theblaze--2020-10-12--Comedian Bill Burr lights up cancel culture, gay pride in blistering 'SNL' monologue — and ignites a

Comedian Bill Burr lights up cancel culture, gay pride in blistering 'SNL' monologue — and ignites a Twitter firestorm

Comedian Bill Burr lights up cancel culture , gay pride in blistering 'SNL ' monologue — and ignites a Twitter @ @ @ @ @ dead people now '

Comedian Bill Burr shredded cancel culture during his monologue on "Saturday Night Live" this weekend, joking that the movement had gotten out of control.
What are the details?
During his monologue — which received mixed reviews on social media — Burr joked that the cancel culture mob would be coming for him following the Saturday night appearance.
"They're literally running out of people to cancel," Burr said. "They're going after dead people now."
"They're trying to cancel John Wayne," he continued. "They're all up in arms. They're like, 'Did you hear what he said in that interview in Playboy in 1970? He was born in 1907. That's what these people sounded like. You never talked to your grandparents and brought up the wrong subject? All of a sudden, they went off the rails? Like, 'Oh, God, keep making the cookies.'"
Burr also said that he's unclear on why gay pride receives an entire month.
"The month of June is gay pride month," he said. "That's a little long, don't you think? For a group of people that were never enslaved."
The remark came with the implication that black people should get more than just 28 days of recognition for February's Black History Month.
"These are equator people," he joked. "Give them the sun for 31 days. There's gay black people, they could celebrate from June 1, June 31, give them 61 days to celebrate."
Elsewhere during the interview, Burr joked that white women — which he referred to as "b***hes" at one point — co-opted the "woke movement."
"The woke movement was supposed to be about people of color not getting opportunities," he explained. "Somehow, white women swung their Gucci-footed feet over the fence of oppression and stuck themselves at the front of the line."
What are angry people saying about this?
One user wrote, "Bill Burr's monologue segment re: WW wasn't anything to be celebrated and I'm again disappointed at Black folks aligning with gendered insults just to take digs at white women. That whole segment was misogynistic trash just like the 'Karen' nonsense."
Another added, "Bill Burr is trash and has always been trash. Not because he doesn't raise valid criticisms in some of his comedy, but because he has always leveraged his ability to point them out to the detriment of change and the benefit of himself, and he can f*** off into the sun for it."
"Honestly, I didn't even know who Bill Burr was, and after that opening monologue I can honestly say I'm glad I didn't," another user said. "Jokes were in poor taste, not funny. As a gay man in an interracial relationship we were both offended and turned the channel. Who approved that monologue?"
Another user wrote, "The fact some of you can't even admit Bill Burr was wrong for calling women b***hes is problematic as f*** because I be damn if my dead grandmother is a b***h when she voted for Hillary Clinton and worked her damn hardest to protect her black grandkids!!!"
Yet another added, "Before yesterday I had no clue who Bill Burr was & I wish I didn't know now. But the truth is Hillary was f***ed over by WW & WM. The numbers don't lie. Be offended, check your privilege, and move on. If you voted for Hillary cool. It is what it is."
What are entertained people saying about this?
One user wrote, "FYI If you're a white woman mad at Bill Burr's monologue, you're openly identifying as one of his b***hes."
Another added, "Bill Burr is a great comic with incredible, well crafted jokes and my personal view is that the people most served by pearl clutching about jokes are the people who want to launder real right wing extremism through the idea of "jokes" that are actually not jokes at all."
"Did @billburr make SNL Great Again?" another user simply asked.
Another user wrote, "Bill Burr has both railed against cancel culture and against idiots like Bill Maher who self victimize over it. He's constantly evolving in the service of comedy and he also calls himself an idiot a lot."
Yet another added, "[Y]ou know whats even better than bill burr p***ing off wine mum twitter bill burr p***ing off racists with the exact same set."


theblaze--2020-10-12--HS teacher orders student to take down flag supporting President Trump seen in his room — or leave o

HS teacher orders student to take down flag supporting President Trump seen in his room — or leave online class @ @ @ @ @ son to leave his classroom because of something I have in my home ? '
@ @ @ @ @

A New Jersey public school teacher ordered a student to take down a flag supporting President Donald Trump that was hanging in his room — and was visible during an online class — or leave the virtual session, Jersey Shore Online reported.
What are the details?
Anthony Ribeiro, a Toms River High School North junior, got the Trump flag from his aunt last week as a birthday present, and the 17-year-old promptly hung the flag in his room, the outlet said.
Nothing was said about the flag during his first six classes Thursday, the outlet said — but there was still his final class of the day to get through: chemistry.
"I was the first in because I make sure I am on time, but he looked up at the screen, didn't say anything, and as people came in, he took attendance, and then said, 'Anthony take the flag down right now,'" Ribeiro recalled to the outlet. "My mic was muted because that is one of the requirements for meets this year and shook my head no, and he said [his] room wasn't a place for politics and that was not acceptable and 'if you aren't going to take it down, you will have to get out of this class.'"
Double standard much?
Ribeiro added to Jersey Shore Online that his teacher brought up politics during the first week of school last month.
"The school set up a system with a period of 15 minutes between every other class where you would talk about mental health and talk about what was going on in the world, and [the teacher] decided to talk about global warming for most of the days, and he would bring politics into it," he recalled to the outlet. "In learning, you need to have politics in social studies or history, but teachers have to be down the middle when it comes to being a Democrat or Republican."
Ribeiro also told the outlet his teacher "said Republicans don't believe in climate change or global warming, and Joe Biden and the Democrats are the people that will put light on what the science is to global warming. In one of his class periods [the teacher] said 'that is why they have my vote this year in the election and hopefully in the future they will have yours.' He said Republicans deny global warming is even a thing, which made it political."
He added to Jersey Shore Online that some of his fellow students found his teacher's reaction hypocritical: "A couple people texted me ... afterward and said it was crazy for him to say there was no politics in his room when he makes political remarks."
What did the student's mother have to say?
Tara Jost, Ribeiro's mother, told the outlet she didn't take kindly to her son's treatment and contacted the district superintendent and high school principal.
"This is in my own house," Jost noted to Jersey Shore Online, adding that there are no rules she's aware of regarding room decorations.
She added to the outlet that Assistant Superintendent Cara DiMeo noted the teacher's actions were improper and that the matter had been discussed with him.
"I said, 'How dare he tell my son to leave his classroom because of something I have in my home?' He's a science teacher number one; number two, we're Americans, and we all have the right in what we believe in, and he was talking politics the first week of class, which he has no right to do in telling them who to vote for," Jost told the outlet.
She also noted to Jersey Shore Online that if students wore Trump shirts to school during in-person education, they wouldn't be asked to leave.
Then it happened again
The day after Ribeiro's chemistry teacher told him to remove his Trump flag or leave his class, Ribeiro's English teacher told him the same thing, the outlet said.
He agreed to abide by the order, but Jost told Jersey Shore Online she wishes he hadn't.
More from the outlet:
Ribeiro said he was a year away from being able to vote and during the pandemic has become very active in following the news and learning more about the political world. He noted being well aware of how divided people are at the current time including division within families and friends who have differing viewpoints.
A district representative told Jersey Shore Online that officials can't comment because it's an internal matter.


theblaze--2020-10-12--Jay-Z pays bail, citation fees for Black Lives Matter protesters arrested in Wisconsin

Protests erupted after a black officer was not charged for fatality shooting Alvin Cole

Well-known rapper Jay-Z has paid the bail and citation fees for protesters in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, who were arrested while demonstrating for justice in death of Alvin Cole, a 17-year-old black teenager shot and killed by police in February.
What are the details?
Jay-Z and Team ROC, the social justice arm of his organization ROC Nation, announced in a press release Friday that they posted bond and covered additional fees for the arrested individuals, who included Cole's mother and his three sisters, according to CBS News.
Violent riots broke out in the city last week after Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm announced that no charges would be brought against Joseph Mensah, the black Wisconsin police officer involved in the Feb. 2 shooting.
On Thursday, the Wauwatosa Police Department announced that several protesters were arrested for being in violation of the city's curfew.
In the press release Friday, Team ROC blasted the arrests and called on Wisconsin Democratic Gov. Tony Evers to appoint a special prosecutor.
"Our hearts break for the family of Alvin Cole and the Wauwatosa community," Team ROC director Dania Diaz said, according to WISN-TV. "Not only did the District Attorney's Office fail to hold Officer Joseph Mensah accountable for killing Alvin, but the local police also arrested and injured Alvin's mother Tracy and his sisters as they peacefully protested alongside Jacob Blake's father. We will continue to stand with these families and support the peaceful protestors as we collectively fight for the legacies of Alvin Cole, Jay Anderson and Anthony Gonzales, who all died at the hands of Mensah."
Team ROC had been reportedly following the case for months and even paid for a full-page ad in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel in July, which called for Mensah's immediate prosecution and termination.
What else?
In a 14-page letter explaining his reasoning for not bringing charges, Chisolm said that evidence showed Cole fled from police carrying a stolen handgun, which he refused to turn over and at one point fired.
"He did not surrender the weapon and was fired upon by Officer Mensah causing his death," Chisholm wrote, according to the Associated Press. "[There] is sufficient evidence that Officer Mensah had an actual subjective belief that deadly force was necessary and that belief was objectively reasonable."
Mensah was reportedly the subject of an attack by Black Lives Matter protesters in August when a group of at least 50 individuals vandalized his girlfriend's home and physically assaulted him.
In a post on Facebook following the incident, Mensah claimed that he and his girlfriend were "assaulted, punched, and ultimately shot at several times."
"A shotgun round missed me by inches," he added.


theblaze--2020-10-12--Horowitz: Minneapolis residents scared to leave their homes as city on the brink

Horowitz : Minneapolis residents scared to leave their homes as city on the brink ' I 'm scared to even @ @ @ @

Why are Minneapolis residents terrified to leave their homes in recent months? For the same reason why someone brazenly shot and killed an anti-Antifa counterprotester in broad daylight in Denver on Saturday. There is no deterrent against violent criminals any more and therefore no protection for the average citizen.
"We have never seen anything like this."
"I'm scared to even drive after dark."
"I don't feel safe walking around my neighborhood."
"Everybody feels the same way. We all want to move."
This is just some of the feedback that members of the Minneapolis city council received during a meeting of the Public Health and Safety Committee last Thursday, according to Alpha news. During a two-hour virtual hearing, numerous citizens spoke about their concern of understaffed and demoralized police and the role of the city's politicians in emboldening criminals. With almost a quarter of the year left to go, there is already a 37.5% increase in homicides over the 12-month total of 2019.
The message has essentially been telegraphed that law and order is a racist concept, and so long as anyone acts violently in the name of "racial justice," it is forgiven or even encouraged. The black communities closest to the violence are paying for this a lot more than the gated communities of politicians.
Bill Rodriguez, a passionate citizen speaker at the meeting, summed up the consequences perfectly. "If we don't act soon, here's what's going to happen: you'll be presiding over the biggest exodus of businesses and families that this town has ever seen just as some of you are running for reelection next year."
But in city after city, we are seeing the opposite of law and order. The city officials are taking actions to discourage the police and encourage violent criminals, particularly those involved with BLM and ANTIFA. According to the Oregonian, out of 974 criminal cases stemming from the Portland riots over the past several months, 666 were dropped by Multnomah District Attorney Mike Schmidt. Moreover, only 7 out of the 39 arrests for assaulting police officers resulted in charges being filed. The outlet even found 18 individuals who were arrested three or more times throughout the rioting since May. Nearly all the charges have been dropped.
The Oregonian further found that even some of the cases that were initially listed as having criminal charges lodged against the defended were later dropped. "But court records show prosecutors have subsequently decided to drop all charges in at least 22 of these cases, some that have included allegations of riot, burglary and unlawful use of a weapon."
Is it any wonder why a suspect is seen on video in broad daylight shooting an anti-ANTIFA protester in Denver on Saturday? There is simply no deterrent against these people because they have a de facto green light from city politicians, prosecutors, and courts to rampage with impunity.
In Rochester, New York, a left-wing protester was caught on camera punching a policeman in the face. He was released the next day.
According to the New York Post, a similar incident just happened in Manhattan. Angel Rivera, 18, who allegedly head-butted an NYPD cop following three prior arrests for assaulting officers, was let back onto the streets on Saturday.
How much longer are we going to allow this one-sided war on citizens and cops alike to play out while the only people who are deterred are those who act in self-defense?
This dynamic is creating a death spiral of demoralizing police, vacancies in key policing positions, sparse police presence, weakening of deterrent, and emboldening of criminals. Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that many city police departments are having trouble finding police chiefs. People simply don't want the job. As a result, the death toll of violence due to BLM and ANTIFA will continue to mount.
Meanwhile, as violent criminals are released in cities like New York, often without posting any bail, New York officials are fining Jewish synagogues for opening their doors and exercising their First Amendment rights. So, while peaceful people in America's major cities must quiver in fear of violent criminals, not only can they not count on their government to protect them, but they must fear its tyrannical hand as well. The very people who respect the police the most must now fear them, while those who assault the police go undeterred. Who ever said crime doesn't pay and that violence is not the answer?


theblaze--2020-10-12--Thousands of fans ignore COVID rules to converge at LA Staples Center following Lakers' championship

Thousands of fans ignore COVID rules to converge at LA Staples Center following Lakers' championship win; many target cops during chaos

Thousands of fans ignore COVID rules to converge at LA Staples Center following Lakers ' championship win ; many target @ @ @

A massive horde of NBA fans took to the streets of Los Angeles after the Los Angeles Lakers won the NBA title. The Lakers won 106-93 over the Miami Heat in Game 6 of the finals on Sunday night.
What are the details?
KABC-TV reported that thousands of people showed up on Figueroa Street outside Los Angeles' Staples Center, and some of them targeted police officers and their cruisers as officers were forced to declare the scene an unlawful assembly.
Days ahead of the Lakers' win, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti directed citizens to stay off of the streets due to COVID-19 restrictions.
On Friday, Garcetti said that NBA fans should not congregate on the streets during or after the game — which took place at the ESPN Wide World of Sports Complex near Orlando, Florida — either to celebrate a win or lament a loss.
"I encourage you to yell at the top of your lungs inside your homes, maybe even open up the window or step outside your door as we've done for our first responders and essential medical workers to thank them," Garcetti said. "Let's thank the Lakers when they win, but let's do it safe."
Garcetti also warned that disregarding his advice could sabotage "all the progress we have made in our fight against COVID-19."
"LAPD went into tactical alert and declared the gathering an unlawful assembly," KABC reported. "Cars were seen performing 'donuts' and 'burnouts,' some cars were swarmed by fans in the streets."
The report continued, "Multiple fireworks were set off and there were isolated reports of small groups throwing rocks and bottles at police."
The station noted that local police and California Highway Patrol officers shut down ramps leading to the downtown area during the melee.
Bleacher Report on Monday noted that many of the fans "began throwing beer bottles and other 'projectiles' at uniformed police officers that swarmed the area."
"The few isolated incidents soon grew to a large mob of sports fans which soon made their way down the streets of Los Angeles turning over police cars and breaking into local businesses," the outlet reported. "Some innocent bystanders became injured in the incident as the hoard [sic] came rushing down the streets."
The outlet added that police arrived on the scene en masse "with riot gear and shots of tear gas which were thrown into the mass of hysterical fans."
The Daily Mail also reported that "witnesses told the Los Angeles Times that officers also fired 'beanbag rounds' at one point, which sent some people running."
(H/T: The Daily Wire)


theblaze--2020-10-12--Majority of Americans — including 60% of Democrats — say feeling 'welcome and safe' is more importan

Majority of Americans — including 60% of Democrats — say feeling 'welcome and safe' is more important than being able to speak freely online

Majority of Americans — including 60 % of Democrats — say feeling 'welcome and safe ' is more important than @ @ @ @ @ online

What's more important, protecting Americans' feelings or protecting Americans' ability to speak freely?
The ability to speak one's mind has come under attack in everyday life — from social media companies' attempts to keep controversial content off their sites to college campuses' efforts to create safe spaces and squash offensive speech.
Apparently most Americans are OK with that, at least according to a new survey from the Pew Research Center.
What's that now?
Americans have grown more intolerant when it comes to speech — particularly speech they say hurts their feelings.
For example, there has been a concerning movement on college campuses to stifle speech that some students find offensive. Some students, Campus Reform revealed, say they're willing to give up free speech so others can "feel comfortable." And a FIRE survey shared this month showed that nearly one-fifth of college students say its OK to use violent means to shut down speech they deem offensive.
Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have long been criticized for reportedly censoring conservative voices that some people find offensive. For example, just last week, Blaze Media's Mark Levin went after Facebook for throttling the reach of his media page, accusing the company of trying to influence the election.
With current attitudes of some Americans and the actions of social media and online video companies in mind, it probably will not surprise most readers to hear that a majority of Americans believe people's feelings are more important than being able to speak one's mind online.
According to Pew, 53% of U.S. adults say "being able to feel welcome and safe online" is more important than "people being able to speak their minds freely online."
Democrats were more likely than Republicans to feel that way — but many free speech advocates are likely not thrilled with the share of GOPers who also backed feelings over free expression: 60% of Democrats and 45% of Republicans said feeling safe is more important than free expression.
These results are a six-point jump for Democrats and a six-point drop for Republicans since 2017.
Broken down by party and gender, it's clear that within parties, women are more likely than men to put concern over feelings ahead of freedom of expression.
A majority of GOP women (54%), Democratic women (64%), and Democratic men (55%) ranking feelings ahead of freedom in this survey. Only among GOP men does a minority (36%) believe feeling safe is more important than speaking freely.


theblaze--2020-10-12--California man finds dozens of mail-in ballots discarded in alley trash cans

'Every vote counts , whichever party it is '

A California man is sounding the alarm bell after he found dozens of mail-in ballots mysteriously stuffed inside two Santa Monica trash cans.
The shocking discovery comes as the 2020 presidential election is well under way in terms of absentee and mail-in ballots. Voting by mail took newfound prominence in the national dialogue over the summer as leaders looked for safe methods of conducting a national election amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
Many Americans, therefore, have chosen to cast their vote via mail-in ballot, which Republican critics say increases the possibility of voter fraud.
What are the details?
Osvaldo Jimenez told KABC-TV that he made the alarming discovery last Thursday. Stuffed inside a Santa Monica trash can, Jimenez discovered dozens of official ballots, along with other personal mail items, such as bank statements.
"I opened the trash can, and I see a lot of envelopes and ballots, especially ballot envelopes in the trash can, and I knew right away that was not normal," Jimenez said. "I thought it was somebody playing a prank. Nobody's going to throw ballot envelopes in the trash can."
Jimenez's wife posted pictures of the trashed ballots on social media, KCBS-TV reported.
According to KABC, Jimenez recovered the ballots and phoned police.
"If it was my ballot in there, I would want somebody to, you know, recover it," Jimenez told KABC. "Every vote counts, whichever party it is."
Shockingly, Jimenez later discovered even more mail-in ballots in a separate trash can, KABC reported.
How the ballots ended up in the trash cans is not clear. Law enforcement is investigating the incidents, as is the United States Postal Service.
Anything else?
As mail-in ballots play a greater role in the election than they ever have before, there have numerous stories of suspicious activities happening with mail.
For example, the U.S. Postal Service is investigating an incident that happened in Glendale, California, last month in which massive bags of mail were mysteriously dumped in a parking lot.
Then, just last week, a New Jersey mail carrier was arrested after police say he dumped thousands of mail pieces he was supposed to deliver. Among the pieces of discarded mail were 99 ballots.
Meanwhile, an investigation was launched in Virginia last week after six USPS collection boxes were broken into, sparking new fears that mail-in ballots could be compromised or stolen.
Election officials nationwide, however, say that despite mail-in ballots playing a significant role in this year's election, the integrity of the election will not be compromised.


theblaze--2020-10-12--VIDEO: Sen. Josh Hawley eviscerates media, Democrats for attacks on Amy Coney Barrett's faith

Sen. Josh Hawley ( R-Mo . )
on Monday sternly rebuked the press and his Senate Democratic colleagues for asking questions critical of Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett 's faith in his opening remarks for the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing .
`` We 've gotten to read a lot about you in the press , and in particular about your religious beliefs , '' Hawley said to Barrett .
`` One attack after another in the liberal media , one hit piece after another , many of them echoed by members of this committee . ''
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ putting the spotlight on Barrett 's Catholic faith and her ties to `` People of Praise , '' a small charismatic Christian fellowship group based in Indiana .
The articles have raised questions about the group , suggesting that its Catholic doctrinal beliefs on abortion , contraception , IVF , and gender roles would have undue influence on Barrett 's jurisprudence should she be confirmed to the Supreme Court .
Republicans have criticized the questions as a `` religious smear . ''
The point of the questions about Barrett 's faith , Hawley @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has `` the independence to be a judge , a justice on the United States Supreme Court . ''
He called out Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris ( D-Calif. ) , who sits on the judiciary committee , for previously questioning judicial nominees about their relationships to Catholic groups : Hawley also referred to ranking member and California Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein 's infamous `` the dogma lives loudly within you '' comment from Barrett 's confirmation hearing for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals , calling such language `` the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` Let 's be clear about what this is : This is an attempt to broach a new frontier .
To set up a new standard , '' Hawley said .
`` Actually , it 's an attempt to bring back an old standard that the Constitution of the United States explicitly forbids .
I 'm talking about a religious test for office . ''
Hawley then cited Article VI of the U.S. Constitution , which states that `` no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification for any office or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Hawley pointed out that Article VI comes even before the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment in the Constitution , stressing its importance .
He warned that the attacks on Barrett 's faith undermine the principles and liberties the Constitution was written to protect .
`` This bedrock principle of American liberty is now under attack , '' he said .
`` That is what is at stake when we read these stories attacking Judge Barrett for her faith .
That is what is at stake when my Democratic colleagues repeatedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about their religious beliefs , about their religious membership , about their religious practices , about their family beliefs and practices .
That is an attempt to bring back the days of the religious test .
That is an attempt to bring back the veto power of the powerful over the religious beliefs and sincerely held convictions of the American people .
And that is what is at stake in this confirmation hearing . ''

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) on Monday sternly rebuked the press and his Senate Democratic colleagues for asking questions critical of Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett's faith in his opening remarks for the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing.
"We've gotten to read a lot about you in the press, and in particular about your religious beliefs," Hawley said to Barrett. "One attack after another in the liberal media, one hit piece after another, many of them echoed by members of this committee."
In recent weeks, several articles were published putting the spotlight on Barrett's Catholic faith and her ties to "People of Praise," a small charismatic Christian fellowship group based in Indiana. The articles have raised questions about the group, suggesting that its Catholic doctrinal beliefs on abortion, contraception, IVF, and gender roles would have undue influence on Barrett's jurisprudence should she be confirmed to the Supreme Court. Republicans have criticized the questions as a "religious smear."
The point of the questions about Barrett's faith, Hawley surmised, is to question whether Barrett has "the independence to be a judge, a justice on the United States Supreme Court."
He called out Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), who sits on the judiciary committee, for previously questioning judicial nominees about their relationships to Catholic groups:
And it's not just in the newspapers; it's members of this committee, including the Democratic nominee for vice president of the United States, who has questioned past nominees who have come before this committee about their membership in Catholic fraternal organizations like the Knights of Columbus. And for those watching at home, that's right, you heard me correctly, Sen. Harris and others on this committee have repeatedly questioned judicial nominees' fitness for office because of their membership in the Knights of Columbus.
Hawley also referred to ranking member and California Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein's infamous "the dogma lives loudly within you" comment from Barrett's confirmation hearing for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, calling such language "the very terminology of anti-Catholic bigotry."
"Let's be clear about what this is: This is an attempt to broach a new frontier. To set up a new standard," Hawley said. "Actually, it's an attempt to bring back an old standard that the Constitution of the United States explicitly forbids. I'm talking about a religious test for office."
Hawley then cited Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, which states that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the United States."
Now that was big news in 1787 when it was written, and it's worth remembering why. It's because no country, no republic in the history of the world had ever guaranteed to its citizens the right to freedom of conscience and religious liberty. Every other country that had ever existed tied together the religious beliefs that would be approved by the powerful and the right to serve in office, or to vote, or just to be a citizen. In every other country across history, you had to agree with what those in power agreed with in order to hold office or be a citizen in good standing. ...
So when our founders put Article VI into the Constitution of the United States, they were making a very deliberate choice. They were breaking with all of that past history and they were saying in America it would be different. In the United States of America we would not allow the ruling class to have veto power over your faith, over what Americans believed, over who we gathered with to worship, and why and where and how.
Now, in this country, the people of the United States would be free to follow their own religious convictions. Free to worship, free to exercise their religion. And people of faith would be welcome in the public sphere ... they'd be welcome without having to get the approval of those in power, like those on this committee. They would be welcome to come and to bring their religious beliefs to bear on their lives, on their office, in all that they do. So long of course as they are peaceful citizens who'd follow the law.
Religious people of all backgrounds would be welcome in public life, and no person in power would be able to control what the American people, any American citizen, thought or believed or who they worshiped. This freedom of conscience and religious liberty undergirds all of our other rights, because it tells the government that it cannot tell us what to think or who we can assemble with or how we can worship or what we can say.
Hawley pointed out that Article VI comes even before the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment in the Constitution, stressing its importance. He warned that the attacks on Barrett's faith undermine the principles and liberties the Constitution was written to protect.
"This bedrock principle of American liberty is now under attack," he said. "That is what is at stake when we read these stories attacking Judge Barrett for her faith. That is what is at stake when my Democratic colleagues repeatedly question Judge Barrett and many other nominees about their religious beliefs, about their religious membership, about their religious practices, about their family beliefs and practices. That is an attempt to bring back the days of the religious test. That is an attempt to bring back the veto power of the powerful over the religious beliefs and sincerely held convictions of the American people. And that is what is at stake in this confirmation hearing."


theblaze--2020-10-12--Ted Cruz embarrasses Senate Democrats, points out they aren't even talking about Amy Coney Barrett d

Ted Cruz embarrasses Senate Democrats, points out they aren't even talking about Amy Coney Barrett during her confirmation hearing

Ted Cruz embarrasses Senate Democrats , points out they are n't even talking about Amy Coney Barrett during her confirmation @ @ @ @ @ 's spoken , we 've heard virtually not a single word about Judge Barrett '

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on Monday lambasted Senate Democrats for making policy arguments about the Affordable Care Act during the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court.
"Let me observe, as Sherlock Holmes famously observed, that 'what speaks the loudest is the dog that didn't bark.' Which is, to date, of every Democrat who's spoken, we've heard virtually not a single word about Judge Barrett," Cruz said.
Accusing Democrats of engaging in "political rhetoric" against President Donald Trump and other Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Cruz asserted that his colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not discussing Barrett's credentials because they are "impeccable."
He noted that the American Bar Association, "which typically leans hard left and has a long pattern of favoring Democratic nominees over nominees appointed by Republican presidents, had no choice" but to give Barrett its highest rating.
Cruz dismantled Democratic talking points that this Supreme Court nomination is "illegitimate" based on the timing or the fact that it is an election year. He reviewed the history of 29 Supreme Court appointments that occurred during an election year, reminding Democrats that 19 appointments were made when the president and the Senate majority shared the same party and that 17 of those 19 nominees were confirmed, even during an election year.
He added that partisan complaints over which party was in control of the Senate at a given time miss the point of the Senate's constitutional function when there is a court vacancy.
"The framers of the Constitution deliberately set up a system of checks and balances so that nobody could become a Supreme Court nominee without both the president and the Senate," Cruz explained. "Each was designed to check the other. That system of checks and balances limits power ultimately and protects the voters. And indeed, the voters made a clear choice."
Cruz said that the previous statements by both Democrats and Republicans Monday morning demonstrated that the parties have "fundamentally different visions of the court, of what the Supreme Court is supposed to do, what its function is."
"Democratic senators view the court as a super-legislature, as a policymaking body, as a body that will decree outcomes to the American people," Cruz continued. "Now, that vision of the court is something found nowhere in the Constitution. And it's a curious way to want to run a country. Even if on any particular policy issue you might happen to agree with wherever a majority of the court is on any given day, who in their right mind would want the United States of America ruled by five unelected lawyers wearing black robes?"
"It's hard to think of a less democratic notion than unelected philosopher-kings with life tenure decreeing rules for 330 million Americans," he added. "That is not in fact the court's job. The court's job is to decide cases according to the law and to leave policymaking to the elected legislatures"
Cruz said policymaking is best left to elected representatives, like those in the Senate.
"If a rogue court implements policies you don't like," Cruz said, "you the American people have very limited ability to check them. If a rogue Congress implements policies you don't like, you have a direct ability to check us by throwing the bums out and voting them out and voting in new representatives."
Cruz castigated Democrats for making "policy arguments" over the Affordable Care Act instead of acknowledging Barrett's qualifications for the Supreme Court.
"Our Democratic colleagues simply want a promise from a judicial nominee that this nominee will work to implement their policy vision of health care," Cruz said. "That is not a judge's job. That is not the responsibility of a judge; in fact, making that promise would be violating the judicial oaths."
Cruz added that Democrats have made a "political decision" to make pre-existing conditions the "central issue" of this nomination.
"Every single member of the Senate agrees that pre-existing conditions can and should be protected. Period. The end," he said. "There it is, complete unanimity on this. Now, it so happens that there are a number of us on the Republican side that also want to see premiums go down. Obamacare has caused premiums to skyrocket, the average family's premiums have risen over $5,000 a year, millions of Americans can't afford health care because of the policy failures of Obamacare. Those questions should be resolved in this body. It's not a justice's job to do that, it's not a court's job to do that; it's the elected legislature's job to do that."
"Judge Barrett brings impeccable credentials, a judicial temperament, and a faithfulness to the law," Cruz continued. "That's what we should be looking for in Supreme Court justices. And if Democratic senators want to engage in policy arguments, they can do so here, not by filibustering every bill, as they have done over and over and over again. Whether it's pandemic relief or Obamacare relief to lower premiums and expand choices, today our Democratic colleagues filibuster everything and then complain nothing gets passed."
"This is the body that has to resolve those questions. This is also the body that, consistent with two centuries of precedent, can, should, and I believe will confirm Judge Barrett as Justice Barrett," he said.


theblaze--2020-10-12--Chris Wallace asks Dem senator's thoughts on Biden's noncommittal court-packing response. Judging by

Chris Wallace asks Dem senator's thoughts on Biden's noncommittal court-packing response. Judging by his answer, it seems the lawmaker doesn't know what 'court-packing' means.

Chris Wallace asks Dem senator 's thoughts on Biden 's noncommittal court-packing response .
Judging by his answer , it @ @ @ @ @ know what 'court-packing ' means .
The term only means one thing

Fox News' Chris Wallace got snippy with Democratic Sen. Chris Coons (Del.) during a recent interview after Coons clearly refused to speak to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden's stance on court-packing.
The Delaware lawmaker also said that it was Republicans who are guilty of "court-packing" — or expanding the number of seats on the Supreme Court — as pointed out by the Daily Caller.
What are the details?
Coons appeared on "Fox News Sunday," where he spoke to Wallace about court-packing as it related Biden's refusal to answer whether he plans to pack the court if he wins the presidency.
In a recent campaign stop, Biden told the press that he would only make such an announcement following a presumptive Nov. 3 win. The former vice president later told a reporter that voters don't deserve to know his stance on the highly important matter.
During Coons' appearance on "Fox News Sunday," Wallace highlighted Biden's continued refusal to commit to an answer on the issue and said that he simply doesn't understand Biden's response.
"Senator, I've been doing this a long time, and I don't understand that answer," Wallace said. "[Biden] says 'You'll find out what my position is after the election, and if I were to tell you, it would be a headline in every paper.' Why not just be straight with the American voters on this issue before the election?"
The Democratic lawmaker argued that Republicans are already packing the court and said that President Donald Trump and his administration are hell-bent on filling judicial vacancies with the appointments of Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, as well as with the nomination of Christian conservative Amy Coney Barrett.
Coons answered, "I'll tell you, for the last four years I've seen unprecedented court-packing. ... Instead of passing a COVID relief package that will help millions of Americans who are unemployed, who have been infected, whose businesses or employers have closed, we are focusing on jamming through Judge Barrett."
"I think this constitutes court-packing," he insisted.
Wallace then turned on Coons and accused him of attempting to manipulate the question.
"Senator," Wallace responded, "with all due respect, you're not being straight with me, and you're not answering my question. We have 23 days left until the election. Can Vice President Biden, can Senator Harris, his running mate, can they continue to stonewall on a perfectly legitimate question?"
The Fox host continued, "Biden says it's legitimate. If you're elected, will you try to change one of the three branches of government by adding justices to the court? There haven't been any more than nine justices — I think it's since the 1870s. It's a pretty important question. Can he hold out and stonewall on that issue for three weeks?"
Coons once again refused to answer the question and, instead, said that he has high hopes for more Republicans to come together with Democrats in order to vote against the confirmation of Barrett.
“Let me just say — I'm just going to say, that's a different issue than packing the court," Wallace said. “That's the question, is whether or not the court should — the Senate should vote to confirm Barrett, that's different than changing the number of justices on the court. Senator Coons, I got to leave it there. Thank you."


theblaze--2020-10-12--Kathy Griffin wanted to see President Trump 'croak' in middle of rally — then settled for 'coma'

Kathy Griffin wanted to see President Trump 'croak ' in middle of rally — then settled for 'coma '

Comedienne Kathy Griffin kept up her death wish announcements for President Donald Trump, tweeting that she wanted to see Trump "croak" during a rally — just days after he was released from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center after testing positive for the coronavirus.
"I kinda wanna watch trump's rally Saturday night to see him croak," she wrote Thursday on Twitter.
Griffin followed that up the next day with her bar lowered just slightly:
"Patiently waiting for Trump's coma to commence," she noted.
What was the reaction?
Griffin is proof that living life on the D-list can be sufficient to gain fans, and indeed many folks enjoyed her attacks on Trump. But of course not everyone saw it that way:
"You are a f***ing disgrace. Just remember before he became your president you were buddy buddy with him," another detractor wrote. "Can't wait [to] hear you cry for another 4 years you f***ing skell."
"Wow aren't you a little piece of dog s**t," one Twitter user noted.
"Oh look it's the tolerant left," another commenter remarked.
"You're a good example of what's wrong with this country, nothing but hate and violence out of your mouth," another user said. "If liberals take control of the country this is what we have to look forward to."
"Your career has been in a coma for decades. Is that why you are so unhinged and hysterical?" another commenter asked. "Who else takes pride in being D-list at anything in life?"
And on that note:
Anything else?
Trump hating is nothing new for Griffin:


theblaze--2020-10-12--Biden reportedly considering controversial NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo for attorney general

Cuomo denies being interested but says he 'll help 'in any way ' he can

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden is reportedly considering tapping New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo to be his attorney general should he win the presidency in November.
Axios reported Sunday that the governor — who has been embroiled in controversy in recent months over his handling of the coronavirus pandemic in New York — is being pushed for the job and that Biden is considering him.
The news outlet said that some Democrats are so convinced that he would become attorney general that aides at the National Governors Association, currently chaired by Cuomo, are "looking into contingencies for replacing him."
In response to the news Monday morning, Cuomo insisted that he has "no interest in going to Washington," but added that he would help Biden "in any way" he could.
He then rehearsed what his response would be if asked by Biden: "I would say, 'You are an old friend. You are a good friend. You're going to win this election. You're going to be the president. I'll help you any way I can.'"
"I'm a New Yorker. I said I would serve as governor," he continued. "And those rumors ... those are only from people who want to get me out of New York. I don't know why, but that's where that's coming from."
Should Biden become president, the attorney general position would certainly be one of his most high-profile, politically sensitive appointments, as it is expected that he or she would face pressure to investigate President Trump and his administration for political wrongdoing.
Axios also noted that the potential new attorney general "would manage the federal response to police violence, social unrest and systemic racism, and ... could seek to use federal powers to blunt state abortion restrictions."
Cuomo, who served as New York's attorney general from 2007 to 2010 and is a longtime friend of Biden's, would definitely have a foot in the door, though Biden would likely face intense political pressure from the left to appoint a racially diverse cabinet.
Furthermore, Cuomo's appointment would undoubtedly draw scrutiny from the right given the very public nature of his current job and thus the well-publicized failures of his pandemic leadership.
As the pandemic surged in New York, Cuomo opted to implement lengthy and strict lockdown orders that cast the state into economic turmoil and disproportionately affected religious gatherings. Despite criticism, he stood by the lockdowns — which sought to prevent large gatherings in the state — even while simultaneously supporting Black Lives Matter protests in the streets.
The governor also carelessly oversaw a policy that forced nursing homes to take in COVID-19-positive patients, a move suspected of causing countless deaths as almost half of the state's virus fatalities occurred in nursing homes. The state department of health has since attempted to erase evidence of the order, and Cuomo has repeatedly denied responsibility.
Then in August, apparently unaware of how it would come across publicly, Cuomo decided he would publish a book highlighting his leadership during the pandemic even as the pandemic raged on.


theblaze--2020-10-12--Horowitz: CDC study: 85% of COVID-19 cases in July were people who often or always wear masks

Horowitz : CDC study : 85 % of COVID-19 cases in July were people who often or always wear masks @ @ @ @ @ those outpatient individuals who tested positive reported always wearing masks

Two weeks ago, my wife set up an outdoor picnic for a friend and her family who were stopping by for a visit during a cross-country trip. They were too scared to come indoors and all wore masks, even outside. A week later, she texted my wife that she tested positive for the virus after experiencing very mild symptoms. "Why would they tell us to wear masks if they don't work?" she asked my wife.
Well, wouldn't we all love to know?
You feel bad for those who think they can avoid getting a virus that spreads as prolifically as a cold simply by wearing a mask. A new study from the CDC demonstrates what we have suspected all along – that the overwhelming majority of people contracting the virus have been consistently wearing masks for quite some time. Fortunately for them, very few of them will get clinically ill from the virus.
A survey conducted by over a dozen medical institutions for the CDC and published in Sept. 11's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report showed that 85% of those who contracted COVID-19 during July among the study group either "always" or "often" wore face coverings within the 14 days before they were infected. More than 70% of those outpatient individuals who tested positive reported always wearing masks. Just 3.9% reported never wearing a mask.
Source: CDC
If anything, mask-wearing has gotten more universal with greater enforcement in the ensuing months, yet the virus continues to spread rapidly.
Recently, the CDC's own director, Robert Redfield, told a Senate panel that mask-wearing is more effective than a vaccine. Well, have you ever seen 85% of people infected with a particular virus having had a vaccine?!
This survey magnifies the reality of the past few months. Whether it's Japan, Hong Kong, Israel, France, Peru, Philippines, Hawaii, California, Miami, or Argentina, the virus spread wildly months after strict mask mandates have already been in place. The reality is that the pores in surgical masks are about 30 times larger than the average size of SARS-CoV-2 virions, and some of the cheap (but more comfortable) cotton masks that are commonly worn have pores hundreds of times larger than the virus particles.
This is why, before the issue became political, Dr. Fauci scoffed at the notion that wearing masks would serve any use. "The masks sold at drugstores aren't even good enough to truly protect anyone," Fauci told USA TODAY's editorial board on Feb. 17. "If you look at the masks that you buy in a drug store, the leakage around that doesn't do much to protect you. … Now, in the United States, there is absolutely no reason to wear a mask."
The leakage is akin to trying to contain flies in a jail cell.
One also has to wonder whether the original warnings of government about reuse of masks are contributing to even greater spread. One high school in central Michigan is completely perturbed by an outbreak of strep throat in the school district, "despite" all the COVID protocols in place, which includes using masks. Dr. Jennifer Morse, the medical director at the health department, told that local media that it was "strange" to have such an outbreak given that strep spreads the same way as coronavirus and they were implementing all of the magical COVID mitigation techniques. However, the superintendent of Shepherd Public Schools, Greg McMillan, posited, according to WJRT, that "not washing masks enough could be helping to spread the bacteria and that putting masks on different surfaces could spread it, too."
Ya think? Our government and past academic literature long warned that use of masks in the general population would result in the spread of bacteria. A 2015 randomized clinical trial from the University of South Wales testing the effectiveness of cloth masks among health care workers in Hanoi found a high rate of infection among those workers because "their reuse and poor filtration may explain the increased risk of infection." Schoolchildren wearing cloth masks every day was always a recipe for disaster.
Remember streptococcus cells are between 0.5 and 2 microns, roughly 5-20 times larger than SARS-CoV-2 virions (which are about 0.06-0.14 microns), yet the masks still failed to protect against them and perhaps contributed to the spread of the bacteria. How much longer are we going to allow false science to drive the most consequential decisions of our lifetime?
Last week, Washington Governor Jay Inslee declared, "What aircraft carriers were in World War II, masks are today." Actually, it appears that masks are today more like what the Vichy French were to the advancing German forces.
In 1961, President Eisenhower warned, "We must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite." Boy, does that ring true today.


theblaze--2020-10-12--VIDEO: Portland rioters topple Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt statues in 'day of rage' against Colu

VIDEO: Portland rioters topple Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt statues in 'day of rage' against Columbus Day

VIDEO : Portland rioters topple Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt statues in 'day of rage ' against Columbus Day

Rioters in Portland, Oregon, toppled statues of former Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln Sunday night, declaring a "day of rage" in anticipation of Columbus Day.
According to the Associated Press, the rioters assembled for "Indigenous Peoples Day of Rage," referring to "Indigenous Peoples Day," an alternative holiday to Columbus Day favored by progressive activists who accuse famous Italian explorer Christopher Columbus of committing acts of genocide against Native Americans.
The AP noted that President Roosevelt "expressed hostility towards Native Americans, once saying: 'I don't go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of every 10 are.'"
OregonLive reported that nearly 200 people made up the crowd marching through downtown Portland, most dressing in head-to-toe black and some wielding melee weapons. The organizers of the event prohibited video livestreaming and photographs of their criminal activity and harassed individuals who attempted to film. One apartment resident reportedly had lasers shined at his eyes and liquid thrown in his face for attempting to take video of the riot from his terrace.
The rioters defaced the statues with paint and used chains and a blowtorch to topple the monuments. The words "Dakota 38" were spray-painted on the base of Lincoln's statue, a reference to the 38 Dakota tribesmen whose hangings Lincoln approved after a violent conflict with white settlers in Minnesota.
At 9 p.m. they were successful in tearing down Roosevelt's statue, called "Theodore Roosevelt, Rough Rider." Several minutes later they pulled down Lincoln's statue.
After pulling down the statues, they moved on to commit more acts of vandalism, smashing the windows at the Oregon Historical Society and then doing the same at the Portland State University campus police office.
Journalist Andy Ngô covered the protests and shared video taken at the event Sunday night.
According to OregonLive, the police declared the demonstrations a riot and ordered the rioters to disperse but did not directly intervene until nearly an hour after the first statue was torn down. Police said anyone involved in "criminal behavior, including vandalism," would be arrested.
The crowds did not disperse until police cruisers flooded the area and officers in tactical gear began making arrests.
President Donald Trump on Monday called for law enforcement to act and "focus their energy on ANTIFA."
In June, rioters in Portland toppled a nearly 100-year-old statue of George Washington, painting the words "BLM" and "genocidal colonist" on the statue.


theblaze--2020-10-12--Woke mob outraged over Gal Gadot's role as Cleopatra. Then Egyptologist sets the record straight.

Woke mob outraged over Gal Gadot 's role as Cleopatra .
Then Egyptologist sets the record straight .
'Do n't @ @ @ @ @ 'm about to say '

The woke internet mob exploded with rage Sunday when actress Gal Gadot was announced as the lead actor in the upcoming major Hollywood movie "Cleopatra," centering on the life of the ancient Egyptian queen.
Then an actual Egyptologist set the record straight.
What did critics say?
Critics complained that Gadot, an Israeli actress best known for her role as Wonder Woman, is unfit for the role because of her light skin complexion. Woke critics suggested that an Arab actress should have been cast for the role instead.
"Which Hollywood dumbass thought it would be a good idea to cast an Israeli actress as Cleopatra (a very bland looking one) instead of a stunning Arab actress like Nadine Njeim? And shame on you, Gal Gadot. Your country steals Arab land & you're stealing their movie roles... smh," one critic said.
Another said, "I'm sure Gal Gadot is going to do a wonderful job as Cleopatra. However, for me personally, I would love a Cleopatra who's darker than a brown paper bag, because that seems a bit more historically accurate."
What did the Egyptologist say?
As it turns out, Gadot is not an inaccurate physical representation of Cleopatra.
Sarah Parcak, an Egyptologist and anthropology professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, explained in a lengthy Twitter thread that Cleopatra was not dark-skinned like many people may believe.
In fact, Cleopatra was at least half Greek.
"Cleopatra was Cleopatra VII (yes there were many others!). She was of Macedonian Greek descent (father= Ptolemy XII Auletes) but... was was her mother's ethnicity? Egyptian? Greek? Other? Many possibilities. We don't know for sure," Parcak explained. "Her mom was *probably* Cleopatra V, the only attested wife of Ptolemy XII. We know of one child she had, it's not 100% certain she is the mother of Cleopatra. Cleo V's ethnicity is unknown, very little known about her generally, hence Cleopatra's ethnicity= 50% Greek, 50% ?"
So what did Cleopatra most likely look like? Parcak explained:
So what *could* she have looked like? The people of Alexandria today (yes Alexandria was Egypt's capital during the Ptolemaic Era) have much lighter skin compared to people in southern Egypt, many with reddish hair and green/blue eyes.
Of course there is Turkish influence and I'm not saying that the people of Alex today look like people did 2000+ years ago. However- Alex was a hugely cosmopolitan city in Cleopatra's time. You would have seen every type of person imaginable from all over the known world.
Cleopatra probably had lighter skin, not unlike the people of Alex today, but *we don't know for sure*. Her mom could have been from southern Egypt, or Macedonia, or anywhere in the Ptolemaic world (and if she was a secondary wife or concubine all bets are off).
Then Parcak entered what she thought were testy waters, asking the social media world not to "cancel" her over her forthcoming conclusion about whether Gadot is worthy of playing Cleopatra.
"Don't cancel me for what I'm about to say," Parcak said. "Archaeology and history tell us she wasn't 100% Egyptian, even if she acted like a proper Egyptian queen and spoke/read Egyptian. She was half Macedonian and half who knows, but probably more than 50% Macedonian playing the odds."
"So, hiring a hugely bankable Mediterranean actress to play Cleopatra is... not as off as you might think," Parcak explained.
"Gal Gadot is 100x a better choice than Angelina Jolie. I think she'll be incredible in the role," Parcak added.


theblaze--2020-10-13--'This is a beautiful moment that the mainstream media won’t report on': Blexit demonstration conclud

'This is a beautiful moment that the mainstream media won’t report on': Blexit demonstration concludes with 2,000+ minority people singing 'The Star-Spangled Banner'

'This is a beautiful moment that the mainstream media won ’ t report on ' : Blexit demonstration concludes with @ @ @ @ @ Star-Spangled Banner '

Conservative firebrand Candace Owens shared a moving video on her Twitter page Monday featuring more than 2,000 black and Hispanic demonstrators singing the national anthem during a Saturday Blexit demonstration in Washington, D.C. At the time of this reporting, Owens' video has been viewed more than 447,000 times.
What are the details?
As highlighted by the Daily Wire, an estimated 2,000-plus Blexit — "black exit," a movement Owens created in 2018 to encourage black Americans to leave the Democratic Party — demonstrators marched over the weekend.
Owens' video captures the moment that the demonstration concludes with a singing of "The Star-Spangled Banner."
Owens shared the video on Twitter with a stark comparison between Black Lives Matter protests and the Blexit demonstration.
She captioned the video, "Black Lives Matter protests end with rioting, looting, and the destruction of minority communities. BLEXIT protests end with 2,000+ black and Latino Americans singing the national anthem."
"This is a beautiful moment that the mainstream media won't report on," she concluded. "I'm so proud."
As seen in the video, following the singing of the national anthem, demonstrators break into chants of "USA! USA!"
Saturday's demonstration saw the thousands march in support of back police officers and law enforcement officials.
On Saturday, Owens tweeted, "Black and Latino Americans do not support the Marxist, anti-police rhetoric that has become fashionable in the media. Today, thousands of us have descended upon Washington D.C. to #BackTheBlue. Minorities do not belong to the Left."
That same day, she tweeted, "This is what an *actual* peaceful protest staged by thousands of minorities looks like. Today was incredible."
Fox News on Sunday reported that Owens told demonstrators that President Donald Trump has supporters all around the country because he clearly supports law and order.
"There are people all around the country that support this president because he supports law and order. It's that simple," Owens said during the Saturday march. "Law and order should be what you want no matter what color you are. If you are an American, you should want law and you should want order. That is the way forward."


theblaze--2020-10-13--Scientists say Nevada man contracted the coronavirus on 2 separate occasions — and the second time w

Scientists say Nevada man contracted the coronavirus on 2 separate occasions — and the second time was far worse First @ @ @ @ @

Scientists say that a 25-year-old Nevada man has contracted COVID-19 twice, on two separate occasions.
What are the details?
According to a Monday report in infectious diseases journal the Lancet, researchers said that the unnamed 25-year-old man contracted coronavirus twice and became seriously ill following his second infection.
The man, a resident of Washoe County, reportedly had no known immunodeficient conditions, nor did he have any underlying problems. Despite those factors, the unnamed man — who has since recovered from both bouts — required hospital treatment following his second infection.
The man first tested positive on April 18, and his symptoms abated on April 27. He subsequently tested negative for coronavirus on two separate occasions on May 9 and May 26. He began exhibiting further symptoms on May 28, and on June 5, he tested positive for coronavirus a second time.
Researchers then sequenced RNA from both of the man's virus samples and concluded that he had been infected with two different strains of the virus.
According to CNBC, "Scientists said the patient caught the coronavirus on two separate occasions, rather than the original infection bouncing back after becoming dormant. This is because a comparison of the genetic codes showed 'significant differences' between each variant associated with each instance of infection."
The study's authors noted, "These findings suggest that the patient was infected by SARS-CoV-2 on two separate occasions by a genetically distinct virus. Thus, previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2 might not guarantee total immunity in all cases. ... All individuals, whether previously diagnosed with COVID-19 or not, should take identical precautions to avoid infection with SARS-CoV-2."
The Hill reports that it is the first confirmed case of a U.S. patient becoming reinfected with COVID-19 and the fifth of its kind worldwide.
'It is possible to get reinfected'
Dr. Simon Clarke, associate professor in cellular microbiology at the University of Reading, told the outlet that the study means "it is possible to get reinfected."
"It doesn't tell us that protective immunity is impossible," Clarke added. "It is worth remembering that this might be just one of a very small handful of reinfections, it might be very rare, or it might be one of the very first few we are going to see a lot more of given time."
Clarke also pointed out that the research's findings could possibly make generating immunity against COVID-19 "much more difficult."
At the time of this reporting, researchers at Johns Hopkins University estimate that 37,857,361 people around the world have been infected with coronavirus and at least 1,081,695 have died.


theblaze--2020-10-13--Billionaire NBA owner Mark Cuban condemns human rights violations — but says doing business with Chi

Billionaire NBA owner Mark Cuban condemns human rights violations — but says doing business with China is A-OK 'They are @ @ @ @ @

Billionaire and NBA team owner Mark Cuban spoke out in condemnation of human rights abuses on Monday, but told Megyn Kelly that he is "OK with doing business with China."
What are the details?
During Monday's episode of "The Megyn Kelly Show," Cuban — who owns the Dallas Mavericks — said that he will do business with China simply because "they are a customer."
Kelly, during the conversation, pressed Cuban as to whether he would continue to do business with China amid reports of human rights abuses, and if so, why.
Such reports include, but are not limited to, the targeting of more than 1 million Uyghur Muslims and other ethnic minorities with surveillance and detention in concentration camps.
"The question remains, why won't you and the NBA explicitly condemn that?" Kelly asked.
"I personally put a priority on domestic issues," he insisted. "I'm against human rights violations around the world."
Kelly began to push back and asked if his point of view extended to China.
He responded, "China is not the only country with human rights violations."
Kelly continued to push Cuban, and he added, "Yes, including China. Any human rights violations anywhere are wrong."
"Why would the NBA take $500 million dollars plus from a country that is engaging in ethnic cleansing?" she continued to prod.
Cuban fired back, "So basically you're saying nobody should do business with China ever?"
Undeterred, Kelly pressed, "Why won't you just answer my question?"
"Because they are a customer," he replied. "They are a customer of ours, and guess what, Megyn: I'm OK with doing business with China. And so we have to pick our battles. I wish we could solve all the world's problems. But we can't."
The NBA has been under fire since at least 2019 after Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey tweeted his support for pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong. In response, China's government yanked Rockets merchandise and removed some NBA games from television. Other Chinese corporations opted to end their sponsorships with the NBA altogether.
The NBA immediately issued an apology following the backlash and said the league was "extremely disappointed" in Morey's "inappropriate comment." The league also made sure to point out that Morey's tweet didn't "represent the stance of the Rockets or the NBA."


theblaze--2020-10-13--11-year-old steals school bus and flips off the police during a high-speed chase in Louisiana, polic

11-year-old steals school bus and flips off the police during a high-speed chase in Louisiana, police say

11-year-old steals school bus and flips off the police during a high-speed chase in Louisiana , police say He crashed @ @ @ @ @

Social media users documented the bizarre police chase of a school bus that was stolen by an 11-year-old boy in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Police said the boy taunted them and flipped them off during the 45-minute chase on Sunday.
Baton Rouge Police Department spokesman L'Jean McKneely said that the boy was able to climb into the school bus that belonged to a contractor working with the Head Start Elementary.
The boy eventually crashed the bus into a large tree in front of a residence.
The homeowners said they were stunned to see police arrest such a young man after the crash in their front yard.
"It was just unbelievable to see something like that," said homeowner Libby Smith.
"You just don't think of a 10-year-old boy driving a bus and being in control of a big bus like that," she added.
Police charged the boy with theft of a motor vehicle, aggravated flight, three charges of aggravated damage to property and aggravated assault. He has been charged as a juvenile and his identity was not released.
Police say no one was injured in the incident, but that the boy was charged with "aggravated assault" because at one point he allegedly tried to hit another vehicle.
On Monday, police said that the bus had a push-to-start ignition.
McNeely said that the boy told the officers that he did it "just to do it."
Here's a local news report about the stolen bus chase:


theblaze--2020-10-14--Watch: Amy Coney Barrett reacts to attack on her for adopting black children

Watch : Amy Coney Barrett reacts to attack on her for adopting black children 'Accusations like that are cruel '

U.S. Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett gave her reaction Tuesday to one of the most widely publicized attacks — out of many — against her and her husband during the run up to her confirmation hearings.
What are the details?
Ahead of Barrett's official nomination by President Donald Trump, several media outlets reported that she would be the president's pick. The judge was immediately attacked online, with some critics hurling personal condemnations toward her and her husband for adopting two of their seven children from Haiti.
One Democratic operative suggested adoptions from the country are "sketchy," and another said "transracial adoption is fraught with trauma and potential for harm."
The attack that received the most attention was from Ibram Kendi, the director of the Center from Antiracist Research at Boston University, who wrote in reference to Barrett:
Some White colonizers "adopted" Black children. They "civilized" these "savage" children in the "superior" ways of White people, while using them as props in their lifelong pictures of denial, while cutting the biological parents of these children out of the picture of humanity.
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) brought up Kendi's remarks to Barrett during the second day of her nomination hearings.
"I want to give you the chance to respond to something," Sen. Kennedy told Barrett. "Some butthead professor at Boston University says because you and your husband have two children of color, that you're a white colonist. The implication is that you're a racist, and that you use your two children as props."
"Do you use your children as props?" the Republican asked.
"Senator Kennedy, it was the risk of people saying things like that — which would be so hurtful to my family — that when I told Senator [Lindsey] Graham (R-S.C.) this morning that my husband and I had to really weigh the costs of this, it was saying deeply offensive and hurtful things," Barrett responded. "Things that are not only hurtful to me, but are hurtful to my children — who are my children, who we love, and who we brought home and made a part of our family, and accusations like that are cruel."
The senator responded, "Yeah, they are. How low can you go?" He added, "I didn't want to ask that question when your kids were here. I'm sorry you have to go through that."


theblaze--2020-10-14--'You shouldn’t tweet false statements': Ted Cruz stomps down reporter's fake news on Amy Coney Barre

'You shouldn’t tweet false statements': Ted Cruz stomps down reporter's fake news on Amy Coney Barrett hearing

'You shouldn ’ t tweet false statements ' : Ted Cruz stomps down reporter 's fake news on Amy Coney @ @ @ @ @ Cruz only asked superficial questions of Barrett

Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas slapped down a reporter attempting to mislead the publiic about the senator's comments during the congressional hearing for the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.
Cruz finished up his time at the hearing of the Senate Judicial Committee with some personal questions for Barrett.
Emily Peck of Huffington Post claimed in a tweet that Cruz "only" asked Barrett about parenting.
Cruz pounced on the tweet and scolded Peck for the false claim.
"Except it's false. You're a reporter. You shouldn't tweet false statements," said Cruz.
Cruz could have cited the article from CNN that Peck posted in her tweet to refute her comment.
GOP Sen. Ted Cruz used most of his 30 minutes designated for him to ask questions of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett to speak about various issues, including religious freedom and the Second Amendment.
While Peck claimed he only asked Barrett about parenting, the article she posted clearly documented that he spoke on many issues during his time at the hearing. He also had an exchange with Barrett about religious liberty.
"Why is the First Amendment's protection of religious liberty, why is that important?" Cruz asked Barrett at the beginning of his time, and asked several follow-up questions as well.
Cruz pounces on Democrats
The senator also criticized Democrats for the tactics they used in an attempt to attack Barrett's qualifications to be a Supreme Court justice.
"Democrats have no meaningful criticisms of Judge Barrett. That's why, instead of discussing her qualifications, her faithfulness to the law, or her judicial temperament, Democrats spent yesterday making political and policy arguments. I expect to see more of the same today," he tweeted.
Later, he concluded of the second day of the hearings, "It speaks volumes that virtually no Democrats questioned Judge Barrett on her credentials to serve on the Supreme Court."
Here's the video of Cruz's questions at the Barrett hearings:


theblaze--2020-10-14--VIDEO: Nancy Pelosi melts down on CNN, accuses Wolf Blitzer of being an 'apologist' for the Republic

VIDEO: Nancy Pelosi melts down on CNN, accuses Wolf Blitzer of being an 'apologist' for the Republicans

VIDEO : Nancy Pelosi melts down on CNN , accuses Wolf Blitzer of being an 'apologist ' for the Republicans @ @ @ @ @ for not being respectful enough to Democrats

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had a full blown meltdown on CNN after anchor Wolf Blitzer pressured her on securing a deal for the coronavirus relief bill for the American people.
Blitzer asked Pelosi to respond to a tweet from her Democratic colleague, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), about the failed negotiations between Republicans and Democrats to pass another relief bill.
"78 million can't afford normal expenses. 40 million are at risk of eviction. 8 million small businesses might close forever. Dems can't wait for the perfect deal. We have a moral obligation to get folks relief, now," said Khanna in his statement.
Pelosi angrily criticized Blitzer for bringing up complaints from Khanna and others who she said had no idea about the negotiations.
"Honest to God, you really, I can't get over it because Andrew Yang, he's lovely, Ro Khanna, he's lovely, they are not negotiating this situation, they have no idea of the particulars. They have no idea of what the language is here," Pelosi said.
"I didn't come over here to have, so you're the apologist for the Obama, excuse me, God forbid," said Pelosi, clearly flustered.
"Madam Speaker, I'm not the apologist, I'm asking you serious questions because so many people are in desperate need right now," responded Blitzer.
Blitzer went on to ask why Pelosi hadn't talked directly to President Donald Trump about the negotiations.
"With all due respect, with all due respect, and you know we've known each other for a long time, you really don't know what you're talking about," responded Pelosi.
"If the plural of anecdote is not data, yes there are some people who said this or that, overwhelmingly my caucus wants what's right for the American people," she added. "So do a service to the issue, and have some level of respect for the people who have worked on these issues, written the bill to begin with!"
The interview continued combatively until Pelosi accused Blitzer of being disrespectful to Democrats.
"You evidently do not respect the chairmen of the committees who wrote this bill, and I wish you would respect the knowledge that goes into, getting, uh, meeting the needs of the American people. But again, you've been on [unintelligible] defending the administration all this time with no knowledge of the difference between our two bills, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to say that to you in person," said Pelosi, smiling sarcastically.
Blitzer tried to close out the segment, but Pelosi kept interrupting and scolding him.
Here's the video of Pelosi's meltdown:


theblaze--2020-10-13--Democratic senator torched online for asking Amy Coney Barrett if she has ever committed sexual assa

Democratic senator torched online for asking Amy Coney Barrett if she has ever committed sexual assault 'Amy 's kids just @ @ @ @ @ if she 's a rapist .
Pure evil . '

Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono (Hawaii) sparked uproar on social media on Tuesday, over her asking U.S. Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett if she had ever committed sexual assault.
What are the details?
During the second day of hearings for Judge Barrett, Hirono explained to the nominee that she always asks the same two questions to candidates being considered for lifetime appointments.
The first question was, "Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors, or committed any physical or verbal harassment or assault of a sexual nature?"
Judge Barrett answered "No, Senator Hirono."
"Have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?" the senator asked in her follow-up question.
"No, senator," Barrett replied.


theblaze--2020-10-13--DOJ sues former aide of First Lady Melania Trump over tell-all book

DOJ sues former aide of First Lady Melania Trump over tell-all book Feds say the author violated her confidentiality agreement

The U.S. Department of Justice has filed suit against Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, a former aide to first lady Melania Trump, alleging that she violated their nondisclosure agreement by penning a tell-all book and publishing it without first allowing the federal government to sign off on the draft.
What are the details?
Reuters reported:
In a complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, Justice Department lawyers said Winston Wolkoff, a former aide who fell out with the first lady, failed to submit to government review a draft of her book, "Melania and Me: The Rise and Fall of My Friendship with the First Lady," which offers an unflattering portrayal of President Donald Trump's wife.
According to the lawsuit, Winston Wolkoff signed a Gratuitous Services Agreement "wherein Ms. Wolkoff promised to maintain strict confidentiality over 'nonpublic, privileged and/or confidential information' that she might obtain during her service" as an adviser to the first lady.
Politico reported that the DOJ is asking a federal judge to "divert all proceeds from the sale of Wolkoff's book, 'Melania and Me,' to the federal government, a consequence of her alleged 'breach of contract.'"
Wolkoff argues that she has every right to talk about her experiences as a matter of free speech, telling NBC News of her book, "It's my story. It's my life. I've been gagged for too long."
"The White House, President Trump, first lady Melania Trump, the Trump administration have been the source of false, misleading and defamatory information about me," she continued. "I am defending myself against the defamatory falsehoods according to my constitutional rights to defend my reputation and set the record straight."
Anything else?
The case is reminiscent of when the DOJ sued former national security adviser John Bolton over the summer in an attempt to stop him from publishing his own book divulging his experiences in the Trump administration. In the lawsuit, the federal government argued that Bolton's book, "The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir," would jeopardize national security.
Unlike Wolkoff, Bolton did submit a draft of his book for review by the federal government, but copies were distributed to retailers by Bolton's publisher prior to receiving the all-clear from authorities.
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth agreed to allow Bolton's book to be published, saying that "the horse, as we used to say in Texas, seems to be out of the barn."


theblaze--2020-10-13--Joe Biden says Amy Coney Barrett's nomination is unconstitutional. Even the CNN factcheck says that

Joe Biden says Amy Coney Barrett's nomination is unconstitutional. Even the CNN factcheck says that is flat out false.

Joe Biden says Amy Coney Barrett 's nomination is unconstitutional .
Even the CNN factcheck says that is flat out @ @ @ @ @ to deflect from Democratic efforts to pack the court

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden said that the nomination process of Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court is unconstitutional, but even the CNN fact checker had to admit he was lying.
Biden was trying to deflect from the accusations that Democrats were in favor of packing the court with liberal justices after the election when he made the comments.
"The only court packing going on right now, is going on with Republicans packing the court now," Biden said to reporters on Saturday. "It is not constitutional what they are doing. We should be focused on what's happening right now."
Democrats have criticized the haste with which Republicans have rushed to nominate and confirm Barrett before the election in light of some Republican comments before the 2016 election regarding the confirmation of former Barack Obama nominee Merrick Garland.
'This is false'
CNN's fact check crushed the claim from Biden and it didn't take a lot of explanation to do so.
"This is false. Legal experts say there is nothing strictly unconstitutional about Barrett's confirmation process," explained Tara Subramaniam of CNN.
The fact check sought a clarification from the Biden campaign, which admitted that the nomination process was not strictly against the Constitution, but that it was against the spirit and intent of the founding document.
"I have no idea what VP Biden meant," responded Josh Blackman, a South Texas College of Law professor and constitutional expert in Houston.
Court-packing controversy
Biden has been on the ropes on the issue of whether Democrats would pack the Supreme Court with extra members in order to fulfill their political agenda.
The former vice president has refused to answer whether he would support such an effort if he won the presidency, and at one point he even said that the voters didn't deserve to know what his position was on the matter.
"You will know my opinion on court-packing when the election is over," said Biden.
Here's more about Biden and court packing:


theblaze--2020-10-13--'You have about 3 weeks to prepare for INSANITY': Glenn Beck issues warning ahead of election

'You have about 3 weeks to prepare for INSANITY ' : Glenn Beck issues warning ahead of election ' I @ @ @ @ @ of the days that have been foretold '

Do you feel like something big is coming with this election? Whether it's societal collapse or just widespread unrest, it feels like "evil is washing over the world right now," said Glenn Beck on his radio program.
"I think these are the beginnings of the days that have been foretold," Glenn stated. He urged Americans to prepare — physically, spiritually, and mentally — but also warned against adding to any violence.
"We will not be counted as 'helpers', if you will, if we are engaging in violence. That is different than protecting your family, your home … but for those who are thinking, 'I'm going to get a group together.' That is not the way to go," Glenn said.
"You have about three weeks to prepare for insanity. It may not happen and I pray it does not happen. But I can't recommend highly enough that you prepare food storage. That you prepare for your home to be secure. That you have met with your family and your children, and you know where you're supposed to go if there is a problem. That you prepare financially. And then you've got to do your homework and prepare educationally. Do you have a physical copy of the Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence? You need that," he advised.
Glenn also encouraged listeners to prepare spiritually, to work on establishing a strong relationship with "the spirit", to ask for advice, and to obey the answer.
"You also have to prepare mentally," he added. "We are going to be leaving things behind us. and I mean that historically. I think things are going to change. Don't pine for the good old days. Look forward to the future."
Watch the clip below to hear more from Glenn:
Want more from Glenn Beck?
To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.


theblaze--2020-10-13--Jim Acosta just can't ignore 'CNN sucks!' chants at Trump rally — and hits back with gusto: 'What al

Jim Acosta just can't ignore 'CNN sucks!' chants at Trump rally — and hits back with gusto: 'What also sucks' is 'getting the coronavirus'

Jim Acosta just ca n't ignore 'CNN sucks ! '
chants at Trump rally — and hits back with gusto @ @ @ @ @ is 'getting the coronavirus '

CNN's Jim Acosta is far from an unfamiliar sight to supporters of President Donald Trump, due to his over-the-top, showboating questions — primarily during White House press conferences — that have become a news focal point all their own.
But some outbursts need no microphone to be heard by millions.
'CNN sucks!'
Like the famed "CNN sucks!" chants that are frequently audible on the cable network's own broadcasts of Trump rallies — and particularly when Acosta is doing the in-person reporting.
Remember in 2018 when the elephant was just too big for the room, and CNN actually ran a headline with its video about Acosta getting "heckled" at a Trump rally?
CNN reporter Jim Acosta heckled at Trump rally youtu.be
Ouch.
It also happened in 2016 the night before Trump's victorious election— although Acosta isn't in this clip:
Scranton rally for Trump yells "CNN sucks!" youtu.be
Indeed, it would appear the history of that chant at least runs side by side with the Trump presidency.
Jim hits back hard
Acosta on Monday was on the ground in Sanford, Florida, for Trump's first rally since he contracted COVID-19 earlier this month, and as Acosta was chatting with anchor Wolf Blitzer about the goings on, the live feed caught that familiar chant once again: "CNN sucks! CNN sucks! CNN sucks!"
But this time Acosta wasn't going to let it slide without some pushback.
While the screen heading noted few masks and no social distancing were seen at the rally, Acosta gave his sermon: "And as this crowd is chanting that there are members of the press here who suck, I should also point out, Wolf, what also sucks: getting the coronavirus."
Here's the clip courtesy of CNN's Brian Stelter:
Blitzer chimed in that "clearly" the coronavirus is "not disappearing; it's getting a whole lot worse."
How did folks react?
The newest "CNN sucks!" clip has been viewed over 150,000 times since it was posted Monday, and while numerous commenters agreed with Acosta, others reflected the chant's sentiments:
"Again with the fake news? They were not chanting at 'members of the press.' They were saying 'CNN' SUCKS! They were pointing out that @Acosta specifically SUCKS!" one commenter noted.
Another commenter added an apparent photo of Acosta at the rally — and without wearing his mask:


theblaze--2020-10-13--Baby saved after being found abandoned in a dumpster in Connecticut

Baby saved after being found abandoned in a dumpster in Connecticut Police believe her babysitter left her for dead in @ @

An 8-month-old baby girl was saved after being found abandoned and injured but alive in a dumpster in New Haven, Connecticut, on Monday.
Police said that the baby girl was left for dead in the dumpster by her babysitter, whom they identified as 24-year-old Andiana Velez of Hamden. Velez allegedly assaulted the child's mother before discarding the baby into the trash bin.
The suspect is now in police custody and has been charged with risk of injury to a child, second-degree assault, and first-degree reckless endangerment, WSFB-TV reported. Her bail has been set at $500,000 and she is due back in court on October 30.
The news outlet reported that the infant is listed in stable condition at Yale-New Haven Children's Hospital. She had severe burns on her hands but was otherwise alert and feeling fine when maintenance workers at the Presidential Village apartment complex reported finding her Monday afternoon.
Video: Babysitter appears in court after leaving 8-month-old in dumpster youtu.be
While detectives have determined that Velez is responsible for putting the baby in the dumpster, they have not yet determined who is responsible for the injuries to the baby's hands.
According to the New Haven Register, the city's mayor, Justin Elicker, said, "As a father, it is unthinkable for someone to do this to a child."
Rick Chardon, a maintenance worker at the apartment complex said he was alerted by a tenant who heard cries coming from the dumpster when he was throwing away a trash bag.
"He stepped away from the trash can, and he heard something crying. He turned around and looked in. There was a little baby that had trash on top of it," Chardon said, according to WVIT-TV. "[He] called for one of our other maintenance workers over to help him get it out, got it out, as I pulled in they handed her over to me."
Chardon added that the baby was "shivering like crazy when" he first held her, but that she was responsive.
"Whoever did that to her, they should be punished severely," he added. "[A] total disregard for life. I'll never forget it."


theblaze--2020-10-13--Change My Mind: Should the Senate confirm Amy Coney Barrett?

Change My Mind : Should the Senate confirm Amy Coney Barrett ?

Should President Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court be confirmed? Should Biden pack the court? Is 2020 over yet? All valid questions. In this installment of Change My Mind, Steven Crowder addressed current Senate hearings to confirm Trump's nominee to fill the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Supreme Court Justice seat.
While Senate confirmation hearings commenced on Capitol Hill, Crowder sat down with college students to see what they thought about Trump's nominee.
"Should the Senate confirm Amy Coney Barrett? If not, why not?" Crowder asked.
A female student expressed concern about appointing Barrett during an election year. But Crowder explained that a president nominated a Supreme Court justice to the judiciary during an election year 29-times and that not to confirm Barrett would go against precedent.
"This year has been a mess for so many reasons, I just don't know why can't wait a little longer," she began. "Don't you care about women's rights?"
'Of course, I do. But what does that have to do with confirming Amy Coney Barrett," Crowder replied.
To watch the full exchange, watch the video.
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--2020-10-13--Black veteran: Antifa rioters shot at my cafe — and now my vote for President Trump is 'solidified'

Black veteran : Antifa rioters shot at my cafe — and now my vote for President Trump is 'solidified' John @ @ @ @ @ 'not yielding ' to Portland rioters ' 'terroristic ' actions

A black military veteran who owns a cafe in Portland, Oregon, told Fox News his vote for President Donald Trump is now "solidified" since Antifa rioters shot at his restaurant Sunday night during a "Day of Rage."
What happened?
John Jackson — who served in the Army and Marines and owns Heroes American Cafe — told the cable network his restaurant was deemed "unfriendly" to the Black Lives Matter movement and was subsequently targeted.
With that, two windows in his cafe's downtown location were shot at and another window was struck with a blunt object — possibly a baseball bat, Jackson told Fox News.
Image source: YouTube screenshot
A Thursday tweet from @DublinPDX claimed Jackson's cafe gives its profits "to their heroes... cops" and ripped businesses that support law enforcement, the cable network added.
"We're trying to compile a list of all non-friendly businesses in PDX," a screenshot of another tweet read. "AKA any company that's hanging blue lives garbage in their store or anything else that's anti the BLM movement. Drop them below."
Jackson told KPTV-TV he received a threatening phone call last week saying he and his restaurant would be targeted.
He added to the station that prior to the attack he was sitting in front of one of soon-to-be-fired-at widows: "That's where I sit and do work; I would've literally been shot."
But Fox News said Heroes was open Monday despite damage to the building — and that Jackson isn't backing down.
"We're not changing what we do because of things that are, to me, kind of terroristic in approach," he added to KPTV. "We're just not yielding to any of that."
Jackson also noted to Fox News that his businesses support all heroes, which include police officers, military personnel, veterans, nurses, and firefighters.
Image source: YouTube screenshot
"We're for all heroes, and we don't support zeroes," he added to the cable network. "So if you're a bad cop, we don't really have time for you. If you're walking your beat, and you're taking care of your people, or you're saving lives, we love you."
How does the incident affect his vote?
Jackson told Fox News he voted for Trump in 2016 with some reservations — but given the attack on his restaurant, all doubts have been dismissed.
"This solidified my Trump vote," he added to cable network. "I'm done with this weakness, and we need some real strong leadership."


theblaze--2020-10-13--NY Gov. Cuomo blames Republicans and the New York Post for nursing home deaths controversy

NY Gov .
Cuomo blames Republicans and the New York Post for nursing home deaths controversy 'Republicans needed an offense @ @ @ @ @ of their botched federal response '

New York Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo accused his critics of lying and blamed state Republicans and the New York Post for the controversy over nursing home deaths in New York and other states during the COVID pandemic.
Cuomo, writing in his new memoir, "American Crisis," said, "The most painful aspect of the COVID crisis has been its devastating effect on our elderly in nursing homes," the New York Post reported.
He accused the Trump administration of botching the federal response to the virus and Republicans of creating a false narrative to deflect blame for virus deaths on Democrats.
"By early spring, Republicans needed an offense to distract from the narrative of their botched federal response — and they needed it badly," Cuomo wrote. "So they decided to attack Democratic governors and blame them for nursing homes."
The Post reported that nearly 6,700 people have died in nursing or adult-care facilities of confirmed or presumed cases of coronavirus since the pandemic began. In March, New York issued a policy that required nursing homes to admit patients returning from hospitals who were suspected to have or had tested positive for COVID-19. The mandate also prohibited patients from being tested prior to admission or readmission to care facilities. The purpose of the policy was to make sure hospitals did not run out of beds in anticipation of a surge of coronavirus hospitalizations. The unintended consequence of this policy may have been introducing positive coronavirus cases to a population of elderly people who are more susceptible to contracting the disease and dying from it.
Cuomo has previously falsely asserted that nursing homes "never needed" to accept patients with coronavirus. The fact is that according to the New York State Department of Health, "6,326 COVID-positive residents were admitted to [nursing home] facilities" following Cuomo's policy that nursing homes accept coronavirus patients, according to a CNN fact-check.
Now, Cuomo blames conservative columnist Michael Goodwin and the New York Post for the controversy over his executive order.
"On April 25, conservative columnist Michael Goodwin published a piece in Rupert Murdoch's New York Post aimed at New York with the headline, 'State lacked common sense in nursing homes' coronavirus approach,'" wrote Cuomo. "It was an orchestrated strategy and a Fox News drumbeat."
"It wasn't just me," he continued. "[Govs.] Phil Murphy in New Jersey, Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan, Gavin Newsom in California and Tom Wolf in Pennsylvania were all in the Republican crosshairs on nursing homes. As the states with the most deaths were Democratic states, the Trump forces saw us as an easy target."
In May, Cuomo partially reversed his nursing home policy after critics raised questions about the policy and voices from both major political parties called for an independent probe into the mandate.
He admits to no mistakes in his memoir and accuses his critics of lying about his record.
"Unfortunately, although I tried, I never successfully communicated the facts on the situation," Cuomo wrote. "The Trump forces had a simple line: 'Thousands died in nursing homes.' It was true.
"But they needed to add a conspiracy, which was that they died because of a bad state policy that 'mandated and directed' that the nursing homes accept COVID-positive people, and these COVID-positive people were the cause of the spread of the disease in the nursing homes," he continued. "It was a lie."