“One single object … [will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation.” —Thomas Jefferson (1825)
IN TODAY’S DIGEST
If you’re among the handful of people who’ve been diligently watching the NBA Finals, you might’ve missed the news: Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Senate confirmation hearings began this morning.
The hearings, which take place in the 22-member Senate Judiciary Committee, kicked off at 9 a.m. ET today and will run through Thursday. Today’s session began with an introductory statement by Republican Chairman Lindsey Graham and ranking member Dianne “the dogma lives loudly within you” Feinstein, followed by a 10-minute opening statement by each committee member, then an introduction of Judge Barrett by Indiana Senator Todd Young and former Notre Dame Law School Dean Patricia O’Hara.
Barrett will then deliver her opening remarks, in which she’s expected to praise two deceased giants of the Supreme Court: Antonin Scalia, who was her mentor, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose death on September 18 made available this seat on the High Court. Barrett, a constitutional originalist in the mold of Scalia, is also expected to stress that it’s the courts’ responsibility to enforce the Rule of Law, not to solve every problem or right every wrong, and that the policies and value judgments of government must be made by the two branches of government that are accountable to the American people at the ballot box.
The full text of Judge Barrett’s opening remarks can be found here.
None of this will matter to Senate Democrats, however, as they’ve already mapped out their strategy and spoon-fed it to an eager and obedient mainstream media.
This strategy was rolled out on Sunday morning’s news talk shows. Delaware Democrat Senator Chris Coons, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, argued that the GOP’s efforts to seat Judge Barrett before the end of President Donald Trump’s four-year term constitutes — wait for it — court packing. This despite the term’s clear meaning related to expanding the number of seats on the Court and filling those seats with ideologically like-minded justices. “I’m going to be laying out the ways in which Judge Barrett’s views … are not just extreme, they’re disqualifying,” said Coons. Confirmation, he added, “constitutes court packing.”
Illinois Democrat Dick Durbin, also a member of the Judiciary Committee, likewise corrupted the meaning of the term “court packing,” saying, “The American people have watched Republicans packing the Court over the last three and a half years, and they brag about it — that they’ve taken every vacancy and filled it.”
This perversion of a particular term has a purpose. Democrats are trying to turn the tables on what has, for the past two weeks, become an uncomfortable and unanswerable question for their presidential nominee, Joe Biden. Time after time, Biden has been called upon to answer a simple but critical question: whether he’d pack the Supreme Court with liberal justices if elected. At every turn, he’s refused to tell the voters what his plans are, claiming that his answer would immediately become the focus of attention. Of course, any effort to illegitimately pack the Supreme Court, which has worked perfectly well with nine justices for the past 151 years, deserves the American people’s undivided attention.
Biden’s answer to whether the American people have a right to know his position? “No, they don’t.”
No less a Trump-hating leftist than Jake Tapper has even grown tired of the Biden campaign’s disingenuous narrative. “How is [confirmation] not constitutional?” he repeatedly asked Biden flack Kate Bedingfield. Tapper, whose facial expressions tend to betray his feelings, looked like he was eating a bag of lemons as Bedingfield continued to duck and dodge.
Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse also registered his contempt: “It’s grotesque that Vice President Biden won’t answer that really basic question,” he said. “And it isn’t just one branch of government. What [Democrats are] really talking about — or refusing to talk about — is the suicide bombing of two branches of government.”
That pretty much sums up the Democrats’ desperate game plan. The next few days will determine whether the Leftmedia allows them to get away with it.
On Friday, President Donald Trump and Republicans received the bad but sadly predictable news that U.S. Attorney John Durham would not release the findings of his criminal investigation into the origins of the Russia-collusion hoax until after the election in November. So much for timing.
Trump learned of Attorney General William Barr’s reported announcement while live on Rush Limbaugh’s radio program. He frustratedly responded, “If that’s the case, I’m very disappointed. I think it’s a terrible thing. And I’ll say it to [Barr’s] face. It’s a disgrace. It’s an embarrassment.” Trump then hit the proverbial nail on the head, arguing, “See, this is what I mean with the Republicans. They don’t play the tough game.”
Like so many Americans, Trump is fed up with what he sees as the intentional dragging out of an investigation into the deep-state actions of Barack Obama’s administration. Team Obama first sought to prevent Trump’s election and subsequently engaged in an attempted coup against a legitimate and duly elected president.
Trump’s criticism of Barr and Durham is understandable, as Trump and the American people deserve to see what evidence Durham has collected before the election. This is not a call to politicize the Justice Department, as Democrats and much of the mainstream media have disingenuously claimed. Rather it’s a call for the truth to be revealed about the biggest political scandal in U.S. history. It’s a call for transparency so voters can be fully informed.
Beyond that, there’s the legitimate concern that if Trump fails in his reelection bid, Joe Biden and company will terminate the Durham investigation and either suppress or spin its most damning findings. At the same time, Biden and Democrats will work to affirm Hillary Clinton’s dubious and false narrative — which she trotted out yet again last week — that Trump’s 2016 victory “was not on the level.” Of course, Hillary is fighting to prevent the full exposure of just how corruptly she acted in creating the entire Russia collusion hoax — all in a devious effort to distract attention from her own blatant and illegal email scandal. Yet she has the gall to complain, “We still don’t know what really happened.” Without Durham’s full report, that’s more true than she intended.
President Donald Trump joined Rush Limbaugh for two hours Friday in what Rush called “the largest radio rally in history.” Having received the Presidential Medal of Freedom during the State of the Union Address in February, Rush was certainly a more friendly audience than most media talkingheads. Low bar, we know.
The crazy thing is, it made Donald Trump extremely likable. To listen to him have a conversation about a great many issues over the course of two hours without being hectored, bullied, or asked biased gotcha questions gave those tuning in the sense that Trump is actually a pretty decent guy.
Who knew, right?
Well, the president has proved himself likable to anyone who loves this country instead of disdainfully viewing it as a racist backwater. He’s likable to anyone who wants lower taxes, fewer regulations, economic recovery, sane immigration policy, judges and justices who uphold their oaths to the Constitution, to defend the Second Amendment, and election integrity. He’s likable to people who want the world’s terrorists and state bad actors to know the U.S. means business. Or, as Trump put it, “They’ve been put on notice: If you f—k around with us, you do something bad to us, we are going to do things to you that have never been done before, and they understand that.”
We suppose the Iranian mullahs and anyone from the Obama Clinton Kerry School of Diplomacy may object to the “likable, decent guy” sentiment.
Trump and Limbaugh discussed all of the above topics and more. That’s important because, particularly on the subjects of immigration and the Second Amendment, there wasn’t a single question about either topic at either the presidential or vice presidential debates. And there probably won’t be in the future. The mainstream media is utterly failing to provide a simple service to the American people: Exploring what the two major presidential candidates think about the issues. They’re too busy covering for Joe Biden.
Speaking of Biden, his declining mental state should worry every American, especially those who suspect Kamala Harris is the real candidate. And, as Rush pointed out, even a COVID-recovering Donald Trump is a formidable force. “We’ve now been chatting with the president for an hour and 42 minutes, ladies and gentlemen,” he said. “We have not had a commercial break. I would thus have to say the president’s status with COVID-19 is pretty solid. The second thing that I would say is that not once during the hour and 42 minutes has the president been stumped, has he not known what he wanted to say.”
In any case, the overriding point is that anyone who’s exposed to Trump without the Leftmedia filter is left with a much different — and far better — impression of the man.
The woman’s vote is up for grabs in this critical election. The Left works feverishly to define the criteria of being a woman voter with its enforcement mechanisms that do little more than just add to the echo chamber: the media, faculty of higher education, and groups such as Planned Parenthood. They serve as the “Mean Girls Enforcement Squad” that swarms on Twitter, advocating censorship, bullying, and even aggressive confrontations while simultaneously calling for free speech, civil discourse, and peaceful protests, all with a straight face.
Who are the women of the political Left? As Cora Mandy put it in 2018, the feminism of Democrats defines “the ideal candidate” as someone who is “pro-abortion, anti-gun, unwilling to enforce immigration laws, and wants to socialize health care.” Further, these leftist feminists have begun taking aim at conservative women in articles, commentary, narrative, and commercials. They claim — without evidence — that conservative women are racists who affiliate with a party “indistinguishable from a hate group” and are “brainwashed by their husbands or conservative media and incapable of making their own decisions.”
Put simply, if you’re not a female who meets their “ideal candidate” criteria, you’re a “gender traitor.”
What about those women who happen to embrace the notion of life’s value, even that of the preborn, the aged, and the most fragile? What about the women who are not just interested in birth control, but in the economy, public safety, job creation, national defense, education with results, healthcare that comes with choices, competition, transparency, and freedom? These are the true women’s issues; women work to solve problems, not just foster grievances.
It’s insulting to be told that “women’s issues” must be about reproduction and abortion, opposition to the Second Amendment (which prohibits women to arm ourselves for self-defense), and government choosing our healthcare.
It’s insulting that women are assumed to prioritize personality over policies. The 2020 election is framed as a personality contest by the media because despite his effective policies, President Donald Trump can be a jerk. Reminding women that his personality is offensive is a tool of the political Left and the anti-Trump Republicans.
If you’re a top-performing athlete, do you want to play for the coach that wins or the one who tells you nice things to inflate your self-esteem? If you’re a patient seeking a surgeon, do you want the one with the best outcomes and survivability or one whose bedside manner delights you?
The fuel of today’s political machinery is to use hyperbole, rhetoric, and even lies to erase the historic economy of early 2020 that featured the record-low 3.5% unemployment rate, GDP that rose to 3% in 2018, and a record-setting median household income of $68,703 for 2019, almost 7% higher than 2018. These are issues that women understand impact their freedom, their personal worth, and increase their opportunities.
The woman’s vote is absolutely not homogenous and, contrary to the Democrat playbook, women are not emotionally incontinent dupes. But women on the Center-Right must no longer choose to be in the Silent Majority. It’s time to speak up, lead, and excel to counter the anger-driven cancel culture approach so characteristic of today’s progressive women.
While 2020 has been a year many don’t want to remember due to natural disasters, COVID-19, and all the drama that accompanies a presidential election year, it’s also the Centennial of Woman Suffrage. In 100 years, the rights and roles of women have been elevated. Yet it’s predominately women on the political Right who embrace a sense of hope that our best days are ahead and that women are, indeed, leading. Women voters may just be the ones who again lead the march to freedom.
“There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs.” —Thomas Sowell
A curious thing happened on October 2. In fact, it was so curious, America’s mainstream media completely ignored it. That’s the day Dr. Mike Ryan, director of the World Health Organization’s health emergencies program, stated that an estimated 750 million, or 10% of the world’s population, had contracted coronavirus. Furthermore, according to the WHO’s website, approximately one million people have died. Thus, according the WHO’s own data, the mortality rate for coronavirus is 0.13%.
If that rate seems familiar, maybe it’s because it’s the exact same mortally rate as the seasonal flu, according to data from the CDC — and for decades, America and the rest of world have approached the flu exactly as Thomas Sowell has described. Some people get flu shots, most stay home when they’re sick, and tens of thousands of the most vulnerable pay the ultimate price, even as the world soldiers on around them.
Coronavirus? Fear of the unknown, buttressed by lies from China abetted by a co-conspiring WHO, and wildly inaccurate death-rate predictions — every bit of which was amplified to the point of hysteria by media know-nothings — precipitated widespread shutdowns. Shutdowns that crushed our economy, engendered a wholesale reordering of our entire society, and revealed a Ruling Class more than willing to embrace double standards, stunning hypocrisy, and unprecedented levels of contempt for the Constitution whenever it served their agenda.
How controlling have they gotten? Two Saturdays ago, California Governor Gavin Newsom’s office issued an advisory, telling restaurant-goers to keep their mask on — between bites. “Do your part to keep those around you healthy,” it added.
Keeping Americans healthy is an idea that has been mutilated beyond recognition. As anyone with a halfway decent memory can recall, the entire premise of keeping America locked down was to “flatten the curve” and prevent our healthcare system from being overwhelmed. Yet when the media-generated smoke cleared, field hospitals set up for the overflow that never happened were dismantled before treating a single patient, ships sat in harbors virtually unused, and thousands of healthcare workers were laid off — all while millions of unhealthy Americans had critical tests and procedures for such illnesses as cancer, heart disease, pneumonia, tuberculosis, and a host of others indefinitely postponed.
Unhealthy Americans made so fearful that even when some semblance of normalcy has returned, many still refuse to go to the hospital or even the emergency room.
What’s the mortality rate among those people? And what’s the mortality rate among millions of Americans who have become alcoholics, drug addicts, or have been subjected to spousal or parental abuse? How many have committed suicide or even murder, or simply died of stress associated with those same lockdowns?
If we’re genuinely interested in the big picture with regard to “keeping Americans healthy,” where are those statistics? And what’s the real tradeoff with which Americans must contend? Moreover, isn’t it time the phrase “flatten the curve” is revealed for what it really meant — as in simply postponing the inevitable to a later point in time?
Last week, 40,000 people, including more than 4,000 epidemiologists, doctors, and public health professionals from around the world signed the “Great Barrington Declaration” urging people to return to return to normal life, even as the battle against coronavirus remains ongoing.
That declaration was delivered by three experts. Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, who is also a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations; Dr. Sunetra Gupta, an epidemiologist at Oxford University with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases; and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a physician and epidemiologist at Stanford University, who is also a public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations.
These doctors boast an impressive array of credentials, not only as doctors per se, but expressly in the fields of medicine most germane to fighting infectious viruses. Yet in terms of a progressive political agenda, and the need to maximize the suffering of Americans to maximize progressive chances for success in the 2020 election, such a declaration amounts to pure heresy.
Then again, it’s only heresy if the public becomes aware of it. Other than The Washington Times, the major media is simply ignoring the Great Barrington Declaration.
In short, “follow the science!!” American leftists are far more invested in following the silence, lest they be forced to make a cogent and convincing counter-argument as to why the continued trampling of the Constitution — the same Constitution that doesn’t not contain a single phrase allowing for its abrogation in an emergency — remains vitally necessary.
Which brings us to the real big picture. Since coronavirus and the flu seem to have an equivalent mortality rate — but we have nonetheless “evolved” to a point where nationwide upheaval can be deemed “critically necessary” via a contemptible combination of unscrupulous politicians, their politically motivated “scientist” allies, and a corporate media that has become little more than a mouthpiece for the Ruling Class agenda — what other diseases will precipitate the same totalitarian response?
In other words, is any ailment that even looks like it could produce a mortality rate of 0.13% or greater the basis upon which our rights can be indefinitely suspended? When asked about re-instituting nationwide lockdowns, Joe Biden promised he would “shut it down” if scientists told him to do so. “I will be prepared to do whatever it takes to save lives because we cannot get the country moving, until we control the virus,” he added. “That is the fundamental flaw of this administration’s thinking to begin with. In order to keep the country running and moving and the economy growing, and people employed, you have to fix the virus, you have to deal with the virus.”
That we cannot keep the country moving until we “control the virus” might come as a shock to millions of hard-working Americans who have kept the country moving, even as hack politicians — who haven’t missed a single paycheck since the epidemic began — view that effort as a “fundamental flaw” in the Trump administration’s thinking.
Moreover, no one has asked Biden a simple question: Which scientists, Joe? Certainly not the ones routinely censored by Google, Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube for daring to violate phony “community standards” that are nothing more than an attempt to control the spread of “undesirable” information. Certainly not the ones who advocate for certain types of disease mitigation that must be totally dismissed because of a far more virulent epidemic known as Trump Derangement Syndrome.
For eight years, Joe Biden was part of an administration that warned Americans they would have to accept a “new normal” of economic impotency. Now Biden and his fellow Democrats aim to impose another “new normal” — of soft totalitarianism sold as virus mitigation.
That’s the ultimate “tradeoff” in play here. Make no mistake about it.
Whatever one thinks about affirmative action, this much is undeniable: It’s one of the most effective euphemisms ever created. If you disagree, try to come up with a sweeter sounding way to say “race-based discrimination.”
According to The Smithsonian, this politically charged term entered the presidential lexicon in 1961, when, in John F. Kennedy’s Executive Order 10925, he called on government contractors to “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin” [emphasis added].
Without regard. Thus, the affirmative action of 1961 has been turned completely on its head. For decades now, these discriminatory policies have taken from one group and given to another. And yet according to Princeton’s panicky president, things have only gotten worse.
They’ve gotten worse, too, for another Ivy League school — Yale — which the Trump Justice Department is now suing for violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and for imposing “undue and unlawful” undergraduate admissions penalties on the school’s white and Asian applicants.
As Power Line’s Paul Mirengoff writes, “According to the complaint, Yale engages in racial balancing by, among other things, keeping the annual percentage of African-American admitted applicants to within one percentage point of the previous year’s admitted class as reflected in U.S. Department of Education data. The complaint alleges similar racial balancing with regard to Asian-American applicants. It also alleges that Yale injures applicants and students because its race discrimination relies upon and reinforces damaging race-based stereotypes, including such stereotypes against Yale’s racially favored applicants.”
When affirmative action is couched in terms of “righting wrongs” or “improving diversity,” a majority of folks tend to favor it. But, as the above description of the Yale lawsuit indicates, the more people know about a particular instance of affirmative action, the less they support it. Take, for example, what Gallup Senior Scientist Frank Newport wrote in 2018 about still another case of race-based Ivy League discrimination — this time at Harvard: “Gallup polls have shown that a majority — although not a super majority — of Americans favor the broad, conceptual idea of ‘affirmative action for racial minorities.’ Responses to this question are to some degree affected by the context in which it is asked, but our most recent updates show that 54% to 58% of the public favors affirmative action for racial minorities.”
That seems pretty solid support, doesn’t it? And the Pew Research Center’s numbers are even more impressive: 71% of Americans think affirmative action is a good thing.
Or do they?
When people are polled about affirmative action, context is everything. The Pew poll got that 71% number by asking about “affirmative action programs designed to increase the number of black and minority students on college campuses.” And when it’s put in those terms, affirmative action seems like a pretty noble endeavor.
But, as Newport admits, “The Gallup question does not define ‘affirmative action’ at all, leaving that to the understanding of the respondent. The Pew question doesn’t define the specifics of the affirmative action programs beyond saying that the result would be to increase the number of black and minority students on college campuses.”
What happens, though, when respondents are given some specifics? According to Newport, Gallup in 2016 asked about a then-recent Supreme Court decision involving the University of Texas, which was worded as follows: “The Supreme Court recently ruled on a case that confirms that colleges can consider the race or ethnicity of students when making decisions on who to admit to the college. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the Supreme Court’s decision?”
The results? Just 31% approved of the Supreme Court’s decision upholding affirmative action, while a whopping 65% disapproved.
In short, folks generally favor affirmative action in the abstract, but they generally hate race-based discrimination in the real world. Yet these two terms are synonymous. And therein lies the awful power of a well-crafted euphemism.
What’s worse — being associated with President Donald Trump or Osama bin Laden? Well, according to the late terrorist mass murder’s niece, Noor bin Ladin, it’s Trump. In a recent article entitled “Being pro-Trump has caused me more grief than being Osama bin Laden’s niece,” she asserts that her public support of the U.S. president has essentially made her as persona non grata.
Noor, whose father was Osama bin Laden’s half brother Yeslam and whose mother is Swiss author Carmen Dufour, grew up in Switzerland. Her father and mother were never associated with Osama’s terrorist organization, al-Qaida.
Earlier this year, Noor wrote a powerful article in which she endorsed Trump. She warned against the hard-leftist anti-American ideology that has captured the Democrat Party. Ironically, it was this support for Trump rather than her infamous last name that, as she notes in the above-referenced article, has caused her the most grief.
Noor, who currently lives in Switzerland, makes clear her profound admiration for the U.S. and Americans in general. “Americans are, in my experience, the warmest, most kind-hearted and open-minded people in the world. … Americans base their judgement on the content of someone’s character and actions, not on the color of their skin — or last name,” she observes. She then notes:
This was reaffirmed last month, after I voiced my love for America and support for President Trump. The response to ‘My Letter to America’ has been overwhelmingly wonderful, and I am most thankful to all those who took the time to read it and send kind messages, including Spectator readers. But in my private life, I have lost a few so-called friends for backing Donald Trump over the past five years. Coming out publicly was a step too far for some, and the vitriol I received for stating my political beliefs revealed unflattering sides to certain characters. From a sociological standpoint, it is quite interesting that in some elitist circles being pro-Trump has caused me more grief than carrying the name bin Ladin.
She also explains her support for Trump and why it’s sensible and not crazy, as so many Leftmedia talkingheads suggest:
And why do I support Donald Trump? Look at his record. He has stood up to China, kept America out of new wars, solidified ties with Israel, overturned the disastrous Iran deal and obliterated Isis. Domestically, he removed handicapping regulations to American economic growth, rebuilt a depleted military, brought back manufacturing and revamped dying industries by renegotiating trade deals and cutting taxes; he has achieved energy independence, curbed immigration — all of which contributed to setting record unemployment rates. He has tackled neglected issues such as human trafficking and unjust incarceration — and given America a chance at restoring her principles, pride, independence and true place in the world as beacon of liberty and hope for all.
For Noor, like so many other people across the globe, America remains that shining city on a hill. It is the heartbeat of Liberty, and she longs to see it preserved. “Seeing the uplifting images of Americans rallying around the President also warms my heart and lifts my spirits. I wish I could be there with them. You can be sure I’ll be on one of the first flights to America once restrictions are lifted.” Too often, Americans are subject to a Leftmedia narrative claiming that the rest of the world rolls their eyes and cringes at the “dumb Americans” who would elect someone like Trump. It’s always a breath of fresh air to hear from those who see clearly what America is all about — and love us for it.
Far too much is said about police brutality, but not enough about the importance of being a good citizen. Black progressives wax poetic about the rare, yet uncalled for instances of mistreatment by law enforcement. Never do they address the myriad cases of how the citizens themselves make these situations more complicated, more violent, and more deadly than they have to be.
Mainstream media will play scenes of police brutality on repeat, perhaps to traumatize Americans into a certain frame of mind with nary a solution in sight. Meanwhile, Democrat lawmakers gaslight their own police forces, restructuring and reforming without doing their research. LEOs are now hesitating to respond, yet still, not a single word is said about the people being arrested and their bad choices in the heat of the moment. From reaching for weapons, to running from the police, it’s as if this new generation has never even heard of the show “COPS.” But I have a solution: seven steps to keep in mind that will work for all people who encounter the police.
- Remove hats and sunglasses: Making eye contact with the officer is critical. Eye contact helps build trust in many instances, but especially when interacting with law enforcement. After all, much can be said about a person by looking into their eyes. To hide your eyes is to hide the truth.
- Listen: Hearing the officer’s command is important. If you are talking, yelling, or screaming, you can’t hear. There is a science behind the notion of the human brain not being able to receive and transmit messages at the same time. And when encountering a scenario that involves your safety, listening skills are critical. Allowing your fear and prejudice for law enforcement to drown out reasoning skills can be lethal.
- No sudden moves: Running away puts you at higher risk of a physical altercation, as we witnessed in the case of Rayshard Brooks in the Atlanta Wendy’s parking lot. Again, putting fear over reasoning can be risky. Besides, if you have nothing to hide, there’s no need to run. Sadly, if you believe what the mainstream media tells you about LEOs, you will risk much more than a ticket for a minor infraction.
- Keep hands visible: Don’t reach for a phone — a la Stephan Clark — to record. Don’t reach for a knife — like Jacob Blake. Don’t reach for anything at all. LEOs are always watching your hands, and if your hands are free, you are not a threat to them.
- Obey commands: When we are young, we learn to respect authority by obeying the authority, especially when the request is reasonable. Putting your hands on the steering wheel is a reasonable request. Getting out of the car is a reasonable request. Taking your hat off and providing license and registration information are reasonable requests. What isn’t reasonable is acting irrational due to fear.
- Proper Address: We all know how to say “Yes, sir or no, sir.” Language is important. This signals to the officer that you are not a threat. You have home training or possible parents that taught you respect. Calling an officer names, being rude and challenging the officer sends signals that you are on the offense. And an offender to law enforcement is an offender to the public’s safety. Be respectful.
- Be kind: A Bible verse says soft answers turn away wrath. Kindness has power. Kindness still works.
If I could add one more thing, I’d say being honest is crucial. A person living an honest life fares better than someone with something to hide. Either way, innocence is not for us to decide alone. This is why we leave crime investigation up to our LEOs. Perhaps you may not know that your actions are illegal. Since ignorance of the law is not an excuse, officers are here not to hurt but to help correct and redirect offenders. They want you to stay alive.
Ultimately, the overarching concept that will help save more black lives in the face of law enforcement is a good choice. Simply put, if an officer pulled me over for a broken tail light, I’d comply and take the fine. If I acted irrationally and irritably with him, reaching for things and resisting reasonable commands, an LEO could take my life. It’s pointless to disagree, reject or rebuke this reality. We’ve witnessed the result of this. Instead, try kindness. Try respect. Try obedience. But most importantly, choose life.
Top of the Fold
- Barrett to praise Scalia in opening hearing statement, say court should not make policy (Fox News)
- Biden says voters don’t deserve to know his position on court packing (The Washington Free Beacon)
- Democrats collude to accuse GOP of “court packing” ahead of Barrett hearings (Washington Examiner)
- Barr tells Republicans Durham report won’t be ready by election (Axios)
- Hillary Clinton maintains 2016 election “was not on the level,” and “we still don’t know what really happened” (National Review)
- Trump preparing new $1.8T coronavirus relief package, urges Congress to “go big” (Fox Business)
- Trump picks up another Nobel Peace Prize nomination from Europe after diplomatic victories (Fox News)
- Dem group spends millions on Fake News Facebook stories in key districts (National Review)
- Nearly 50,000 Ohio voters receive wrong ballots (The Washington Free Beacon)
Annals of the “Social Justice” Caliphate
- One dead after leftist BLM-antifa groups clash with Patriot rally in Denver (The Federalist)
- Planned Parenthood audit shows accusations of multiple incidents of racism (The Daily Wire)
- Lakers win NBA title; no one watches (Washington Examiner)
- Washington Post blames “systemic racism” for George Floyd robbing a Latino woman at gunpoint (Front Page Mag)
- Security guard hired by local NBC News station charged with murder of right-wing protester (The Daily Wire)
The Latest on COVID-19
- Trump is no longer a COVID-19 “transmission risk,” says the White House doctor (National Review)
- Trump says he seems immune to COVID, Twitter labels his tweet “misleading” (Washington Examiner)
- Coronavirus: WHO backflips on virus stance by condemning lockdowns (News.com.au)
- Policy: How China is overtaking the U.S. with the world’s No. 1 navy (The Daily Signal)
- Policy: Nationalizing 5G is the wrong way for the U.S. to compete with China (The Daily Signal)
- Humor: Biden: “I won’t reveal whether I plan on abolishing the Constitution and establishing a glorious communist utopia until after I’m elected” (The Babylon Bee)
For more of today’s editors’ choice headlines, visit In Our Sights.
The Patriot Post is a certified ad-free news service, unlike third-party commercial news sites linked on this page, which may also require a paid subscription.
Celebrating Columbus — Michael Knowles sets the record straight regarding the famous explorer.
Six Whoppers Harris Dropped at the Debate — As if the lies weren’t bad enough, the media’s silence is deafening.
Humor: If Pandemic Thinking Was Applied to Everything — JP Sears offers a spoof of some people’s irrationality toward the coronavirus.
Satire: Trump Catches COVID — Leftists don’t apply “even if it just saves one life” to the president.
For more of today’s columns, visit Right Opinion.
Terrible answer: “No, they don’t.” —Joe Biden on whether “voters deserve to know his stance on packing the Supreme Court
The BIG Lie: “Look, the only court packing is going on right now — it’s going on with the Republicans packing the court now.” —Joe Biden
The BIG Lie II: “The American people have watched the Republicans packing the court for the past three and a half years, and they brag about it.” —Senator Dick Durbin
The BIG Lie III: “I’m going to be laying out the ways in which Judge Barrett’s views … are not just extreme, they’re disqualifying. It constitutes court-packing.” —Senator Chris Coons
Fake news: “[Montana Senate candidate Steve] Bullock said that if Coney Barrett was confirmed, he would be open to measures to depoliticize the court, including adding judges to the bench, a practice critics have dubbed packing the courts.” —Associated Press (Packing the court, which Democrats want to do, IS politicizing the court because it adds justices as opposed to just filling vacancies.)
From the Department of Corrections: “This story has been edited to make clear that it is Bullock’s opinion, rather than a fact.” —AP, which changed its coverage to this: “Bullock said that if Coney Barrett was confirmed, he would be open to measures including adding justices to the bench, a practice critics have dubbed packing the courts.”
The BIG Rebuttal: “Claiming that court-packing is filling open vacancies — that obviously isn’t what court-packing means.” —Senator Ben Sasse
Flashback: “President Roosevelt clearly had the right to send to the United States Senate and the United States Congress a proposal to pack the court. It was totally within his right to do that. He violated no law. He was legalistically, absolutely correct. But it was a bonehead idea.” —Joe Biden … in 1983
Upright: “It’s grotesque that Vice President Biden won’t answer that really basic question [about court packing]. And it isn’t just one branch of government. What they’re really talking about — or refusing to talk about — is the suicide bombing of two branches of government. What they’re talking about is blowing up the deliberative structure of the United States Senate by abolishing the filibuster and making it possible to turn the Senate into just another House of Representatives where every two years by a 51-49 majority major portions of American life change. And they’re going about doing that to pack the Supreme Court.” —Ben Sasse
Alpha jackass: “The terrorist Trump must be defeated, must be destroyed, must be devoured at the ballot box and then he and his enablers and his supporters and his collaborators and the Mike Lees and the William Barrs and the Sean Hannitys and the Mike Pences and the Rudy Giulianis and the Kyle Rittenhouses and the Amy Coney Barretts must be prosecuted and convicted and removed from our society.” —Keith Olbermann
And last: “If Mr. Biden has this thing in the bag and Democrats are on the cusp of sweeping this election, why are [the Obamas], the two most popular standard-bearers in the party, so angry? And so afraid?” —Charles Hurt
For more of today’s memes, visit the Memesters Union.
For more of today’s cartoons, visit the Cartoons archive.
“The Patriot Post” (https://patriotpost.us)