Appoint and Confirm: President Trump has nominated Amy Coney Barrett, a superbly qualified jurist for the Supreme Court.
She was previously vetted and confirmed by the Senate. Most Senators spent weeks reviewing and studying her record for that lifetime appointment to the federal bench. So this review should be much quicker as so much has already been investigated.
The Senate has an obligation to “advise and consent” on presidential appointments to the court. Since BOTH the President and the Senate are of the same party, you would expect quick action.
Undoubtedly qualified, experienced, and previously vetted makes for a much smoother confirmation process.
Some will play politics and grandstand let alone posture for political benefit. However, if the candidate is qualified, they should be confirmed.
Democrats on Law & Order: Think about how crazy things have become?!? Democrats, elected to various leadership posts from Congress, to Mayors to Prosecutors and District Attorneys are actually encouraging violence, empowering rioters and refusing to prosecute criminals who are arrested and charged with looting, destroying property, physical assaults and even attempted murder.
Drivers, legally driving down a road get illegally blocked by demonstrators/rioters who start attacking the drivers, damaging their cars and often trying to pull drivers out in order to beat or even kill them…try to escape by driving off, yes, often time hitting rioters who are blocking their escape…and the driver gets arrested or detained?!?
This isn’t some political statement or hyperbole, it’s a fact. How can people vote for this kind of “law & order?”
Too many of the Democrats’ coalition are self-proclaimed “revolutionaries” and they are NOT protesting for social justice or legal reform, they want to destroy our country as it is, and come up with some socialist utopia that has NEVER worked in our world’s history.
Vote as if your life depended on it…because it just might.
Justice without Peace is just Revenge: Legitimate social justice reformers and concerned citizens are being taken for a ride by radicals who are hell bent on destroying the country we all love. Whether its ANTIFA, Black Live Matter or other radicals, they are organized, coordinated, funded and vicious in their attacks and destruction of private property…not to mention taxpayer funded property.
These are our communities. We do need reforms and better policies for policing. But we also need to understand if you resist arrest, pull a weapon, shoot and not respond appropriately when approached by law enforcement, you greatly increase the risk of things going bad.
Protests vs Riots – But Mostly Peaceful: “Right to Peaceably Assemble” is granted. “Right to Vandalize, Destroy Public & Private Property, Assault, Injure, Kill, Inflict Fear, Public Nuisance & Hide – These & Other Criminal Behaviors Under the Cover of Angry Mobs” is not.
The problem is innocent people, families and private businesses, who had NOTHING to do with police shootings or excessive force are being targeted and terrorized by arsonists, vandals, looters and rioters.
Obamagate Exposed: The weaponization of both domestic and foreign intelligence against a presidential campaign from a sitting administration solely for political purposes to prevent the smooth transition of power and weaken his presidency to limit his legislative successes.
Since the investigations by the Crossfire Hurricane team became public, every Democrat, media figure, and anti-Trump personality threw out every allegation they could get their hands on, all of which stemmed from the implications of the Steele dossier – that Trump himself was being used by Russia and that the foreign power was trying to undermine our national security for their own purposes through him. Without the initial allegations that Russia was behind Trump’s campaign/victory/agenda, none of the follow-up allegations and whistleblower complaints would have been filed, and the media would not have latched on to every single one of them and given them wall-to-wall coverage.
That’s what Obamagate is all about…they spied, they lied and tried to cover it up.
This should NEVER happen to ANY American…there should be bipartisan outrage!!!
-Saul Anuzis
Click Here for Past Commentary from Saul
Amazon will help US if you say yes: At NO cost to you, you can help the 60 Plus Foundation in its efforts to support conservative policies to protect senior citizens, get rid of the death tax and defend social security and medicare using sound fiscal policies.
Sign up…and Amazon will donate 0.5% of what you spend to the Foundation! Please help us out by signing up here…at NO cost to you!
60 Plus Weekly Video Rewind
Links to the articles discussed in the video:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/trump-supreme-court-decide-election
Amy Coney Barrett Deserves to Be on the Supreme Court
Like many other liberals, I’m devastated by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, which opened the way for President Donald Trump to nominate a third Supreme Court justice in his first term. And I’m revolted by the hypocrisy of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s willingness to confirm Trump’s nominee after refusing to even allow a vote on Judge Merrick Garland.
Yet these political judgments need to be distinguished from a separate question: what to think about Judge Amy Coney Barrett, whom Trump has told associates he plans to nominate. And here I want to be extremely clear. Regardless of what you or I may think of the circumstances of this nomination, Barrett is highly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.
What Would Be Unique about Justice Amy Coney Barrett
The nomination of Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court is a milestone in a number of ways. It would, if she is confirmed, plausibly give conservative, constitutionalist Justices a 6-3 majority on the Court for the first time since at least the 1930s, and move the center of gravity on the Court away from Chief Justice Roberts — a major swing, given that just two years ago, Justice Anthony Kennedy was still the deciding vote in many of the Court’s hot-button cases.
She would also be the first conservative academic on the Court since Justice Scalia, for whom she clerked, and whose judicial philosophy she again publicly embraced in her Rose Garden remarks today. Coming from Notre Dame Law School and Rhodes College, she would break the monopoly of the Ivy League on the current Court, but do so as a woman who spent nearly two decades as a full-time law professor. While Justices Kagan and Breyer were academics, too, the academic tilt of her résumé is somewhat unusual on the modern Court in not being balanced by experience in politics. Judge Barrett did not work in government before joining the bench, other than as a law clerk. By contrast, six of the eight current justices worked in the Justice Department in one capacity or another, and of the other two, Justice Thomas worked in the Education Department and the EEOC, and Justice Sotomayor worked for the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and for various other agencies in state government. Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh also worked for the White House, and Justices Breyer and Kagan worked on Capitol Hill (in Kagan’s case, for Joe Biden). On balance, some diversity of professional experience on the Court is healthy — there is also one Justice (Sotomayor) who has worked as a trial judge, one (Thomas) who has worked in a corporate legal department, and two (Alito and Breyer) who have served in the military.
What Trump Pick Amy Coney Barrett Could Mean for Future of the Supreme Court
If confirmed to the Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett could culminate a decadeslong quest to ensure a conservative imprint on American law, affecting the role of government, the rights of individuals and the interpretation of such long-debated constitutional terms as equal protection, due process of law and cruel and unusual punishment.
Most Supreme Court appointees since 1969—15 of 19—were nominated by Republicans, but conservatives have fallen short of fully displacing numerous progressive legal doctrines that took hold in the 1930s and flowered in the 1950s and ’60s under Chief Justice Earl Warren. Since that era, liberals have largely maintained a durable minority of four votes, slowing the court’s move to the right and sporadically able to secure 5-4 victories when a single conservative’s views overlapped their own.
The death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave conservatives an opportunity to cement their dominance. Judge Barrett, whom President Trump picked to fill the vacancy on Saturday, appears tailor-made for a mission many conservatives hope will redefine constitutional interpretation.
Analysis: The Constitution, Relevant History, and Electoral Outcomes All Favor Confirming a New SCOTUS Nominee
Somehow, it arrived as a shock. Everyone knew it was coming sooner or later, yet the death of an octogenarian who’d battled various forms of cancer for years still felt sudden and seismic. In an instant, a single news alert on a Friday night — as the summer slipped into autumn — shifted an already deeply-polarized American political landscape. The Supreme Court’s most prominent liberal member, an icon and inspiration to many, had died. And with just weeks to spare before a contested national election, a Republican president was abruptly presented with an opportunity to shift the ideological balance of the Court, perhaps for a generation.
The surreality of the moment was captured in the video footage of President Trump learning of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death from a reporter, in real-time. With Elton John’s “Tiny Dancer” playing loudly in the background, the weight of the news hit the president all at once. His face evinced astonishment, and after casting about for the right words for a moment, he physically reset himself and launched into a brief, extemporaneous tribute to the late justice. He concluded his brief remarks by expressing sadness, then walked away. Later that evening, he phoned Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to discuss a handful of his frontrunners to fill the vacancy. The next day, he made his political intentions clear, in no uncertain terms:
Democrats Have Only Themselves to Blame For Their Inability to Stop Trump’s SCOTUS Nominee
Democrats Have Only Themselves to Blame For Their Inability to Stop Trump’s SCOTUS Nominee
The Democrats whining about President Trump’s opportunity to nominate a new Supreme Court Justice seem to have forgotten that elections have profound consequences — if the American people had entrusted the left with a Senate majority, then the Democrat Party would have the votes to reject the President’s pick.
Whether the Democrats like it or not, the battle over the Supreme Court was one of the central issues of the historic 2016 election. From the earliest days of his presidential campaign, Donald Trump promised to nominate conservative judges to the bench if and when such vacancies occurred.
“I’m going to submit a list of justices, potential justices of the United States Supreme Court, that I will appoint from the list,” he said at the time, specifically vowing not to appoint liberal judges to the bench. The pledge took on added significance because there was a vacancy on the court when voters went to the polls in 2016, allowing them to consider the question of judicial philosophy when casting their ballots.
Justice Ginsburg’s age was not a state secret, either — it was reasonable to assume that her seat would ultimately be filled by the winner of the 2016 election. She was, after all, the oldest sitting member of the court. Almost everyone expected that the winner of the 2016 election would get at least two chances to nominate a new Supreme Court justice, making the issue far more prominent than usual.
With all these factors in mind, the American people elected Donald Trump and ensured that the Republican Party kept control of the Senate.
LEAKED Inside Documents show BLUE PRINT of Radical Left’s Rapid Response Plan to Disrupt SCOTUS Nomination and Vote
LEAKED Inside Documents show BLUE PRINT of Radical Left’s Rapid Response Plan to Disrupt SCOTUS Nomination and Vote
Investigative journalist Millie Weaver released the far left blue prints for the far left’s plans for protesting President Trump’s Supreme Court pick.
The left has already released its blue print to disrupt and shut down the Senate during the confirmation hearings and vote to confirm.
The Blue Print includes tips on messaging, coordinated social media posts and slogans.
Joe Biden is sleepwalking his way through the campaign
Joe Biden’s presidential campaign called another early morning press lid at 9:20 a.m. on Thursday, leaving strategists and reporters wondering what the hell is going on. It was the ninth time this month that Biden had no public events on schedule and thus told the press before lunchtime that they would not be needed for the rest of the day.
It’s downright bizarre that a campaign would squander nine perfectly good days that could be spent on the trail just two months out from the election. What was Biden doing during this time instead? Sitting at home with his wife in Wilmington and hopping on the occasional Zoom event? Sam Stein, who is a Daily Beast reporter and purportedly not a campaign spokesperson, insisted that Biden must have been prepping for Tuesday’s debate against Trump. But even Hillary Clinton, who was blasted for being ‘over-prepared’ for the first debate in 2016, only started lightening her campaign schedule the week prior. Debate prep thus hardly comes close to explaining Biden’s subdued September.
If we compared Biden’s recent campaign schedule to the supposedly standard 40-hour work week (full time employees in the US actually work about seven hours longer than that, on average), we’d have even more reason to be concerned. From August 31 to September 6, Biden called an early lid three times and was out in public campaigning for just over 34 hours. From September 7 to 13, he again called three early lids and was out on the trail about 35 hours. He made up some slack in the third week of September, putting in 65 hours on the trail. But so far this week, he’s only been out and about for just over 24 hours and has already called two early lids. It seems like a bad sign that Biden is campaigning for an office that requires brutally long working hours and can’t even keep up with the average American worker while campaigning. Obama only slept for about five hours each night while in office, and Trump sleeps about four. Could Biden’s physical health be as troublesome to his campaign as his mental health seems to be?
Senate Report: Hunter Biden’s Chinese Payments Raise Criminal Concerns, Extend To James Biden
Senate investigators released an earth-shattering report Wednesday outlining a long list of the Biden family’s conflicts of interest conducting shady overseas business activity with foreign adversaries while serving at the upper echelons of government, raising significant national security concerns with potentially criminal conduct and threats of extortion.
According to the joint report from the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee with the Senate Treasury Committee, Hunter Biden, along with business partner Devon Archer, “engaged in numerous financial transactions with Chinese nationals who had deep connections to the Communist Chinese government.”
These connections, investigators wrote, include Ye Jianming, the founder of CEFC China Energy Co. Ltd (CEFC), and his associate, Gongwen Dong, who reportedly carried out transactions for Jianming’s companies. Ye, the report noted, who formerly held positions with the People’s Liberation Army, also possessed financial connections to former Vice President Joe Biden’s brother, James Biden.
For years, according to the Senate report, Hunter Biden leveraged his vast network of connections to ultimately create the investment firm Bohai Harvest RST (Shanghai) Equity Investment Fund Management Co. (BHR), which prioritized investing Chinese capital in overseas projects. The financial group received its approval for a Chinese business license after a series of meetings arranged by Hunter Biden on a government 2013 government trip to China with his vice president father, both flying aboard Air Force Two.
The firm, according to the Wall Street Journal, “is controlled and funded primarily by large Chinese government-owned shareholders” and channeled at least $2.5 billion into automotive, energy, mining, and technology deals on behalf of these investors.
This Detail in the Hunter Biden Report Again Exposes the Media’s Insane Double Standard
As Leah reported earlier, the Senate Homeland Security and Finances Committee released a lengthy and preliminary report about Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings.
Among other serious conflicts of interest and shady practices, the report states Hunter Biden received a $3.5 million wire transfer from the wife of Moscow’s mayor.
Hunter Biden and his associate, Archer, had a financial relationship with Russian businesswoman Elena Baturina. Baturina is the former wife of the late Yuri Luzhkov, who was the mayor of Moscow and was fired in 2010 by then-Russian president Dmitry Medvedev over corruption allegations. Baturina became Russia’s only female billionaire when her plastics company, Inteko, received a series of Moscow municipal contracts while her husband was mayor. According to reporting, “Luzhkov used his position as mayor to approve 20 real estate projects that were built by a Baturina-owned construction company and ultimately generated multibillion-ruble profits for his family.” In addition, a Russian investigation led to a criminal case against the former head of the Bank of Moscow, Andrey Borodin, who “allegedly used money from the Moscow City Budget to lend money to shell companies, which ultimately transferred $443 million to Baturina.”
On Feb. 14, 2014, Baturina wired $3.5 million to a Rosemont Seneca Thornton LLC (Rosemont Seneca Thornton) bank account for a “Consultancy Agreement DD12.02.2014. Rosemont Seneca Thornton is an investment firm co-founded by Hunter Biden that was incorporated on May 28, 2013 in Wilmington, Del. According to The Financial Times, Thornton Group, a Massachusetts-based firm. In June 2009, Biden co-founded Rosemont Seneca Partners with Archer and Christopher Heinz. The Thornton Group’s website statutes that it has offices in Boston and Beijing, lists Rosemont Seneca Partners among its list of alliance and clients, and includes photographs from multiple events attended by Hunter Biden.
Hunter Biden Received Millions From Wife Of Ex-Moscow Mayor, Paid Suspects Allegedly Tied To Trafficking, Had Contacts With Individuals Linked To Chinese Military, Senate Report Alleges
A bombshell report from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (HSGAC) and the Committee on Finance makes a series of damning new allegations against Hunter Biden, the son of Democrat presidential nominee.
The investigation launched after Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA) publicly raised conflict-of-interest concerns about the sale of a U.S. company to a Chinese firm with ties to Hunter Biden a month before Congress was notified about a whistleblower complaint that was the catalyst for Democrats’ impeachment of President Donald Trump. The Senate’s investigation relied on records from the U.S. government, Democrat lobbying groups, and interviews of numerous current and former officials.
The report outlined the following key findings from the investigation:
Governor DeSantis passes legislation targeting rioters: “A ton of bricks will rain down on you.“
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis announced new legislation that would create stricter laws against protesting and harsher penalties for protestors.
The legislation, called “The Combating Violence, Disorder, and Looting and Law Enforcement Protection Act,” was unveiled Monday.
During a news briefing at the Polk County Sheriff’s office DeSantis claimed that the legislation will “probably be the boldest and most comprehensive piece of legislation to address these issues anywhere in the country.”
DeSantis later explained the effect that the bill would have on protests in the state of Florida. This legislation would enable felony charges to be placed on protestors who stop traffic without authorization, anyone participating in a protest that leads to property damage or injury, and anyone who destroys public property during a protest.
WATCH: Rioters Attack Drivers in Hollywood; Media Claim Truck Hit ‘Protester’
Rioters in Hollywood attacked two vehicles that refused to stop at intersections they had blocked Thursday evening during “Black Lives Matter” protests against the grand jury decision in the Breonna Taylor case in Kentucky.
The Los Angeles Times reported the incidents under the headline: “Vehicle plows through Breonna Taylor protesters in Hollywood, hitting at least one person.” It claimed that a truck drove against the “flow” of the protest, “striking at least one person as it sped through the crowd.”
…However, footage of the incident shows that the person who was allegedly “hit” had climbed on top of the truck, and fell off when the truck braked:
…In another incident, rioters attempted to stop a Toyota Prius that was attempting to drive through the intersection, and began attacking it. When the driver refused to stop, the rioters chased it with a truck and a support vehicle, forcing the Prius to stop. Rioters then assaulted the driver: one even smashed the windshield with a flag, which apparently read “Black Lives Matter.” The driver eventually managed to drive away.
The FBI’s Bad Intelligence
It was worse than we thought. We’re referring to the FBI’s 2016 investigation into the Trump campaign and Russia, as new documents this week reveal.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham on Thursday released newly declassified FBI documents that contain this stunner: The bureau relied on a suspected Russian agent for the information it used to obtain a secret surveillance warrant against former Trump adviser Carter Page.
Four years into accusations about Russia-Trump collusion, we finally learn that Russia’s main conduit for disinformation may have been America’s FBI. Vladimir Putin must be howling with laughter.
Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz last year revealed that former spook Christopher Steele relied on one primary “subsource” for most of his accusations against the Trump campaign. This subsource was later identified as Ukrainian-born Igor Danchenko, who worked as a research analyst from 2005 to 2010 at the Brookings Institution in Washington. The latest disclosures show that Mr. Danchenko was the subject of an FBI counterintelligence investigation from 2009 to 2011, based on concerns he was a Russian agent and “a threat to national security.”
FBI agent: Never was evidence of Russia collusion but Mueller team had ‘get Trump’ goal
An FBI agent who played a lead role investigating Michael Flynn told the Justice Department there was never evidence of wrongdoing by the retired general or Russian collusion by President Trump, but the probe was kept open by Special Counsel Robert Mueller because his team had a “get Trump” goal, according to an explosive interview released Friday.
Agent William Barnett’s interview with Justice Department prosecutors earlier this month provided a bombshell claim that both FBI superiors under agency Director James Comey and Mueller’s team exhibited bias in their pursuit of Trump that upended the normal investigative decisions, tactics and commitment to pursue evidence neutrally.
An FBI agent who played a lead role investigating Michael Flynn told the Justice Department there was never evidence of wrongdoing by the retired general or Russian collusion by President Trump, but the probe was kept open by Special Counsel Robert Mueller because his team had a “get Trump” goal, according to an explosive interview released Friday.
Agent William Barnett’s interview with Justice Department prosecutors earlier this month provided a bombshell claim that both FBI superiors under agency Director James Comey and Mueller’s team exhibited bias in their pursuit of Trump that upended the normal investigative decisions, tactics and commitment to pursue evidence neutrally.
The interview emerged just one day after the Justice Department released text messages showing FBI analysts bought liability insurance in January 2017 because the feared they could be sued for misconduct committed during the Russia probe.
“BARNETT thought that the TRUMP campaign may have been aware the Russians were attempting to impact the election but that was far different from the TRUMP campaign and the Russians having a deal and/or working together quid pro quo,” the report of his Sept. 17 interview reads.
“BARNETT” and others joked about how the investigation into collusion could be made into a game, which they referred to as “Collusion Clue.”
In the hypothetical game, investigators were able to choose any character conducting any activity in any location and pair this individual with another character and interpret it as evidence of collusion.
Barnett added: “With respect to Flynn’s [phone call] with the Russian ambassador in December 2016 BARNETT did not believe Flynn was being directed by TRUMP. BARNETT did not believe FLYNN had any additional information to provide SCO. Barnett believed the prosecution of Flynn by SCO was used as a means to ‘get TRUMP.’ “
Barnett described how the top levels of the FBI, including now-fired Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, suddenly took over the investigation after Trump won the November 2016 election and continued to keep the case going even though there was “little detail concerning specific evidence of criminal events.”
“BARNETT still did not see any evidence of collusion between the TRUMP campaign and the Russian government,” the interview report stated. “Barnett was willing to follow any instructions being given by the deputy director as long as it was not a violation of the law.”
‘Trump Was Right’: Explosive New FBI Texts Detail Internal Furor Over Handling Of ‘Crossfire Hurricane’ Investigation
Newly disclosed internal FBI notes and text messages detail the extent of the FBI’s desire to take down Trump and his associates at any cost.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents tasked by fired former Director James Comey to take down Donald Trump during and after the 2016 election were so concerned about the agency’s potentially illegal behavior that they purchased liability insurance to protect themselves less than two weeks before Trump was inaugurated president, previously hidden FBI text messages show. The explosive new communications and internal FBI notes were disclosed in federal court filings today from Sidney Powell, the attorney who heads Michael Flynn’s legal defense team.
“[W]e all went and purchased professional liability insurance,” one agent texted on Jan. 10, 2017, the same day CNN leaked details that then-President-elect Trump had been briefed by Comey about the bogus Christopher Steele dossier. That briefing of Trump was used as a pretext to legitimize the debunked dossier, which was funded by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign and compiled by a foreign intelligence officer who was working for a sanctioned Russian oligarch.
“Holy crap,” an agent responded. “All the analysts too?”
“Yep,” the first agent said. “All the folks at the Agency as well.”
“[C]an I ask who are the most likely litigators?” an agent responded. “[A]s far as potentially suing y’all[?]”
“[H]aha, who knows….I think [t]he concern when we got it was that there was a big leak at DOJ and the NYT among others was going to do a piece,” the first agent said.
While the names of the agents responsible for the texts are redacted, the legal filing from Powell, quoting communications from the Department of Justice (DOJ), states that the latest document production included handwritten notes and texts from Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, and FBI analysts who worked on the FBI’s investigation of Flynn.
We’ve Spent Four Years Dealing With Allegations From a Russia Disinformation Campaign
There are few ways to really describe the Steele dossier and the ramifications of the Crossfire Hurricane team using it to target incoming President Donald Trump. “Incredibly irresponsible” comes to mind. “Absolutely outrageous” does, too. However, given what we know, at this point, few things short of “Russian disinformation” seem apt.
On Thursday, Lindsey Graham released a memo from Attorney General William Barr that makes the damning revelations:
…Since the investigations by the Crossfire Hurricane team became public, every Democrat, media figure, and anti-Trump personality threw out every allegation they could get their hands on, all of which stemmed from the implications of the Steele dossier – that Trump himself was being used by Russia and that the foreign power was trying to undermine our national security for their own purposes through him. Without the initial allegations that Russia was behind Trump’s campaign/victory/agenda, none of the follow-up allegations and whistleblower complaints would have been filed, and the media would not have latched on to every single one of them and given them wall-to-wall coverage.
But the Steele dossier set up that entire playbook, and Democrats and journalists have drawn from that well over and over again.
Trump’s Surprising Appeal among Hispanics
Democrats have too long ignored both their own failings and the president’s strengths.
The day after the 2016 election, Democrats weren’t the only ones who thought Trump was, if not explicitly racist, at least xenophobic. I personally knew immigrants who felt as if their beloved adoptive country had just voted to unwelcome them, which was heartbreaking to see. Of course, the vast majority of Trump supporters were not anti-Hispanic. But many on both sides of the political divide thought Trump’s abrasive nationalism might be driving away more Hispanics than either he or the Republican Party could afford to lose.
And yet exit polls soon showed something remarkable. Trump had done quite well among Hispanics. He increased the GOP share of the Hispanic vote above Mitt Romney’s performance in 2012. In fact, Trump did as well in 2016 as John McCain had in 2008, and McCain was a charter member of the “gang of eight” senators who had pushed for comprehensive immigration reform, including amnesty for illegal immigrants, during George W. Bush’s second term.
The Woke and the Un-Woke
America is undergoing a godless revival. A new creed—called “social justice,” “wokeism,” or “the successor ideology”—resembling religion yet avowedly secular and anti-spiritual, is spreading across the country. Its seminaries are the nation’s elite universities, its missionaries work in prestigious newsrooms. Adherents are remaking powerful institutions by “canceling” anyone who dissents or lacks zeal for the cause. Like any good revival, this one is replete with hellfire preaching. Eager audiences are told of their inescapable guilt, or “privilege.” Repentance is demanded, but forgiveness is not offered.
An overlooked aspect in the now crowded conversation around the rise of “wokeness” is its potential to transform a decadesold pattern of cultural and political divisions in America. As secular progressivism becomes more zealous and evangelical, trampling over traditional American notions of limited governance and tolerance, it may be drawing together common enemies.
Catholic traditionalists, Orthodox Jews, middle American small-business owners, and skeptical liberal atheists may not seem to have much in common, yet each group is threatened by the hegemonic power of progressive ideology. As a consequence, the defining fault line in American politics may no longer be between left and right. The relevant division now is between people who accept the binding, state-backed power of the new post-secular creed and the diverse coalition of groups—including traditional religious communities, left-wing materialists, and one-time liberals alienated by the creeping dominance of left-wing absolutism—who resist its authority.
Wokeism imagines a utopian world, one ruled without force, unbound by borders, freed from biology. We must “defund the police,” “abolish ICE,” and affirm that “trans women are women.” Heresy on the cardinal issues of race, the nation, and sex is not tolerated.
Map: Mail-In Voting Rules By State
In response to the coronavirus pandemic, dozens of states have modified their rules for absentee voting in November’s elections.
Some of those changes are more substantial than others.
California, Nevada, New Jersey and Vermont, along with Washington, D.C., are sending mail-in ballots to all voters, joining the handful of states that conduct all-mail elections. In Montana, individual counties are now authorized to send voters ballots. And many more states are mailing voters absentee ballot applications.
There’s also been a big expansion in who can vote absentee. Many states, including New Hampshire and New York, have suspended the need for an excuse to obtain an absentee ballot, or said fear of contracting COVID-19 while voting is a valid excuse.
Other states have altered deadlines and/or loosened rules for submitting an absentee ballot. In Virginia, for instance, an absentee ballot won’t need a witness signature.
The map above gives a broad overview of mail-in voting procedures for each state. We’ll update the map with any further changes, but be sure to check with your state for the most detailed and up-to-date voting information.
America’s Debt Will be Twice the Size of the Economy by 2050
The Congressional Budget Office warns that higher levels of debt will slow economic growth significantly in the years ahead.
If you’re getting tired of unrelentingly bad news about the national debt—well, I have some terrible news.
Today the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a 30-year budget projection. By 2050, the number-crunching agency now says, the national debt will grow to 195 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). That’s 45 percentage points higher than the CBO was projecting last year. What it couldn’t foresee, of course, was the COVID-19 pandemic and the expensive federal response to it, which has pushed the national debt to nearly 100 percent of current GDP.
The national debt is expected to hit 107 percent of GDP—matching the record high set during World War II—by 2023:
Rising debt levels will “increase the risk of a fiscal crisis—that is, a situation in which investors lose confidence in the U.S. government’s ability to service and repay its debt, causing interest rates to increase abruptly, inflation to spiral upward, or other disruptions,” the CBO warns. “It would increase the likelihood of less abrupt, but still significant, negative effects, such as expectations of higher rates of inflation.”
Why the courage to confront Iran matters
The US is precisely right to take extreme action against Iran.
Following Iran’s repeated acts of aggression and attempts to target American targets in Iraq and other countries, as well as significant breaches in the Iran deal, the US has finally implemented snapback sanctions. In addition, the US has implemented new sanctions on the Iranian regime and its affiliates, in a move rejected by fellow UN Security Council members.
Despite criticism from European allies, the US is precisely right to take extreme action against Iran, regardless of motivations, not only because of Iran’s nuclear aims, but also because of their global support for terrorism and gross human rights violations against their own people. It’s time for the Iranian regime to fall.
Last month, a vote to renew the arms embargo on Iran – a country that is the world’s single largest supporter of terrorism – failed in the UN Security Council. This embarrassing display of cowardice paves the way to an even more emboldened Iran, which is aggressively doing all it can to destabilize the Middle East. In response, the Americans triggered snapback sanctions, a move that evoked criticism from China and Russia, both countries with atrocious records of human rights (not too different from Iran’s). In the case of Russia – a country which busies itself on a regular basis propping up Syrian war criminal Bashar Assad, who chemically gassed his own people – they claim the snapback sanctions are “illegal.” Iran responded in a similar fashion, claiming the sanctions are illegitimate and vowing a “crushing response.” Tehran stated “we expect the international community and all the countries in the world to stand against these reckless actions by the regime in the White House and speak in one voice.”
One would think that the UN Security Council would respond to such threats from Tehran with decisive action against a regime that is known for gross human rights violations as recently as last week, when they executed Iranian champion wrestler Navid Afkari for dissenting against the regime. Or when they attempted to carry out assassinations and terror attacks on foreign soil in South Africa and Bahrain this month. Instead, the UNSC and its members are kowtowing to Iran’s bullying, and Iran knows it.
