themselves to deteriorate into lawless zones," Trump's memo read. "To ensure that Federal funds are neither unduly wasted nor spent in a manner that directly violates our Government's promise to protect life, liberty, and property, it is imperative that the Federal Government review the use of Federal funds by jurisdictions that permit anarchy, violence, and destruction in America's cities."
New York City has seen a spike in crime as Mayor Bill de Blasio sought to cut funding to the NYPD and disbanded a significant plainclothes crime unit.
Seattle surrendered a police precinct and nine blocks of the city to protesters who established a continuous protest area first referred to as the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, later renamed the Capitol Hill Organized Protest. That area of Seattle was occupied for roughly a month, and for much of that time the protesters had the support of Mayor Jenny Durkan.
Portland has had more than 100 straight days of protests, some of which have devolved into riots, including vandalism and deadly violence. President Trump sent federal law enforcement to the city to help protect property and quell the violence, but that effort was met with resistance from Mayor Ted Wheeler, who is also Portland's police commissioner.
Additionally, Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt announced a policy in August that said many riot-related crimes would not be prosecuted.


theblaze--2020-09-21--Black journalist calls BLM a 'Criminal$ Justice Movement' that is nothing more than a 'cash grab' fo

Black journalist calls BLM a 'Criminal$ Justice Movement' that is nothing more than a 'cash grab' for athletes, Democrats, and media

Black journalist calls BLM a 'Criminal $ Justice Movement ' that is nothing more than a 'cash grab ' for @ @ @ @ @ media

Jason Whitlock is a rarity in sports journalism: He's willing to take on the sports business and challenge progressive groupthink. For example, just 10 days ago he came out to declare that "white liberals" are the "true racists" and that liberalism is "the new KKK hood."
Now he's sending the left into fits with a recent Outkick column calling the Black Lives Matter movement the "Criminal$ Justice Movement" that is nothing more than a "cash grab" by professional athletes, celebrities, the media, and Democrats.
What did he say?
Whitlock began his Friday column — "BLM 101 History Lesson: The 2020 Criminal$ Justice Movement" — saying it was time someone defined the real "history being forged by Black Lives Matter, Colin Kaepernick, Lebron James, Nike and their media sycophants."
The left, he wrote, "created the Criminals Justice Movement. Or better yet, the Criminal$ Justice Movement."
"The intense fight for the rights of criminal suspects resisting arrest is really just a cash grab by Democratic politicians, Nike and athletes, celebrities and journalists seeking social media influence," Whitlock said.
As evidence, he pointed to two examples:
Nike: The company's $150 "Icon Jersey 2.0" celebrating Kaepernick, reportedly sold out in seconds last week.
Attorney Ben Crump: The man who has represented the families of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, and Jacob Blake, "bragged to reporters about the $12 million settlement the city of Louisville will pay Breonna Taylor's family. It was good advertising. You've heard of ambulance-chasing lawyers. Crump chases hearses," Whitlock said. He added:
He's built a multi-million-dollar law practice around securing cash settlements for the families of victims of alleged police misconduct. On September 8th, Crump tweeted out a “powerful" message from Jacob Blake that summarizes the Criminal$ Justice Movement.
“Change y'all's lives out there," Blake said from his hospital bed, “stick together, make some money, make things easier for our people out here."
“Make some money" best explains the Criminal$ Justice Movement.
Whitlock's concern, he said, is that all of the "awareness raising" will actually promote a climate that's more dangerous, not less.
"The Criminal$ Justice Movement and its primary policy push — defund the police — have predictably emboldened criminals," he wrote. "Violent crime is elevating in high-crime neighborhoods and police are reluctant to aggressively police those areas."
According to Whitlock, this is not about seeking justice — it's about seeking money and power:
All while Kaepernick and Nike cash in and financial donations pour down on Democratic voter drives. Everybody is using George Floyd's death to make it rain. His memory is used to hype NFL and NBA games, power ad campaigns for podcasts and YouTube shows, leverage media members for promotions and, most importantly, fuel left-wing political funding.
And the people being used by the left to push this cause, Whitlock said, are uninformed, easily influenced young people who can't be bothered to examine the details of what the movement is claiming:
Most athletes have a cursory knowledge of the Criminal$ Justice Movement. They're young, rich and easily influenced by social media. They don't have the time or an interest in researching the details of the movement.
Instead, Whitlock said, these athletes just look for the "best way to avoid public criticism and not be accused of selling out or being a racist" and, therefore, just echo support for whomever the movement tells them to support.
He concluded that the "Criminal$ Justice Movement" does not improve the lives of minorities but only "the lives of Kaepernick, Nike shareholders, hearse-chasing lawyers, black elites using the movement to advance their careers and white Marxist anarchists determined to overthrow capitalism, democracy, freedom and God."


theblaze--2020-09-21--Horowitz: Florida Gov. DeSantis proposes anti-rioting legislation

Not a minute too soon

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) appears to have lost his patience with the rioters and is now seeking to read them his new version of the Riot Act. "Florida is off the table; you're just not coming here," declared the first-term governor at a press conference today.
On Monday, the conservative governor of the Sunshine State unveiled the "Combating Violence, Disorder, and Looting and Law Enforcement Protection Act" at a press event with state legislative leaders and sheriffs. The proposed legislation appears to be aimed at both deterring rioters and looters and protecting law enforcement against punitive action for defending themselves and public order, as well as non-police citizens acting in self-defense.
In terms of deterring the rioters, the legislation would target violent assemblies, destruction of monuments, blocking of public roadways, and harassing of citizens — all rampant behavior of Antifa and BLM mobs that have gone undeterred and unpunished until now.
Specifically, the bill, if adopted by the legislature, would make it a third-degree felony to be a part of an assembly of seven or more people causing damage or injuring people or to obstruct traffic and block motorists during an unpermitted demonstration. The bill would also protect motorists from any liability for death or injury to the mob members if the individual is clearly fleeing to safety. This addresses a growing problem we are seeing with BLM rioters blocking traffic and placing motorists in grave danger of being forced to risk either being severely beaten or running over those blocking the road.
The bill ups the ante against those who topple monuments by making such an offense a second-degree felony under state law. It also criminalizes participation in disorderly assemblies targeting citizens at restaurants or other public places.
Finally, in an effort to target those organizing the rioting, this bill would slap the funders and organizers of violent riots with state RICO charges.
In terms of punishment, the bill seeks to address the catch-and-release problem that is rampant throughout the country. As we've seen throughout the rioting, many individuals who engage in violence against civilians and police are released from jail the next day and charges are dropped. This proposed legislation creates a mandatory six-month sentence for attacking a police officer. It also offers sentence enhancements for those who assault officers, throw objects at civilians or officers, and for individuals present from out of state while participating in a disorderly assembly. Additionally, it bars the release of any of the aforementioned offenders on bail until the first court hearing.
As a way of deterring more liberal localities within Florida that might tacitly bless the violence and fail to protect citizens, the DeSantis proposal would defund those cities that defund the police. Also, rather than debating ending sovereign immunity for police, his bill would end sovereign immunity for government officials who fail to protect the people by allowing victims of the rioters to sue the government when it is grossly negligent in protecting lives and property.
And in case any government workers or teachers want to participate in the rioting, this bill would deny them government benefits and make them ineligible for state employment if they are convicted of any of the aforementioned crimes.
DeSantis is clearly breaking the mold of criminal justice "reform." In recent years, both parties have focused on reducing sentencing and promoting a de-incarceration agenda. DeSantis' proposal is a clear recognition that our deterrent against violent crime, particularly those who feel invincible because of the mass numbers of demonstrators around them, is waning fast.
"They do it because they think they can get away with it," said DeSantis when defending the need to have guaranteed jail time.
"We've seen this go on long enough."
DeSantis laid down the gauntlet and called on every state legislator to tell their constituents during this election season whether they will support the bill or not – whether they will stand with law and order "or stand with the mob."
Incoming state Senate president Wilton Simpson and House speaker-designate Chris Sprawls were also at the press conference and promised to push this legislation through the state Senate as soon as they convene next year.
Grady Judd, the sheriff hosting the event, called on other states to follow in the footsteps of the Florida governor. "I ask the other states, where's your governor? … This is a state where you want to come on vacation, this is a state where you want to grow your business, and this is a state where you're safe."
Judd warned the rioters, "If you loot, the next thing you can try to steal is something off your food tray at the county jail, because you're going to jail. That's a guarantee.
They were clearly sending the message that Florida is the anti-Portland. "You look around the country, and I think it's pretty clear that morale is very low in many police forces," said DeSantis. "If you look at what's gone on in some parts of our country, we just can't allow that to happen here."


theblaze--2020-09-21--Remember the little boy who got pepper-sprayed at an anti-police protest while with his dad? Watchdo

Remember the little boy who got pepper-sprayed at an anti-police protest while with his dad? Watchdog group finds incident wasn't intentional.

Remember the little boy who got pepper-sprayed at an anti-police protest while with his dad ?
Watchdog group finds incident @ @ @ @ @ I felt like I failed him because I could n't protect him , ' the @ @ @ @

You may recall a viral video just as George Floyd protests heated up of a child screaming and crying in the middle of a street as adults douse his face with milk to lessen the sting of pepper spray.
Image source: YouTube screenshot
Some people deemed it outrageous that cops would do such a thing to a kid, while others wondered what the boy's father was doing with his child at the May 30 anti-police protest in Seattle.
Well, last week the city's Office of Police Accountability — a citizen-led watchdog group — ruled that officers didn't violate rules when the boy was inadvertently hit with pepper spray, KOMO-TV reported.
What are the details?
"OPA's review of bystander and body-worn video found that the boy was not individually targeted," the report states, according to the station. "He and his father moved towards a protester who had grabbed an officer's baton and was pushing into the police line. An SPD supervisor used pepper spray to move the protester back. In response, the protester ducked, causing the pepper spray to inadvertently affect the boy and his father."
OPA director Andrew Myerberg defended the board's ruling to KOMO: "It's clearly a directed spray toward someone who is breaking a line, and that force was appropriate for that person."
The report added that "while the impact to the boy was an unfortunate result, he was not visible on the video at the time of the pepper spraying and therefore could not have been seen by the supervisor," the station also said.
What did Dad have to say?
During the protest, video shows the boy's father standing with his son just behind a line of protesters and hollering at police: "Look at his bitch ass!" he yells at one point. Then — balling up his fist — he yells at a cop, "He's ready to swing somethin' — his d**k ain't that big, but that's why [unintelligible] my black ass!"
Image source: YouTube screenshot
After the boy was hit with pepper spray, his father confronted police: "Hey, you're a bitch! You just sprayed my 8-year-old son, you whore-ass motherf***er! F*** you!"
Image source: YouTube screenshot
At a press conference over the incident, Mondo Avery seemed a tad more reserved in front of a camera and said in reference to his son, "I felt like I failed him because I couldn't protect him."
Image source: KIRO-TV video screenshot
Here's a statement submitted to KIRO-TV on behalf of the boy's family in response the the watchdog group's finding:
We are deeply disappointed, but not surprised, by the result reached by the OPA. Today, they have confirmed that it is the Seattle Police Department's position that the use of pepper spray in an intentional and reckless manner that it would strike an innocent child exercising their First Amendment rights is "within policy." We understand the OPA has said it is "sorry" for these actions. But "sorry" and "regret" is not sufficient. We demand change. OPA did not address ... whether the officers could have [taken] steps to prevent this from happening and, even further, no police officers attempted to render aid to the child, making any apology tough to accept. Moreover, the OPA reached its conclusions by analysis and discussion of body camera footage — tapes that were not provided to the family or their legal counsel before today. The [OPA] also refuses to identify the officers who used force in this incident. All of this undermines the claims of objectivity and transparency that the City purports to value. We continue to demand change, and this confirms that it is still deeply needed because the City of Seattle continues to remain indifferent to the suffering its police, and other City officials, have caused to black and indigenous people of color for decades, including the Avery family.
The following is a compilation video from the Office of Police Accountability showing various clips from the May 30 protest. (Content warning: Language):
Child Pepper Spray Investigation Video Compilation youtu.be
(H/T: The Police Tribune)


theblaze--2020-09-21--After high school suspends football players for carrying Thin Blue, Red Line flags, a local group aw

After high school suspends football players for carrying Thin Blue, Red Line flags, a local group awards scholarships to the two teens

After high school suspends football players for carrying Thin Blue , Red Line flags , a local group awards scholarships @ @ @ @ @ still wanted to honor them , and so we did '

An Ohio nonprofit group has awarded a scholarship to the two Little Miami High School football players who were suspended from school after carrying a Thin Blue Line flag and a Thin Red Line flag before a Sept. 11 game.
What's a brief history here?
Brady Williams, whose father is a sheriff's deputy, and Jarad Bentley, whose father is a fireman, insisted that they wanted to honor those killed in the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
Following the move, school authorities suspended the two and in a statement said that the teens were turned down when they initially requested to fly the flags before the game.
Superintendent Gregory Power said, "We can't have students who decide to do something anyway after they've been told they shouldn't be doing it. ... We did not want to place ourselves in a circumstance where another family might want a different flag to come out of the tunnel, one that may be [one that] other families may not agree with from a political perspective."
Following outcry, the administration rescinded the suspension order and permitted the teens to return to school.
What are the details?
On Friday, an Ohio nonprofit group called "Holiday for Heroes" announced it would be awarding the teens a scholarship for their support of police officers and firefighters.
In a statement, the group said, "Brady and Jarad are true PATRIOTS, they did something last Friday that showed they are far beyond their years. These men stood up for a cause they believe in. As they took the field with flags in hand it reminded us how we felt 19 years ago, heartbroken yet strong and united."
According to Fox News, "Holiday for Heroes" has not yet disclosed the scholarship amounts.
Previous scholarship awards have been issued in the amounts of $2,500 and $5,000, according to the group's website.
Last week, the two told "Fox & Friends" that they found a lot of support in the community following the dust-up.
"We wanted to carry out flags to honor the first responders who went towards danger instead of running from it 19 years ago, and we were told 'No' and we kind of took that to heart and we still wanted to honor them and so we did," Williams said during the appearance.
Bentley said he felt compelled to carry the flags "because if it was my dad that had died trying to save those people, I wanted someone to honor him in that way as well."


theblaze--2020-09-21--Trump suggests Democrats made up Justice Ginsburg's reported dying wish about her replacement

Trump suggests Democrats made up Justice Ginsburg 's reported dying wish about her replacement ' I do n't know that @ @ @ @

President Donald Trump on Monday questioned the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's reported dying wish that her replacement on the Supreme Court not be nominated by Trump, wondering aloud if her alleged statement was "written by Adam Schiff, Schumer, or Pelosi."
Ginsburg, 87, died Friday evening of complications from a long battle with pancreatic cancer. According to NPR, days before her death, she dictated a statement to her granddaughter Clara Spera, saying, "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed."
As Democrats are threatening to impeach President Donald Trump should he move forward with a Supreme Court nomination before the election, the president questioned whether those words were said by Ginsburg or, he suggested, written by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the chairman of House Intelligence Committee and leader of the drive to impeach the president earlier this year, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), or Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)
"I don't know that she said that, or was that written out by Adam Schiff and Schumer and Pelosi?" Trump said during an interview on "Fox & Friends."
"I don't know that she said that, or was that written out by Adam Schiff & Schumer & Pelosi? I would be more inclined for the second" -- Trump claims Schiff, Schumer, & Pelosi actually wrote RBG's dying statement, & suggests she'd actually be fine w/him nominating her replacement pic.twitter.com/xLQq1csNTz
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 21, 2020
"I would be more inclined to the second. That came out of the wind. It sounds so beautiful, but that sounds like a Schumer deal or maybe Pelosi or shifty Schiff ... maybe she did and maybe she didn't," the president continued.
There is no evidence that the Democrats fabricated Ginsburg's statement.
"Look, the bottom line is we won the election," Trump said, adding, "We have an obligation to do what's right and act as quickly as possible."
The president on Monday declared his intention to nominate a judge to the Supreme Court on either Friday or Saturday, after funeral proceedings for Justice Ginsburg have concluded.
Democrats have threatened to restart impeachment proceedings against the president if he moves forward with a nominee. Asked by reporters Sunday evening whether impeachment was under consideration, Senate Minority Leader Schumer nodded in agreement as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said, "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."
Speaker Pelosi also suggested retaliatory impeachment is among Democrats' "options."
"We have arrows in our quiver that I'm not about to discuss right now," Pelosi said.
Trump predicts that any impeachment action taken by Democrats will help him win the election.
"I heard if I [nominate], they're going to impeach me," Trump said. "So they're impeaching me for doing what constitutionally I have to do."
"If they do that, we win all elections," he said.


theblaze--2020-09-21--'F*** Cuomo and de Blasio': Brooklyn street painting takes aim at NY Democratic leaders, city quickl

'F*** Cuomo and de Blasio': Brooklyn street painting takes aim at NY Democratic leaders, city quickly responds

'It was a big hit .
The crowds cheered , even the cops chuckled '

Apparently, New Yorkers are not happy with Gov. Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, both Democrats.
Over the weekend, the message "F*** CUOMO AND DE BLASIO" was painted in large, yellow block letters on a Brooklyn street.
According to the New York Post, the message, which appeared in similar style to the "Black Lives Matter" street murals that have appeared across the country, was painted early Saturday morning as a party, dubbed a "small business owner protest," wound down.
"A few partygoers got the idea to paint in huge [letters, using] yellow paint with rollers on North 15th, 'F*** Cuomo and de Blasio,'" one party attendee told the news outlet.
"The party continued. Everyone took photos," the attendee added. "It was a big hit. The crowds cheered, even the cops chuckled."
Unfortunately, not everyone was thrilled. Within 24 hours of the message appearing, city officials painted over the free speech expression.
More from the Post:
Bucking widely held notions about municipal inefficiency, workers from the city Department of Transportation descended on the display less than 24 hours later — around 10 p.m. Saturday — to cover up the message with black, according to the attendee.
"They told the partygoers it came from up top and they were told the sign said 'F–k the police,'" the attendee said, though it was unclear whether the workers meant that the order came from top DOT officials or City Hall.
The exact grievances against Cuomo and de Blasio were not made clear.
However, both Democratic leaders have earned fierce criticism over their handling of the coronavirus pandemic.
On one hand, Cuomo signed an executive order forcing nursing homes to accept COVID-positive patients, which triggered a tsunami of COVID deaths among nursing home residents. Cuomo has refused to accept responsibility or accountability for the deaths.
On the other hand, de Blasio has been slow to rescind strict COVID-related lockdown measures despite New York City, once the global epicenter of the pandemic, having very few cases.
In fact, just last week, de Blasio once again delayed the reopening of public schools in the Big Apple.
Meanwhile, restaurants in the city still cannot serve diners indoors.
For weeks, restaurants have been forced to offer dining in the street. Fortunately for New Yorkers, indoor dining is slated to resume on Sept. 30, although with just 25% capacity.


theblaze--2020-09-21--LeBron James implies black votes have been voided by 'recounts': 'Black people ... don’t believe tha

LeBron James implies black votes have been voided by 'recounts': 'Black people ... don’t believe that their vote matters'

LeBron James implies black votes have been voided by 'recounts ' : 'Black people ... don ’ t believe that @ @ @ @

Los Angeles Lakers star LeBron James said black people don't believe their votes count and that he's seen black votes invalidated by "recounts," according to USA Today.
James, who has been vocal on social justice issues and helped start an organization to combat voter suppression, made the comments during the NBA playoffs in Orlando, Florida. He said he didn't consider voting to be important when he became eligible at age 18 — not just because he was distracted with basketball, but because he didn't think his vote mattered.
"Black people in the community don't believe that their vote matters," James said. "We grow up and don't think that our vote actually matters. It doesn't. We've seen recounts before. We've seen our voices be muted our whole lives."
James did not provide detailed evidence for his assertion.
As a politically active star athlete, James has used his influence and resources to push several voting initiatives leading up to the 2020 election. His organization, More Than a Vote, has raised money to pay off court fees for convicted felons so they can regain the right to vote and has helped push an effort to make NBA arenas into voting sites.
"A lot of people, including when you get to the NBA, still have those same things that haunted you when you were younger," James said of NBA players' perceptions of voting and political activism, according to USA Today. "My goal is to change that and to educate not only my peers, but their communities as well to let them know that our voice is being heard. Our vote is being counted."
James has been particularly active on social justice matters in the wake of killings of black Americans in recent months, having made a some of strident statements about racism in America.
After Ahmaud Arbery was killed by citizens in Georgia after being suspected of burglary, James stated that black people are "literally hunted every day."
"We're literally hunted EVERYDAY/EVERYTIME we step foot outside the comfort of our homes! Can't even go for a damn jog man! Like WTF man are you kidding me?!?!?!?!?!?" James wrote on Twitter.
After Jacob Blake was shot by Kenosha police in Wisconsin last month, James said guns in America are an issue because they cause black people to feel hunted.
"I think firearms are a huge issue in America," James said. "They're not just used for hunting. For Black people right now, we think you're hunting us."


theblaze--2020-09-21--Trump says to expect SCOTUS nominee Friday or Saturday, after Justice Ginsburg's funeral

Trump says to expect SCOTUS nominee Friday or Saturday , after Justice Ginsburg 's funeral The president has narrowed his @ @ @ @

President Donald Trump says he will announce his nominee to fill the United States Supreme Court vacancy left by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death by this weekend.
In an interview on "Fox & Friends" Monday morning, the president said he will announce his decision "Friday or Saturday," after funeral services for Justice Ginsburg.
"I think it will be on Friday or Saturday," Trump said. "We want to pay respect; it looks like we will have, probably, services on Thursday or Friday, as I understand it. I think, you know, with all due respect, we should wait until the services are over for Justice Ginsburg."
"So we're looking probably at Friday or maybe Saturday," Trump added.
Brian Kilmeade asked the president about three of his rumored top choices for the court, Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Judge Barbara Lagoa of the Eleventh Circuit, and Judge Allison Jones Rushing of the Fourth Circuit. The president confirmed that Lagoa is under consideration.
"Well, she's excellent. She's Hispanic. She's a terrific woman from everything I know; I don't know her," Trump said, noting that Lagoa is from Florida and "we love Florida."
Lagoa is one of the recent additions to President Trump's Supreme Court list, along with Rushing. The president said he's narrowed his choices from that list down to five.
"They're all very smart," Trump said. "There are actually five I'm looking at; it's down to five. It could be any one of them; they'll all be great. These are really top people, if you get on that list — I created a list, and Biden should do that too."
Trump criticized Biden's potential Supreme Court nominees as all "major radical left players," saying Biden would upset his base if he appointed a centrist judge instead of a member of the "AOC plus three crowd."
"He's got a problem. If he puts somebody on that is not going to be popular with a certain group of people, they will all run away from him like the plague," Trump said.
Trump declined to reveal who else is under consideration when pressed.
"I'd rather not say, but they're two fantastic people," Trump said. "So I'm looking at five, probably four, but I'm looking at five very seriously. I'm going to make a decision on either Friday or Saturday. I will announce it either Friday or Saturday, and then the work begins. But hopefully it won't be too much work, because these are very qualified people; no matter how you would look at it, these are the finest people in the nation. Young people, pretty young, for the most part."
Steve Doocy asked the president whether electoral politics is influencing his decision, noting that Lagoa being from Florida may sway Florida voters in November. "Is politics gonna be part of it?" Doocy asked.
"I try not to say so," Trump replied. "I think, probably, automatically it is, even if you're not wanting to do that, it becomes a little bit automatic. A great one from Michigan; as you know, Indiana represented very well; we have from all over the country."
"These are the smartest people. These are the smartest young people. You know, you like to go young, because they're there for a long time," Trump said.
"You could have somebody be on the bench for 40 or 50 years, you know, these are big decisions," he continued.
"We're looking for somebody who is brilliant, really understands the law and abides by the Constitution, and a good person. We're looking for a good person, a person who's really been somebody that has very, very high moral values," Trump said.
After news of Ginsburg's passing on Friday, Democrats called on the president and the GOP majority in the Senate to refrain from nominating a judge to fill the Supreme Court vacancy until after the election, when a new president might be installed in office next year.
The Republicans intend to move forward with a nomination with no regard to complaints from Democrats. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) declared Friday that Trump's nominee "will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate."
Two Republicans, Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) are opposed to moving forward with a Supreme Court confirmation before the election. The GOP holds a 53-seat majority in the Senate. If two more GOP senators join Murkowski and Collins in opposition, then Trump's nominee, whoever he or she is, will have difficultly getting confirmed.
The president called on all Republicans to consider a nominee "without delay."


theblaze--2020-09-21--AOC says even a Biden win won't be enough: 'No president is the answer ... mass movements are the an

AOC says even a Biden win won't be enough: 'No president is the answer ... mass movements are the answer'

AOC says even a Biden win wo n't be enough : 'No president is the answer ... mass movements are @ @ @ @ @ to brunch '

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said Democrats can't be satisfied and complacent even if Joe Biden wins the presidency, because simply winning the election won't accomplish all they desire, according to the New York Post.
Ocasio-Cortez, who endorsed democratic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in the Democratic presidential primary, supports Biden as the nominee, but urged Democrats not to think a Biden presidency would be enough to return things to politics as usual.
From the Post:
"After we work to command victory in November, I need folks to realize that there's no going back to brunch," Ocasio-Cortez said in an Instagram video marking the death of liberal US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday — and referring to the need for Democratic Party stalwarts not to get complacent over any potential White House win.
"We have a whole new world to build. We cannot accept going back to the way things were, and that includes the Dem Party,'' AOC said.
"Voting for Joe Biden, it's not about whether you like him or not, it's a vote to let democracy live another day," said the socialist Bronx congresswoman, who has been famously tepid in her backing of Biden.
"No president is the answer. You are the answer. Mass movements are the answer,'' the pol said.
The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg led to an immediate escalation of the political stakes on the Democratic side, as they deal with the reality that President Donald Trump plans to nominate the third Supreme Court justice of his first term, and Democrats are powerless to stop the confirmation without Republican assistance.
Ginsburg's death caused a resurgence in consideration from Democrats to expand the Supreme Court in order to appoint more liberal justices. The idea was discussed among Democratic presidential primary candidates, although Biden is not in favor of the radical idea. NPR reported:
"I'm not prepared to go on and try to pack the court, because we'll live to rue that day," he told Iowa Starting Line early in the primary race last year. A few months later, during a Democratic primary debate, Biden once again rejected the idea. "I would not get into court packing," Biden said. "We add three justices. Next time around, we lose control, they add three justices. We begin to lose any credibility the court has at all."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has refused to rule out any options for resisting or retaliating against Republicans if they nominate and attempt to confirm a justice before the election. That includes impeaching President Donald Trump or Attorney General William Barr, or packing the court.


theblaze--2020-09-21--Democrats threaten possible second Trump impeachment over GOP filling SCOTUS vacancy as Constitution

Democrats threaten possible second Trump impeachment over GOP filling SCOTUS vacancy as Constitution allows ' I believe that certainly there @ @ @ @ @ of law-breaking in the Trump administration '

Powerful Democrats are floating impeachment — both of President Donald Trump and Attorney General William Barr — as one possible option to stop Trump from fulling his constitutional duty to nominate a judge to fill the Supreme Court vacancy or as a measure of retaliation if he proceeds with the nomination process.
What are Democrats saying?
Freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), one of the most influential progressive lawmakers, confirmed Sunday that Democrats may consider impeachment against Trump and Barr.
During a press conference in New York Sunday evening, a reporter asked Ocasio-Cortez, "Congresswoman, you mentioned being open to all ideas to buy time. Would you be in support of potentially renewing talks of impeachment hearings either against the attorney general or the president?"
Ocasio-Cortez responded:
Well, you know, I believe that certainly there has been an enormous amount of law-breaking in the Trump administration. I believe that Attorney General Barr is unfit for office and that he has pursued potentially law-breaking behavior.
That being said, these are procedures and decisions that are largely up to House Democratic leadership. 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.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who was standing next to Ocasio-Cortez, nodded in agreement when she said impeachment should be on the table.
Anything else?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also admitted Sunday that retaliatory impeachment is on the table if Trump fills the Supreme Court vacancy prior to the election.
"Well, we have our options. We have arrows in our quiver that I'm not about to discuss right now," Pelosi said.
Pelosi's comments, as well as those made by Ocasio-Cortez, only came after media members asked them whether Democrats would consider impeachment as a response to Trump.
Not only are Democrats considering impeachment, but many are advocating that, once Democrats regain control of the White House and Senate, they expand the number of Supreme Court justices and pack the court with ideological liberals.
How did Ginsburg feel?
As TheBlaze reported, Ruth Bader Ginsburg did not support court-packing or expanding the court.
"I have heard that there are some people on the Democratic side who would like to increase the number of judges. I think that was a bad idea when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to pack the court," Ginsburg said in an interview with NPR last July.
"You mention before the quote of appearing partisan. Well, if anything would make the court appear partisan then it would be that, one side saying, 'When we're in power we're going to enlarge the number of judges so we'll have more people who will vote the way we want them to,'" she added.


theblaze--2020-09-21--Horowitz: No more stealth nominees. Use the conservative litmus test on SCOTUS candidates

Horowitz : No more stealth nominees .
Use the conservative litmus test on SCOTUS candidates

Not even our grandparents' generation, much less the Founders of this country, could ever have envisioned a day when to a huge number of people, the purpose of voting in a presidential election would not be for the presidency per se, but for who will choose the next Supreme Court justice. They would have laughed at the notion that a Supreme Court justice is more powerful than a president, but alas, here we are again debating a Supreme Court vacancy more vociferously than the presidency itself — because we have all wrongly entrusted the future of our society to the hands of unelected lawyers.
Before we elect senators or presidents, we are supposed to have a good idea as to their stances on the critical issues that will likely confront them. Given that the Supreme Court is wrongly regarded as a super-legislature, we have an even greater right – even a responsibility – to know where the nominee stands on the critical issues. No more stealth nominees, where we wind up getting justices selected by so-called conservatives who redefine human sexuality. We need hard litmus tests, even more than we have for president and Senate.
Just consider the difference between the power of what was considered the weakest branch of government and the power of the political branches. A senator is just one of 100 people. To change policy in the country, you need a majority (supermajority in the Senate) in both houses and the president's signature. If you oppose the law, you can always work to win future elections and change the law with a new vote from new members. The same applies to the president, whose subsequent policies can be changed by his successor. Then, of course, we are told that the judiciary itself can easily change the policies enacted by the political branches.
Contrast that to the Supreme Court, where we have nine life-tenured lawyers who can literally change the laws of God, or so we are told, and their decision is immutable. Regardless of the law, Constitution, rules of standing for a judicial case, past and recent Supreme Court precedent, political fallout, or national security consequences, justices can declare an opinion and have that policy unquestionably become "the law of the land." According to the erroneous practice of judicial supremacism, the only way to change that back is to embark on the nearly impossible task of amending the Constitution. And unlike when the shoe is on the other foot, we are told that the other branches cannot check that decision in any way.
With that background in mind, this is why it's time that we finally establish litmus tests for GOP SCOTUS nominees. If Democrats want to end the policy of judicial supremacism and make the Supreme Court boring again, then the nominee's positions matter less. But if they continue to treat SCOTUS like a super-legislature and get 100% assurance from their nominees where they stand on life, social issues, immigration, election law, and just about everything that can affect our society and politics, you better believe we will do the same.
Republicans keep nominating people who side with the Left on monumental issues. We swore we wouldn't do this again after Souter, but here we are today with Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch – to varying degrees – in play to side with the Left at any given time on some critical and transformational issue. Conservatives' only one-hundred-percenter is Clarence Thomas, while the Left has four of them.
The mistake we make during every confirmation process is that we try to fool the Left with stealth nominees who have never said anything "controversial," but instead we wind up fooling ourselves. During Gorsuch's confirmation, I prepared a list of 15 relevant questions conservatives should get answers on, at least privately, before supporting him. One of them was whether he believes sex discrimination in law includes transgenderism. Well, the president and GOP senators didn't get an assurance on a single one of those issues, and we are paying the price today.
Of the past 19 Supreme Court vacancies, 13 of them were filled by GOP presidents. Yet, at best, just four of them can be considered to have been reliable enough on our issues (Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito).
The guessing game clearly has not worked for us. It's time to grab the bull by the horns. It's time to nominate someone who gives assurances to Trump and other conservative leaders as to where they are on the issues of the time. No, they need not prejudge specific cases. But if they believe illegal aliens have a right to remain in the country, that there is a right to transgenderism, and that past erroneous court decisions should be given deference, then we need to know about that up front. The other side always knows, and it never makes a mistake.
Rather than focusing on identity over everything else, we must focus on ideology, because, yes, this is a more ideological decision than congressional or presidential elections. The last time a president promised to appoint a woman above all other considerations, we got Sandra Day O'Connor. It's not that Trump shouldn't choose a woman, but whoever he chooses should check the constitutional boxes, not just in vague platitudes, first and foremost, instead of the identity politics boxes.
Sound too partisan? Well, then stop making the court the ultimate partisan body that is vested with the power to transform natural law.
On Saturday, David Axelrod, President Obama's former campaign manager, complained about the "tyranny of the minority" – with two GOP presidents having been elected by a minority of the nationwide popular vote choosing the majority of Supreme Court justices. Well, there is no greater tyranny of a minority than nine unelected, life-tenured lawyers being able to decide with finality any and every life decision of an individual and society at large.
As President Lincoln warned in his first inaugural address, "If the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
Trump should tell his opponents that he is content to return the court's power to the early days when John Jay, the first chief justice, observed that it lacked "the energy, weight, and dignity which are essential to its affording due support to the national government." But now that it contains all the weight of the national government, like an obese behemoth, you better believe we're going to make sure our nominees know the lines and don't cross them. If Democrats don't like it, they ought to shake hands with us and agree to place the power of this body on a rigorous diet.


theblaze--2020-09-21--Leftist militants order passenger in surrounded truck to say 'Black Lives Matter,' put up his fist o

Leftist militants order passenger in surrounded truck to say 'Black Lives Matter,' put up his fist on Portland street

Leftist militants order passenger in surrounded truck to say 'Black Lives Matter , ' put up his fist on Portland @ @ @ @ @ Matter right now ! '

Sitcom actor Anthony Anderson may have been joking when he angrily ordered Emmys host Jimmy Kimmel to chant "Black Lives Matter!" with him louder and louder onstage at the audience-less awards show Sunday night, but leftists in Portland weren't speaking in jest when they gave the same command to a truck passenger over the weekend.
What are the details?
Journalist Kitty Shackleford posted the disturbing clip to Twitter early Sunday showing two men in a pickup truck surrounded by leftist militants on a street.
The camera focuses on the truck's passenger being confronted by the mob as its members order to him to "say Black Lives Matter, homie!"
The man — who in any other situation might appear imposing with his bald head and facial hair — meekly raises his fist but apparently isn't able to say the magic words.
"It lets us know that you're cool!" another voice shouts from the crowd, offering the man a reason for repeating the phrase.
"You put the fist up, and you've got to say Black Lives Matter!" a voice instructs him.
"Say f***ing Black Lives Matter right now!" a threatening shout is heard.
At one point the man apparently insists that he did say the phrase, but one of the leftists isn't convinced: "I didn't hear s**t, bro!"
"Loud and proud!" a voice hollers.
Finally the truck passenger apparently satisfies the leftists, and the mob appears to back off: "OK, I appreciate it," one voice says before the clip ends.
Content warning: Language:
Anything else?
A subsequent clip from Shackleford shows what appears to be the same truck with its passenger window smashed out — and the man who apparently was behind the wheel during the earlier confrontation walks toward the vehicle and discovers the damage.
He is not pleased.
"Who did this?" the man growled. "You f***ing pussy! Who did it?"
It's worth pointing out that if anyone from the mob surrounding the truck earlier told the driver to put up his fist and say "Black Lives Matter," he didn't play along.
Soon the furious man is seen sprinting down a sidewalk, presumably to find the culprit who damaged his truck.
Content warning: Language:
Back where we started, here we go around again
It probably won't surprise you that this wasn't the first time militant leftists took to the streets and demanded verbal tolls before letting motorists pass.
A few months ago, one unhinged protester on a Maryland street near Interstate 270 was caught on video screaming a question at passing cars: "Do black lives matter to you?!"
When a woman driver apparently ignored the question, the protester ran after the vehicle and screamed obscenities at the "Karen." Then other protesters joined in the fray and began assembling near the vehicle: "She ain't goin' nowhere ..." a male declared as a protester banged on the hood of the SUV.
The clip ends before we get to see how it was resolved.
Content warning: Language:'


theblaze--2020-09-21--POLL: Who should Trump nominate to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court?

POLL : Who should Trump nominate to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court ?
Cast your vote and do @ @ @ @ @

POLL: Who should Trump nominate to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court?
Cast your vote and don't forget to share!


theblaze--2020-09-21--Vet kills self hours before turning himself in to police after fatally shooting BLM protester. His a

Vet kills self hours before turning himself in to police after fatally shooting BLM protester. His attorney says killing was self-defense, slams trial by 'social media jockeys.'

Vet kills self hours before turning himself in to police after fatally shooting BLM protester .
His attorney says killing @ @ @ @ @ by 'social media jockeys . '

Jake Gardner, the veteran and Nebraska bar owner charged in the fatal shooting of Black Lives Matter protester James Scurlock, is dead after committing suicide, his attorneys said.
What are the details?
In a Sunday statement, Gardner's attorney, Stu Dornan, said, "The family of Jake Gardner has asked [fellow attorney] Tom Monaghan and myself to share the news of his death today, at his own hand."
Authorities charged Gardner, 38, with killing an unarmed Black Lives Matter protester during May protests in Omaha, Nebraska. He was due to turn himself in just hours before authorities discovered his lifeless body outside a medical clinic.
Authorities are working to determine his cause of death.
According to the Omaha World-Herald, Gardner's legal team added that their client was killed by "a cocktail of behavioral health problems stemming from head trauma he experienced during military service, the belief that people were out to kill him, and an 'incessant rush to judgment' by social media jockeys."
Gardner fatally shot Scurlock, a 22-year-old Black Lives Matter protester, during a protest on May 30. Gardner encountered Scurlock outside his downtown Omaha bar. Following the fatal shooting, Gardner faced death threats, and the owner of the building that housed the bar revoked his lease.
Douglas County Attorney Don Kleine initially declined to file charges against Gardner, reportedly believing that the suspect acted in self-defense.
At the time, Kleine said, "We've reviewed the available evidence and made our decision based on the evidence and the law. I made a decision, and I would not change that decision based on anything we know today. ... However, I'm not afraid of having a decision that I've made reviewed by others."
Following the announcement, Kleine appointed special prosecutor Fred Franklin as well as a grand jury, saying that he had hopes the gesture would "restore public faith in the justice system."
"The grand jury indictment was a shock to him, it was a shock to us, it was a shock to many people," Dornan told the World-Herald following his client's suicide.
What else?
Surveillance footage taken of the incident appears to show Gardner speaking to Scurlock. Gardner can be seen producing a gun, prompting Scurlock to back away.
According to reports, two other people who were with Scurlock at the time reportedly shoved Gardner to the ground. Gardner then fired what appeared to be two warning shots into the air, when Scurlock reportedly jumped on Gardner's back.
Reports say that Scurlock allegedly had his arm around Gardner's neck, which prompted Gardner to fire over his shoulder at Scurlock, killing him.
On Tuesday, a grand jury charged Gardner with manslaughter, attempted assault, making terroristic threats, and using a gun to commit a felony.
Dornan added, "Unfortunately, there are two men who have died in a terrible tragedy. It's a terrible tragedy for the Omaha community, it's a terrible tragedy for James Scurlock and his family, it's a terrible tragedy for the Gardner family."
You can read more on the history of the fatal shooting here.


theblaze--2020-09-21--Good Morning Mug Club: Republicans MUST Replace RBG Immediately!

Steven reviews the left 's reaction to Ruth Bader Ginsburg 's deaths , and their threats of increased violence and @ @ @ @ @ election .
Then he makes the case for Trump and Republican 's replacing Ginsburg before @ @ @ @ @ then turns to examines the recent Senate testimony of Ted Cruz regarding the channel 's @ @ @ @ @ promo code LWC to save $ 10 on one year of BlazeTV .
Want more @ @ @ @ @ enjoy more of Steven 's uncensored late-night comedy that 's actually funny , join Mug @ @ @ @ @ for all of Crowder uncensored and on demand .

Steven reviews the left's reaction to Ruth Bader Ginsburg's deaths, and their threats of increased violence and rioting leading up to the election. Then he makes the case for Trump and Republican's replacing Ginsburg before the November election. He then turns to examines the recent Senate testimony of Ted Cruz regarding the channel's censorship on YouTube.
Use promo code LWC to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.
Want more from Steven Crowder?
To enjoy more of Steven's uncensored late-night comedy that's actually funny, join Mug Club — the only place for all of Crowder uncensored and on demand.


theblaze--2020-09-21--Louisville federal buildings boarded up as city braces for decision on whether cops will face charge

Louisville federal buildings boarded up as city braces for decision on whether cops will face charges for Breonna Taylor's death

Louisville federal buildings boarded up as city braces for decision on whether cops will face charges for Breonna Taylor 's @ @ @ @ @ up their firearms before a march on July 25 in Louisville , Kentucky .
The @ @ @ @ @ to the killing of Breonna Taylor .
( Photo by Brett Carlsen/Getty Images )

With a decision on whether or not to charge the police officers involved in Breonna Taylor's killing anticipated this week, some federal buildings have been boarded up and in-person hearings have gone remote in Louisville, Fox News reported.
Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron will present the findings from the Taylor investigation to a grand jury this week and after that is expected to make an announcement about the fate of the three officers who executed a no-knock warrant on Taylor's home in March and fatally shot her.
The federal courthouse downtown and the offices attached to the courthouse have had the windows boarded up. The courthouse will be closed to the public Monday through Friday, and scheduled in-person hearings will be conducted as video conferences.
Fox News reported that there was not an official reason given for the changes, but an unnamed official shed some light on the situation:
The order did not give a reason for the temporary closure but said it came at the request of the General Services Administration, which manages the buildings. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Office in Louisville will be closed Sept. 21-25 "due to a court order," according to the agency's website.
An unnamed courthouse official told the Louisville Courier-Journal that the buildings would be closed this week in anticipation of a major announcement, but did not elaborate.
City and federal properties have been targeted by rioters in various cities over the past several months in response to police violence against minorities, including Taylor. A federal courthouse in Portland, for example, has been repeatedly vandalized by protesters during a streak of more than 100 straight days of protests.
The city of Louisville paid a $12 million settlement to Taylor's family last week as part of a civil lawsuit over her killing.
Taylor was killed March 13 when officers broke into her home on a warrant that was part of a drug investigation after midnight. After Taylor's boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, fired at the plainclothes officers upon entry, officers returned fire, hitting Taylor five times.
Walker, a legal gun owner, said he didn't know the officers were law enforcement when he shot at them. He was initially charged with attempted murder of a police officer after hitting one of them in the leg, but the charges were later dropped. Walker has sued the city of Louisville for compensatory damages and to protect himself from being arrested again in connection with the incident.


theblaze--2020-09-21--Social media shreds Jimmy Kimmel for joking about ICE deporting John Oliver during Emmy Awards

Social media shreds Jimmy Kimmel for joking about ICE deporting John Oliver during Emmy Awards Cringeworthy to say the least

Social media castigated comedian and TV host Jimmy Kimmel on Sunday night following remarks he made about calling ICE on a fellow talk show host during the 72nd Primetime Emmy Awards.
The awards show was held virtually, and the nominees — dressed in typically ostentatious awards ceremony garb — livestreamed themselves from their homes in a production that resembled a vast conference call.
What did Kimmel say?
Kimmel, following news that he lost the Emmy for Outstanding Variety Talk Series to British TV host John Oliver, made a joke about calling Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Oliver.
Oliver's show — which is broadcast on HBO — has won the award for the last five years.
As highlighted by the Daily Mail, Kimmel quipped, "Congratulations again to John Oliver. I will be reporting him to ICE."
In response, social media said that Kimmel was guilty of using "white privilege" in making such an off-handed remark.
What was the response?
A bevy of social media users took to their respective channels to condemn Kimmel for the remark.
One user wrote, "The amount of white privilege it took for jimmy kimmel to get up on stage at a nationally televised event and make a joke about ice and not have one tell him that it isn't okay, is absolutely astonishing to me."
Another added, "[I] don't think Kimmel is all that funny. Particularly when he jokes about ICE and the systemic terror that they cause, or any of his other highly weird jokes."
"My dad was deported," another user wrote. "He was literally placed on a plane with two federal agents. He was in chains. He was dropped off at Heathrow Airport and that's it."
Another user complained, "I didn't know that it was needed, but @jimmykimmel making a joke about calling #ICE on @iamjohnoliver is not only poor taste, but completely out of touch w/ everything happening right now."
"Happy Hispanic Heritage Month from the #Emmy's where the only Latinx representation we got was Count von Count ft. Lin Manuel [and] America Ferrara presenting an award and Jimmy Kimmel's tasteless and hurtful ICE joke," another user said.
Another added, "[J]immy kimmel should be kicked off the show for making an ice joke."
Kimmel has yet to respond to the ensuing controversy at the time of this reporting.
Of note, Oliver became an American citizen in December.
Anything else?
In June, Kimmel admitted to benefiting from white privilege.
During a monologue on "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" the longtime TV host said that he understood the damage caused by the notion of white privilege and said that he and other white people shouldn't be offering insight on the police killing of George Floyd, who died the last week in May.
"Over the past week, I've been hearing, I've been reading very thoughtful posts and words from very smart people, some of whom say white people shouldn't be talking right now, they should be listening. And I get that," he said during the monologue. "And I don't disagree with that. But I'm the only one here and it's a talk show. So, I want to share what I've been thinking about and trying to sort through."
“I know that a lot of white people bristle when they hear the word 'privilege,' as in 'white privilege,' because there are millions of white people who didn't grow up with money, or a good education, or a solid family background, or maybe even a family at all," he said. "So when they hear the word 'privilege,' they go, 'What privilege? ... You hear the phrase 'white privilege' and it's easy to get defensive. The first time I heard it, I did. To me, white privilege was what Donald Trump had, a wealthy father and a silver spoon in his mouth. It wasn't what I grew up with, so I rejected it because I didn't understand what white privilege meant. But I think I do now. I think I at least understand some of it."
He added that white people don't often have to deal with "negative assumptions being made about us based on the color of our skin."
"It rarely happens, if ever, whereas black people experience that every day. And please don't tell me you don't ever make assumptions based on the color of their skin, because I just don't believe it," he insisted. "We all do. I know I have. I'm embarrassed to say it, but I have."
He concluded, "I read something last night that I think makes a lot of sense. It's this: 'White privilege doesn't mean your life hasn't been hard. It just means the color of your skin isn't one of the things that makes it harder.' Wherever you stand, I don't see how you can argue with that."


theblaze--2020-09-22--Man demands parents choose between Trump signs in their yard and seeing their grandkids. It spectacu

Man demands parents choose between Trump signs in their yard and seeing their grandkids. It spectacularly backfires — and now he's sorry.

Man demands parents choose between Trump signs in their yard and seeing their grandkids .
It spectacularly backfires — and @ @ @ @ @

Writer Leo Guinan went viral after sharing a personal, anti-Trump anecdote Friday on Medium, revealing that he told his mother and father that they would have to choose between having a Trump 2020 sign in their front yard and seeing their son and grandchildren.
Guinan received heavy pushback over the piece, and, admitting that he made a mistake, published a follow-up entry Monday revealing that he was sorry for what he told his family.
What did he say in the original post?
The original article, titled, "Today I Gave My Dad A Choice: Trump or His Grandkids and His Son," Guinan revealed that his father had the audacity to place a pro-Trump sign in his front yard.
Guinan was apparently so upset and offended that he told his father that he would not be visiting with his children until he removed the offending sign from the property.
Guinan, who said he was "really pissed" over the move, said he sent his father and mother a text message.
"Hands shaking, tears in eyes. This is what it said," he wrote. "Due to the signs in the yard, the kids and I will not be down. The current occupant of the White House is preaching hate and violence, endangering the lives and safety of many of my friends. This is not acceptable to me at all. There is a complete disregard for women, minorities, science, ethics, and morality. Please consider if you support Trump that much. Because I hate him that much. I wanted to be upfront and honest about my feelings."
Guinan said that he felt empowered after he pulled the trigger on the message and felt secure in his anti-Trump convictions.
"At this point, it is not acceptable to me," he wrote. "You can vote for whom you wish. But I can choose who I surround myself with. I love my dad, but I can't be around him until he understands how vital I believe this election to be and what is truly at stake. It is not easy. But it was necessary. "
What did he say in his follow-up post?
Just days later, Guinan admitted that he might have acted irrationally in trying to hold his family hostage over their political differences.
In a follow-up post titled, "How To Fail At Everything," Guinan said he wanted to "go viral" his apology to his father.
"I took an emotional moment in my life and framed it in a specific way because I wanted to trigger a response," he wrote.
And he did. He said he received "mostly negative" responses, which he admitted was unsurprising.
"I was trying to prevent others from being manipulated by manipulating them," he reasoned. "And I was doing this because I had the ability to, through social networks. And I let that go to my head. I am sorry to everyone who experienced that. It made me truly realize the incredibly destructive power that social media can provide."
Guinan added that the posting "sucked me into doing the very same behaviors I thought I was fighting."
"I apologized to my dad in person," he revealed. "I screwed up with him, and I owned that. I am OK with making mistakes because that is the best way to learn. But my dad did teach me growing up that it is better to own your mistakes and make them right."
"I screwed up by trying to influence others through social media," Guinan continued. "[I'm] sorry that I influenced your thoughts and actions via social media. ... [I] deleted all of my social media accounts. There were toxic to my life."
Guinan continued, insisting that social media is toxic, and encouraged his followers to examine their online lives.
"[Social media] came very close to ruining my life," he admitted. "I refuse to let it do that."
At the time of this reporting, it does appear that Guinan's Twitter account has been deactivated.


theblaze--2020-09-22--Delaware officials, FBI seize enough fentanyl to kill 75 percent of state's population in Operation

Delaware officials, FBI seize enough fentanyl to kill 75 percent of state's population in Operation No Mas

Delaware officials , FBI seize enough fentanyl to kill 75 percent of state 's population in Operation No Mas

Delaware investigators along with the Federal Bureau of Investigation say they seized enough fentanyl during a massive drug bust to kill 75 percent of the state's population of 973,764.
What are the details?
Delaware State Police and the FBI on Monday announced 28 arrests in connection with the drug bust, titled Operation No Mas.
According to WPVI-TV, all 28 suspects have been charged with 252 felonies, including criminal racketeering, conspiracy, drug dealing, and more. The station reported that the organization also "carried out a great deal of violence."
Authorities executed 31 search warrants in their investigation of the group, referred to as the Renteria Drug Trafficking Organization for its "leader," Luis Renteria. They discovered at least $5 million worth of fentanyl, cocaine, and heroin.
Renteria reportedly owned rental properties in both Delaware and Pennsylvania. He faces up to 30 years in prison if convicted.
In a statement, Jennifer Boone, special agent in charge of the FBI's Baltimore field office, said, "Included in these results was the largest fentanyl seizure by Delaware law enforcement in the state's history, making a major dent in the supply of fentanyl that would have been distributed on the streets of Newark [Delaware] and surrounding areas. Alone, the quantity of fentanyl seized could have killed thousands and thousands and thousands of people."
Jones added that sources of supplies for the Renteria organization "were located in numerous states including California, Pennsylvania, and Florida."
The News Journal reported that authorities are investigating whether Renteria's organization is "directly responsible for any overdose deaths."
"Drug dealers often have unique stamps to differentiate their heroin from others, so police are working to trace whether any overdoses came from drugs linked to Renteria," the outlet noted.
Renteria and others would likely also be charged with those deaths if so, according to authorities.
Enough to kill 750,000 Delawareans
Lt. Robert Jones of the Delaware State Police said that the quantity of fentanyl seized was incredible.
"It was enough ... to kill 750,000 Delawareans," Jones said.
Delaware Attorney General Kathleen Jennings added, "The amount of fentanyl, cocaine, heroin, drug money, and guns seized in this sting has saved lives and will save lives — point blank. The actions of these narcotics enterprises have ripples stretching across our region and, at times, across the nation."
"Disrupting them helps disrupt a drug trade that I and everyone else here today can attest breeds violence in Delaware and elsewhere," Jennings added.
Anything else?
A media release from the Delaware State Police noted that investigators seized at least five vehicles and more than $260,000 in cash including the following:


theblaze--2020-09-22--Louisville police declare state of emergency due to fear of riots that could follow Breonna Taylor d

Louisville police declare state of emergency due to fear of riots that could follow Breonna Taylor decision

Does this mean the cops wo n't be charged ?
Louisville police declare state of emergency due to fear of @ @ @ @ @ Taylor decision Protesters in support of black lives matter stands in front of a line @ @ @ @ @ the demonstration .
Breonna Taylor was killed on March 13 , 2020 by Louisville Police @ @ @ @ @ to her home .
( Photo by Stephen Zenner/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images )

The Louisville Metropolitan Police Department declared a state of emergency for the city Monday in anticipation of the unrest that could follow a grand jury decision on whether or not to charge the three officers involved in the raid that killed Breonna Taylor in March, NBC News reported.
"In anticipation of Attorney General Daniel Cameron's announcement in the Breonna Taylor case, I am declaring a state of emergency for the Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD)," a memo from Chief Robert J. Schroeder to officers read.
What do we know?
The emergency declaration went into effect immediately Monday, and all officer time-off requests that had not already been approved were canceled. Under the emergency guidelines, officers will work 12-hour shifts.
Windows of federal buildings in the city, including the courthouse, have been boarded up. Hearings scheduled for this week have been changed to video conferences.
Attorney General Cameron is expected to announce this week whether charges will be filed against Sgt. Brett Hankison, Officer Myles Cosgrove, and Sgt. Jonathan Mattingly in Taylor's death. Hankison was fired from the department for "an extreme indifference to the value of human life," while the other two have been placed on administrative leave.
The city of Louisville paid Taylor's family $12 million last week to settle a civil lawsuit.
What do we not know?
It is currently unknown whether grand jury deliberations have begun or not, so it is also unknown exactly when an announcement will be made on the fate of the three LMPD officers.
Background
Taylor was a 26-year-old emergency medical technician. She was in her apartment with her boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, when police officers in plain clothes burst in after midnight March 13. Officers had a warrant due to her connection with her ex-boyfriend, who is a convicted drug dealer.
Walker, allegedly believing a home invasion was taking place, shot one of the officers in the leg. The officers returned fire, shooting more than 20 bullets into the home, hitting Taylor five times. She died at the scene.
The incident was not widely publicized until about two months after it occurred, after which it gained national media attention. Along with the death of Ahmaud Arbery, which also made national news in May, and later the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, the killings of black individuals sparked nationwide protests and riots that have persisted in the four months since.