Search Results

Trump’s traditional campaign will prevail over Biden’s run-out-the-clock mentality Republicans breathed a sigh of relief when President Donald Trump resumed his campaign schedule last week. First there was the obvious feeling of joy that his health was safeguarded against a malady that has either caused or been present in a couple hundred thousand American deaths, and then there was the reassurance that he would presumably resume his “normal” campaign activities ahead of Election Day. For a lot of folks, it was hard to imagine Trump winning without traveling the country and holding large rallies attended by thousands of cheering fans as a backdrop. Ever since prevailing over Hillary Clinton in 2016, political experts have credited Trump’s aggressive canvassing for helping him break through the solid blue Electoral College wall in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. This year, with fears abounding over the Chinese Communist Party (CCP, or Wuhan, if you prefer) virus, both campaigns have been forced to rethink the way they operate. Trump simply moved his rallies from large arenas and other indoor venues to airport hangars. Democrat Joe Biden has maintained his distance from any large gatherings since the COVID-19 outbreak emerged in early March. The divergent campaign philosophies test old tried and true notions of in-person campaigning. Is it still relevant? W. James Antle III wrote at The Washington Examiner, “For months, Republicans have predicted that at some point, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s approach of campaigning largely from his basement was a mistake and that eventually, Trump’s embrace of barnstorming and the bully pulpit would pay off. Instead, Biden has built a formidable lead in the polls, 10 points in the RealClearPolitics national average and almost 5 in the top battlegrounds, with only a limited resumption of normal public campaign activities. “Yet the discrepancy in public events feeds one doubt that gnaws at Democrats and encourages Republicans after Trump’s poll-defying upset victory in 2016. The Biden campaign has downplayed door-knocking and other get-out-the-vote efforts. And with a few exceptions, such as the former vice president’s appearance in Pennsylvania the day after the first presidential debate, when Biden does hold public events, the crowds are sparse...” What, you mean people aren’t lining up by the bus load to hear Joe Biden speak? Democrats swear the former veep’s a popular guy, but if he had trouble filling small rooms in Iowa before the caucuses and then came in fifth in New Hampshire, there’s no way there’s a groundswell of emotion for him now. There’s absolutely zero that’s dynamic or inspiring about Joe Biden. Hoping to get sustenance from him is like eating toothpaste for dinner. Donald Trump initiated a movement by immediately attacking the status quo and the DC swamp when he launched his presidential bid in 2015. Joe Biden is the status quo and the swamp. He (apparently) has the coronavirus on his side, but is anyone truly amped up by the sight of a doddering, gaffe-prone idiot wearing a mask? The people who dragged themselves to one of his events in the past few months have had to do their best to put on a plastic smile and clap whenever the doofus pauses intentionally. Kamala Harris mastered the timing and look at her -- she got the vice presidential nomination! It’s not necessarily that Biden needs to or doesn’t need to campaign. He can’t campaign. Barack Obama was good at public appearances because he could strut back and forth across a stage and wave his hand and inflect his voice to emphasize points. The big O made promise after promise and his phony, contrived life story inspired a lot of gullible people. It was like buying a popular group’s latest album before you’d even heard the songs. To the mind-numbed identity politics lot, it didn’t matter what Obama said, it was important just to consider what he represented. In contrast, what does Joe Biden represent? As the would-be oldest president ever on day one, there’s no “future” in the Democrat party. It’s all about who Joe Biden was thirty or forty or fifty years ago, the young father who rode AMTRAK to work every day so his boys could remain in the family home. Or that he’d developed close relationships with the who’s who of the DC establishment since the early 70’s -- he's got a story for everyone, doesn’t he? Why campaign then? Who wants to hear about racism and hiking taxes and how everyone’s in danger of getting sick and perishing from COVID-19? And that wearing a mask is a patriotic duty even if it’s hard to breathe in one and it makes your nose itch like crazy. Heck, even the World Health Organization recently came out against further lockdowns -- what is Joe Biden going to tell people about getting the virus under control? Biden’s campaign apparatus functions just fine without a visible candidate. After all, many of the same people who populated and steered Hillary’s effort four years ago are involved this time around too. From one unappealing candidate to another… you’d better send out a lot of emails and make pointed contacts. Data has never been more important than in 2020 to these pols. On the other hand, Trump needs to campaign more than other candidates would. Biden’s absence from view is understandable considering his ballot slot could contain “Name X” with a D next to it and would still earn 45 percent of the vote. With Trump’s job disapproval rating still over fifty percent (it was just under 54 percent at last check), a fairly high number of those people would automatically choose Trump’s opponent. But if anything, this year’s election is a good test on whether approval/disapproval ratings truly matter, particularly because there must be a good number of folks who disapprove of both Trump and Biden (as they disapproved of Crooked Hillary and Trump in 2016). The media depicts Grampa Joe as a kindly, affable guy who’s the life of the party at the Thanksgiving dinner table, but the man’s been in Washington forever and many of his experiences are decidedly negative (Hunter and Barisma, anyone?). Gee, he dropped out of the 1988 race because of what, plagiarism? He’s creepy too. What about gaffes? Or his tendency to dress down people and snap insults at voters -- including children and young adults -- who ask him something he doesn’t want to answer? Add the fact he stubbornly won’t respond to a simple request to tell whether he approves of ending the precious senate filibuster and packing the Supreme Court, and there’s an awful lot not to like about Joe Biden. Therefore, at least some of the “disapprove” people will either, one, not vote for the lesser of two evils, or two, vote for Trump because they see him as more capable, even if they’re unsure about his job performance. Americans have certainly made note of Biden’s hide-the-candidate strategy The fact Biden isn’t out on the campaign trail meeting with thousands of people isn’t lost on the casual American voter. By now they’re sick of his TV ads that basically say the same thing -- blast President Trump as divisive, irresponsible, aloof, uncaring, etc. -- but there’s no sign of agenda items to motivate folks to bother to vote. Seeing the candidate in your town does tend to make a difference, therefore, as does the usual campaign paraphernalia -- yard signs, bumper stickers and door knockers. (From the story above) Antle continued, “Some Republicans speculate that Trump voters will be more willing than Biden supporters to turn out on Election Day, in part because they are more willing to go out in public during the pandemic. Still, the Democratic primaries largely played out according to the polls, and Trump’s public displays have yet to move the national numbers, with the election less than a month away.” Polling Democrat primary voters was worlds apart from now trying to assess the mood of the national electorate in this weirdest of all weird campaigns. The media portrays Trump as having lost a good chunk of his support among seniors, but this doesn’t make much sense. Older folks liked Trump in 2016 because they wanted to see their country return to the glory days of their youth and productive years, not continue down the road to cultural ruin that Obama instituted. It defies belief that these same seniors who were Trump voters have wholesale abandoned him now because they’re terrified of the virus. Older Americans are among the best informed of all demographic groups and they recognize that there was only so much that could’ve been done to prevent the spread of the Chinese plague. Some of these people might not have liked everything Trump did or said, but it’s hard to see them jumping over to floundering Joe because of this issue alone. It’s not as though they enjoy being locked away from people they love and denied the comfort of friendships. The same generations that stormed the beaches of Normandy or fought in the jungles of Vietnam aren’t so selfish that they would willingly flush the nation’s future down the you-know-what simply because they feel more comfortable with Biden and Kamala Harris. If this is truly the case, I haven’t seen any evidence of it. If anything, the people I know in the age group (who voted Trump in 2016) are even more out front about their Trump support today. Need proof? An acquaintance relayed an experience he had last weekend in a little town in eastern Montana. “We stayed in Glendive, MT, a small town about 35 miles or so from the North Dakota border.There was a huge Saturday night cruise – Trump parade.Trucks, cars, ATV’s, even a horse and its baby, which someone spray painted ‘TRUMP’ on the baby horse. Alright then!” Here’s guessing a good number of the attendees and participants were seasoned citizens. How many secret Biden voters are out there? Do you see anyone spray painting BIDEN on anything, much less a baby horse? The candidate says masks show you care about your neighbor. Don’t insult us or condescend to us, Joe. Patriotism is for people who proudly fly flags, not wear a mask. Barron tested positive for COVID-19 too; Melania puts a human face on the crisis It goes without saying that two weeks ago when President Trump announced he and first lady Melania tested positive for the CCP virus, many wondered if son Barron came down with it as well. Unfortunately, we now know the answer was yes. Victor Morton and S.A. Miller reported at The Washington Times, “In a statement posted to the White House web site, first lady Melania Trump said her 14-year-old boy became infected along with her and President Trump. ‘To our great relief he tested negative, but again, as so many parents have thought over the past several months, I couldn’t help but think ‘what about tomorrow or the next day?’’ she wrote. ‘My fear came true when he was tested again and it came up positive. Luckily he is a strong teenager and exhibited no symptoms. In one way I was glad the three of us went through this at the same time so we could take care of one another and spend time together.’… “’When my husband was taken to Walter Reed as a precaution, I spent much of my time reflecting on my family. I also thought about the hundreds of thousands of people across our country who have been impacted by this illness that infects people with no discrimination,’ Mrs. Trump wrote. ‘We are in unprecedented times — and with the election fast approaching, it has been easy to get caught up in so much negative energy. “’It also cheered me to think of all the people I have met across our country and the world — and the goodness and compassion that exists if you seek it out. Our country has overcome many hardships and much adversity, and it is my hope COVID-19 will be another obstacle we will be able to tell future generations we overcame — and learned from in the process.’” Does this sound like someone who didn’t take the disease seriously? Democrats find ways to spin just about everything negatively, but they’ll be hard pressed to come up with a downer narrative here. All the Trumps living in the White House got the virus -- and they’re all still kicking. If anything, they’re better than before. The president was right -- don’t let fear dominate your life. Trump’s return to the traditional campaign trail is an inspiring story, not a cautionary tale. We’ll soon discover whether conducting rallies and in-person campaigning makes a difference -- and we can only hope it pays off on Election Day. President Trump is a wise man leading a desperate fight for the future; it’s more important than a personality contest. 2020 Election Mike Pence Kamala Harris Vice President debate Donald Trump Joe Biden COVID-19 town hall debate NBC ABC Biden campaign strategy

By now most conservatives are aware that Twitter and Facebook shut down links to an article in the New York Post exposing the corruption of Joe Biden and his son Hunter. The article, and more to come, were based on email traffic and other material obtained from a laptop computer Hunter Biden dropped-off at a Delaware computer shop in April 2019 and never paid for and retrieved. Facebook placed restrictions on linking to the article, saying there were questions about its validity. “This is part of our standard process to reduce the spread of misinformation,” said a Facebook spokesperson, Andy Stone, who was previously employed by a variety of Democratic Party officials and political committees. Twitter blocked users from posting links to the Post story or photos from the report. According to the UK’s Guardian, users attempting to share the story were shown a notice saying: “We can’t complete this request because this link has been identified by Twitter or our partners as being potentially harmful.” Users clicking or retweeting a link already posted to Twitter are shown a warning the “link may be unsafe”. The first assumption made by most observers was that this was an effort to save Joe Biden’s fading campaign for President – and the initial Indian signs seemed to bear that out: White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany’s personal Twitter account was locked and banned. The Trump campaign’s official Twitter account was locked. Major Trump-supporting influencers, such as James Woods, had their Twitter accounts locked. Republican elected officials who attempted to tweet the article also had their tweets blocked. As the story morphed from protecting Joe and Hunter Biden to online censorship and big tech’s Section 230 immunity Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey stepped in and said the company did a poor job of communicating and the blocks, bans and freezes came off. So, was the unprecedented social media effort to stifle the New York Post’s Hunter Biden expose all about saving Joe Biden’s presidential campaign? Allow us to propose an alternative theory that is a lot bigger than the misdeeds of Biden’s drug-addled miscreant son. As we have explained in a number of articles, especially Unconventional Warfare – The Democrat Plan To Oust Trump, Democrats are planning a coup, and win or lose, they are planning to make sure there is no second term for Donald Trump. And information warfare is an essential part of their plan. Facebook and Twitter have both announced steps to rein in candidates or campaign accounts that claim victory before final election results are in. In those cases, Facebook said, it will tack on a label that sends readers to authoritative election results, from either Reuters or the National Election Pool. The company will also limit the ability to forward content on its Messenger platform in hopes of "reducing the risk of misinformation and harmful content going viral," Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said. Notice that the social media giants are not planning on sending users to official government election results, but to “authoritative” media sources – the same media sources that have spent three years promoting the Russia collusion hoax, and that have consistently labeled President Trump illegitimate and a dictator and are right now running seriously flawed polls showing Joe Biden running away with the election. All of that and other disinformation is intended to set-up the narrative that Joe Biden is the inevitable winner and that if Donald Trump is the victor on Election Night, it is because of vote fraud, and Democrats must be allowed unlimited time to find the votes necessary to overturn the election, and if Joe Biden looks like the winner on Election Night, no one can question the results. This policy by the social media giants will also give cover and justification to the massive protests – in the style of the Eastern European “color revolutions” – Democrats plan to deploy in Washington, DC and other key locations to promote the Far Left narrative that any Trump victory is, by definition, illegitimate. By throttling the New York Post expose on Hunter Biden’s corruption Twitter and Facebook may have made a multi-million dollar in-kind contribution to the Joe Biden presidential campaign, but their larger contribution was in the proof of concept for the information blackout they intend to impose to assist the coming post-election “color revolution” Democrats are planning. Twitter Facebook Social Media 2020 Election Donald Trump Joe Biden Hunter Biden Biden corruption Ukraine Burisma China Hunter Biden Emails New York Post censorship free speech Delaware computer store Andy Stone big tech Section 230 immunity Jack Dorsey color revolutions

Trump wins the battle of the dueling town hall events by just showing up If a presidential candidate is featured in a town hall event (where supposedly “ordinary” people question the person on matters of public policy) and nobody tunes-in to watch it, will it still have a bearing on the race? The question must have been on the minds of lot of people on Thursday night. October 15 was supposed to be the occasion of the second presidential debate between President Donald Trump and Democrat challenger Joe Biden, but the program was cancelled -- allegedly -- because of “health concerns.” Yes, the Commission on Presidential Debates pulled the plug a week ago, well before they had a legitimate justification to do it. The recuperating (because of the Chinese Communist Party virus) Trump was certain to be non-contagious by now, but the establishment’s keepers used his sickness as a reason to kill it anyway. NBC, to its credit, offered Trump an hour’s worth of time to meet the voters. Of course, they wanted big ratings, too. That didn’t have anything to do with inviting Trump, did it? Going into the evening, some NBC employees protested the network’s allowing President Trump to do the event by himself -- opposite Joe Biden’s 90-minute forum on ABC -- as grossly unfair, since the president was the one who originally said he wouldn’t “virtually” participate. They suggested the two events should not have been scheduled opposite each other, and that Americans deserved a means to watch both of them. (Isn’t it called a DVR?) Though the viewership numbers aren’t in yet, the real reason must’ve been that Trump would swamp Biden in the ratings. Face it, even on a bad night Trump is more entertaining than Biden and everyone knows, including his own supporters, that Biden is a babbling idiot who can’t put coherent sentences together. Pitted against each other, the only reason to watch Biden would be to see if he can stand erect the whole time and/or to watch for a major gaffe like “You ain’t black” or if he calls someone a “dog faced pony soldier,” tells a citizen to “shut up” or distorts some easily recognizable fact, like “150 million have been killed by guns since 2007.” Trump was both knowledgeable and “presidential” on Thursday night despite a rather one-sided interrogation to open the program. “Moderator” Savannah Guthrie started it off with a lengthy series of probing questions about Trump’s experience with the coronavirus. She seemed awful curious about when was the last time Trump tested negative prior to his positive one. (Seriously? Who cares?) Then she nagged him -- obstinately -- about masks. Stupid. For his part, the president placed the blame where it lies -- on China. Guthrie seemed like she just wanted a “gotcha” moment. “You can’t let the cure be worse than the problem,” Trump said. Words of wisdom, but to the alarmists? Next up Guthrie asked Trump about denouncing white supremacy…and QAnon. Does anyone care about this (outside of the media, that is)? Then she started getting defensive and petty when Trump changed the focus to Antifa, the real source of violence and mayhem in this country. This went on for about twenty minutes. As if this weren’t bad enough, then Savannah asked the president about the “peaceful transfer of power” non-controversy. “The answer is yes I will (accept the result),” Trump replied, “but I want it to be an honest election and so does everyone else.” Trump tried to make a point about vote fraud and the woman argued with him that it doesn’t exist…! Once the questioning moved to “real” people, the program instantly improved, including his response to the first questioner, who asked about measures to contain the virus. I’ve noted it many times before, but Trump is one of the few politicians who directly addresses the audience member’s question. The media never gives him credit for his straightforwardness and usually savages him for an over exaggeration or mistaken figure. Trump’s spent a lifetime talking with “normal” people, so he knows how to do it. Biden, on the other hand, has spent most of his life talking to colleagues in the snooty senate or staff members who are there to serve him. Simply put, Biden doesn’t know how to talk one-on-one with people who have real jobs and concerns outside of the insulated Washington DC bubble. It’s not that he’s incapable, necessarily, just that he’s out of practice. Trump seems to thrive on it. Always remember, Trump dislikes his political enemies (in both parties) and the media, not the people themselves. He’s not about to call Americans “deplorables” or question their intelligence. Pundits like to say that Trump’s personality turns people off (see below for more on this) and that he’s rude and abrasive and unfriendly. It’s a legitimate criticism in some ways, but it’s a rare instance when you see anything approaching rudeness where a voter is concerned. If you want outright hostility towards a “normal” person, tune-in to a Biden event. I didn’t get to watch Biden’s competing town hall, but here’s guessing if he was asked by a voter about son Hunter’s emails and shady foreign deals, the response was not kind, something to the effect of, “Nobody’s ever said my son did anything wrong. He’s a fine boy who just had a drug problem like millions of other people. That’s all. You’re way out of line to bring it up. We should be talking about all the corrupted business deals Trump and his family have made. We don’t have enough time this evening to get it all in.” It's about the same as his answer on ending the filibuster and the potential for court packing. “If I answer the question, my words will be the headline in all the papers tomorrow. It isn’t the issue… blah, blah, blah.” Trump, however, isn’t about to let the Hunter Biden subject go. Two weeks ago, in the first presidential debate, moderator Chris Wallace and Joe Biden hounded Trump over his tax returns (based on a New York Times story), as though he'd done something corrupt or illegal. By all appearances, Hunter Biden used his dad’s position as vice president to enrich himself. Joe says he didn’t know about it, but the emails indicated he did. Who to believe? As would be expected, Guthrie raised the tax return topic on Thursday. It gets old. It wasn’t an issue in 2016, and it isn’t now either. Thursday’s “town hall” event basically ended before it got interesting. Trump fielded questions on taxes, COVID-19, immigration and why he deserves reelection. Will it help him? Hard to say, but it’s clear he’s back in the game after surviving the dreaded Chinese plague. He did well… and “won” the debate. Liberals: Oh please, Trump. Take our advice and limit your exposure before the election! It’s always semi-hilarious to receive campaign advice from someone who would never vote for you in a million lifetimes. It happens a lot these days as liberal talking heads are happy to “analyze” polling data and make recommendations accordingly. In a piece titled “Donald Trump is doing the *exact* opposite of what he should in the last days of 2020 campaign,” Liberal pundit Chris Cillizza wrote at CNN.com, “What all of those numbers suggest is that Trump's best strategy -- an admittedly long-shot one still, of course -- is to do the opposite of what he is currently doing. “Rather than do a series of campaign appearances where he recites his greatest hits of distortions and wild claims -- most notably about the coronavirus -- he would be better served by limiting his exposure to voters. If he could do that -- and, to be clear, Trump is totally incapable of doing so -- then it's at least possible that voters would look more at Trump's record and less at, well, Trump. “[Trump] has always made everything, including the presidency, about him and him alone. Unfortunately for Republicans, he appears to now be on a kamikaze mission to make the 2020 election all about him, too. And the consequences of that strategic choice will likely be something the party is dealing with for years to come.” Where’s the crystal ball, Chris? After what happened in 2016 on Election Day, do you feel confident in predicting the sky is falling on Donald Trump now? Three years of non-stop investigations, Democrat attacks and relentless media negativity haven’t softened up his opinion survey ratings to the point where he’s a certain loser. Trump is synonymous with his policies, isn’t he? Or is his new campaign slogan, “Make Trump Great Again?” In writing this, Cillizza is only doing what all liberal political watchers have done for five years now, namely bragging that Trump is his own worst enemy, he repels everyone with his personality, is destroying the Republican brand, and his best way to come back -- which according to them is very unlikely -- is to hide himself away like a rat in a hole. Or like Joe Biden. Same thing. The problem with such thinking is well over ninety percent of self-identified Republicans support Trump and they’re not only accepting of his leadership of a new type of conservative/populist GOP, they’re proud of it. The whole notion of advising the president to cease or limit his activities at a time where thousands upon thousands are itching to see him and hear his message -- it’s just plain dumb. Imagine you’re a Trump campaign advisor and you’re speaking with the president about strategy and you bring up Cillizza’s column and his advice. “Uh, Mr. President, this guy at CNN thinks you’d actually gain voters by shutting down for the final two weeks, since he says you’re a self-obsessed megalomaniac who’s just in it for yourself. And, oh yeah, all those people cheering at your rallies -- they’re just deluded! Not representative of the typical blue state voter at all. They’d prefer that you just concede the election now.” And where does Cillizza get off digging at Trump on the coronavirus? The president has been at the center of the storm since the beginning, conducted dozens of press events regarding it, listened to opinion after opinion after opinion on the danger involved, how to deal with the infections, keep people working and most of all, prevent folks from panicking. There’s also the matter of the chief executive having contracted the virus, received treatment for it and then been given the medical profession’s go-ahead to start campaigning again. Someone needs to convey a message of courage and fortitude in dealing with the Chinese plague. We’re sure not going to hear it from Joe Biden and Kamala Harris (the Democrats just pulled Harris off the campaign trail because some of her staffers tested positive for the CCP virus. What, didn’t the masks help them? Sheesh. How stupid does this get?). If Trump were to remove himself from the bulk of his public appearances, he’d guarantee a loss on Election Day. But that’s what the media hopes for anyway, isn’t it? Why doesn’t the media tell Democrats to stop campaigning? It’s funny how these same liberals don’t speak of the need for Democrat leaders -- or even the rank and file -- to hide away. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for example, isn’t exactly the warmest and fuzziest of all people, yet Cillizza and the line-up at MSNBC isn’t counseling her to quit her nonsensical rambling and insulting personal attacks (like CNN’s Wolf Blitzer is an apologist for the president? Huh?) on anyone who dares question her political tactics. Then there’s Senate Minority Leader “Chucky” Schumer, who’s making an absolute donkey out of himself and every member of his party in the upper chamber by characterizing Trump Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett as extreme and out of touch with ordinary Americans. Barrett has sat calmly and almost serenely while being subject to pontificating lectures from partisan questioners who wouldn’t vote for her if she were the second coming of a secular messiah. Barrett has completely destroyed every Democrat attempt to stir up popular opinion against her, their only smidgen of possibility of swinging a few Republican votes to reject her. Watching Democrat presidential candidates Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker and Kamala Harris try and make the Supreme Court all about Obamacare and abortion exposes the ruse of Democrats caring about the “rule of law” and the Constitution. What they’re really thinking is, “Court packing! Court packing! Court packing!” These mean, vindictive people will do anything to get what they want. Here’s thinking the American people will not be so inclined to do their bidding. Why don’t the pundits advise the Democrats to stop their absurd grilling of ACB? Liberals like Cillizza appear to forget that people aren’t exactly clamoring to see Trump’s opponent -- doddering dunce Joe Biden -- in person either. It could be said that Biden is slightly more appealing and popular than Hillary Clinton, but it’s not like there’s a great deal of remorse that Biden isn’t doing large scale events. Democrats are keeping Biden under lock and key because if they don’t, Grampa Joe will talk his way out of millions of votes every time he opens his mouth. It seems clear that President Donald Trump is on a roll. With the recent revelations concerning Hunter Biden and the Republican campaign’s focus on spreading a positive message on COVID-19, the tide could be turning on popular opinion. Democrats are running out of excuses for keeping Grampa Joe locked away in seclusion. It’ll be a fascinating final two weeks. 2020 Election Mike Pence Kamala Harris Vice President debate Donald Trump Joe Biden COVID-19 town hall debate NBC ABC

A new poll shows that by a 62% to 18% margin voters would favor the “Keep Nine” Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would permanently preserve the current number of nine Supreme Court Justices. On September 24, 2020, HJ Resolution 95 The Keep Nine Amendment, was proposed in the United States House of Representatives. The Keep Nine Amendment states: “The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine Justices.” “Whether or not we can preserve an independent Supreme Court, or end up with a Court whose size could be manipulated for political advantage by whoever controls the White House and Congress will be a defining issue for the future of our nation,” said Paul Summers, former Attorney General of Tennessee, a retired Senior Judge, and a leader of the Keep Nine Amendment effort. “The overwhelming majority of voters who would favor the “Keep Nine” Amendment should make candidates think twice before refusing to answer questions about where they stand on the Amendment,” said Summers. Key Points in support of the Keep Nine Amendment: • After the Sept. 29 debate when Joe Biden refused to answer a question about whether he would expand the size of the Supreme Court, it is far more plausible that he and VP nominee Kamala Harris, could, if elected, one day seek to pack the Court so they can appoint a new majority of more liberal Justices. • After being criticized for saying voters didn't deserve to know what his position was on expanding the size of the Court Joe Biden said on October 12 that he was "Not a fan" of Court packing. But he still hasn't answered the question of whether he would seek to expand the number of justices, or oppose such efforts. • If one party successfully expanded or shrunk the Court for political advantage, another might well do so in retaliation, undermining the independence of the Court and the rule of law. • Several times in our history prior to 1869, Congress expanded or shrunk the size of the Court for political advantage. After 1869 a tradition grew up that the Court should remain free of such political interference. When FDR tried to expand the number of Justices in 1937, strong bipartisan opposition defeated his plan. • But now Democrats like former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and VP Nominee Kamala Harris have begun to speak favorably about packing the Court. Kamala Harris said she was "absolutely open to it". The Democratic Platform approved by Joe Biden urges "Court restructuring." • To permanently prevent a future Congress and President from manipulating the size of the Court for political advantage, a Constitutional Amendment is required. • There is now a proposed "Keep Nine" Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which simply says: "The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine Justices." • It is backed by a bipartisan coalition of former State Attorneys General and Members of Congress. • Polls show voters would support it by a more than 3-1 margin of 62%-18%. • The Keep Nine Amendment was introduced in the House as H.J. Res. 95 on September 23 with the bipartisan sponsorship of Rep Collin Peterson (D, MN) and Denver Riggleman (R, VA) • It will soon be introduced in the Senate. We are gathering co-sponsors now. • The Keep Nine Amendment was just endorsed by former Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese. • Unlike an earlier and admirable anti-Court packing Amendment sponsored by Sen. Rubio (R, FL) which only prohibits Congress from expanding the size of the Courts, the more recent and stronger Keep Nine Amendment would prohibit Congress from either increasing or decreasing the size of the Court. • The Keep Nine Amendment is the only anti-Court packing Amendment with bipartisan support. • It is the only proposed Amendment that permanently protects the independence of the Court from attempts to manipulate its size. • Candidates and elected officials who won't support "Keep Nine", have no real excuse other than that they might one day want to change the size of the Court. • Because polls show that Court packing is very unpopular with voters many candidates in close races are now saying they oppose expanding the size of the Supreme Court, some perhaps knowing they could find excuses to change their position later, after the election. • So we must ask candidates who say they oppose Court packing today if they will support an Amendment to permanently ban it. • A candidate who says YES to Keep Nine becomes part of a far more permanent firewall against Court packing. A candidate who says he or she opposes Court packing but won't back an Amendment to ban it, may have credibility problems with swing voters. • We must increase the visibility of the Keep Nine Amendment now to increase the pressure on candidates to answer questions about whether they will endorse it. • The easiest way to increase Keep Nine's visibility is to persuade candidates, elected officials, and political leaders we know to endorse the Amendment. •We should encourage everyone we know to ask the candidates for whom they can vote if those candidates will endorse the Keep Nine Amendment to preserve the current number of nine Supreme Court Justices. • Forcing candidates to take a stand on the Keep Nine Amendment to ban Court packing, and exposing those who refuse, could swing enough undecided voters to determine the winner in key Presidential states, Senate and House races. • The Keep Nine and the grassroots efforts to educate people about it could be one of the most important new factors shaping the last month of the 2020 campaign. • And given the likelihood that left-leaning progressives will one day win another super majority and use that majority to pack the Court, an Amendment is a critical long-term safeguard for protecting the independence of the Court. • Much as pressure from the public and states persuaded Congress to propose Amendments guaranteeing a woman's right to vote and imposing presidential term limits, a similar effort could persuade Congress to propose and states to ratify the Keep Nine Amendment. • For more information about the bipartisan Keep Nine Amendment and its supporters visit www.KeepNine.org • If you would like to become more involved with or support this effort please contact: Coalition to Preserve an Independent U.S. Supreme Court www.KeepNine.org Email: Leaders@KeepNine.org 2020 Election Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court Super Legislature Democrats confirmation hearings Antonin Scalia opening statement ACA Affordable Care Act Abortion, Roe v. Wade preexisting conditions separation of powers Second Amendment HJ Resolution 95 Keep Nine Amendment

Trump and Biden were supposed to debate tonight. Are Americans really better off? What a difference a week makes. It’s often said that a day in politics is equivalent to a lifetime, and the old truism has certainly been validated by happenings of the past week. As every American political watcher knows, today was set aside by both campaigns as the occasion for a second presidential debate, a town hall style match-up where supposedly “ordinary” citizens pose questions to the candidates and receive instantaneous answers. The program was to be refereed by moderator Steve Scully (who once interned for Joe Biden, a fact that escapes the mainstream establishment media’s coverage of the race) and televised on every conceivable national media entity. The debate was to be held in Miami, Florida, having moved from its original slated location at the University of Michigan. Fears of spreading the Chinese Communist Party (CCP, or Wuhan, if you prefer) virus caused the original venue change, and the theoretically bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates similarly (and unilaterally) cited worries about disease transmission as the justification for ruling out an in-person town hall event tonight. The Commission announced its decision the morning after last week’s vice presidential debate (won rather convincingly by Vice President Mike Pence), whereupon President Donald Trump said he wouldn’t show if it weren’t in person. Trump labeled a “virtual” debate “a waste of time.” It’s understandable how the media-practiced president would want every opportunity to stare Democrat Joe Biden in the eye, but some believe it might’ve been an error to dismiss it entirely. Regardless, Trump and Biden won’t be seen together on stage tonight. They’ve each planned their own festivities and the hours will pass as though it were just another day in the ultra-odd 2020 campaign. Grampa Joe himself might regret the chance to see Trump up close as well, since he’s been making more than his already inflated share of gaffes of late. As an example, Joe said if Americans feel they’re better off now than they were four years ago (i.e., before Trump), they shouldn’t vote for him. Yes, he actually said it. Jessica Chasmar reported at The Washington Times, “In an interview with Cincinnati’s WKRC, the former vice president was asked by reporter Kyle Inskeep to weigh in on a Gallup poll that said last week that 56% of registered voters had reported being better off now than they were four years ago under the Obama-Biden administration. “’So why should people who feel that they are better off today, under the Trump administration, vote for you?’ Mr. Inskeep asked Mr. Biden. “’Well, if they think that, they probably shouldn’t,’ Mr. Biden answered. ‘If they think — 54% of the American people are better off economically today than they were under our administration? Well, their memory is not very good, quite frankly.’” Regardless of a person’s memory, their cognitive capacity must undoubtedly be better than Biden’s. If you’re a Biden staffer or donor, do you really want your candidate saying that people shouldn’t vote for him under certain circumstances? One can imagine every Biden aide within shouting distance of the babbling dunce removing their footwear and preparing to hurl the shoes at their candidate to get him to shut up, lest he cede a majority of the voters in this country to his advantageous and deserving opponent. Grampa Joe is renowned for his innate capacity to lie and fumble and gaffe and stumble, but this one’s particularly egregious. The candidate didn’t stop there, either; he also couldn’t remember -- again -- what office he was running for, and he also referred to Mitt Romney as the “Mormon senator.” You can’t make this stuff up, but apparently Biden can. And he’s good at it, too! No one ever claimed Trump was 100% accurate in all his utterances, but at least the New Yorker knows where he is and what he’s supposed to be doing at every given moment. (Trump later jabbed at Biden on Twitter.) And what’s extra agreeable for Trump supporters here, Biden just gave his blessing to 56% of Americans to vote for the incumbent. That’s very nice of you, Joe, especially since people are being candid when they tell a pollster they’re better off than they were after eight years of you and Obama! Trump administration policies are responsible for fostering an impressive economic boom, having accomplished it while simultaneously being mercilessly hounded and investigated by Democrats who don’t give a lick about truth and veracity. As details continue to emerge from the phony “Russian collusion” narrative that was dreamed up and paid for by Crooked Hillary Clinton’s campaign and furthered by the higher-ups in the Obama White House, it’s evident that being “better off” has deeper meaning than just how many coins are rattling around in one’s pocket. Government accountability is a fleeting concept these days, and lord knows, if Grampa Joe Biden is elected, no one will ever learn the truth about what happened in late 2016 and early 2017. Still, it's a little surprising that Gallup found so many people describing themselves as better off, especially since, according to the establishment media, large swaths of folks remain terrified of the dreaded CCP virus. Polls allegedly reveal Americans overwhelmingly blame Trump for the Chinese plague that’s killed over 200,000 countrymen and there’s no end in sight. Persistent rumors of a vaccine haven’t even stopped the doomsday whisperers, since about half of the people indicate they won’t accept the government’s say-so as to its safety. All of this leads to the conclusion that the Trump-Biden horserace polls are flat-out wrong. Happy folks don’t vote for change in political leadership, especially when the alternative is a lifelong swamp creature who has trouble combining thoughts into coherent sentences. Some people won’t vote for Trump because they don’t like his personality and fondness for mixing-it-up in the political mosh pit, but if they authentically consider their lives improved under the current regime, why would they opt to go back to the old ways? Are you better off than you were four years ago? Let us count the ways Trump won the election in 2016 because of several factors. One was the “forgotten Americans” felt left behind by the ruling elites and favored taking a chance on a bombastic outsider rather than rubberstamping the status quo and hoping things would somehow get better for them. Trump obviously possesses considerable political talent, but it was the voters’ attitudes that pushed him over the top. Two, Trump won because Americans didn’t want the Supreme Court to keep making policy. Civics may not be a strong suit for a lot of individuals, but they still realize that the federal courts shouldn’t be populated with judges who regularly circumvent the legislative branch to make laws. With Justice Antonin Scalia’s death in February, 2016, the issue of Supreme Court seats was front and center on the minds of practically everyone at election time. Trump prevailed, and simply put, citizens feel better off with Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh on the court than two more Ruth Bader Ginsburg clones. And based on a few days’ worth of testimony, people will be thrilled to have Justice Amy Coney Barrett handling cases and controversies. Democrat attempts to pin Obamacare and the CCP virus against Barrett are failing miserably, a public relations disaster that will be fresh in the minds of Americans as they hit the polling booth in three weeks. Barrett’s understated and calm demeanor is reassuring to everyone who’s inclined to fairness. Three, America is definitely better off in the foreign policy realm. Donald Trump campaigned on a platform of keeping our military out of needless overseas wars, and he’s kept his vow. Along the way, Trump ordered the bombing of ISIS and the targeted taking out of terrorist leaders including the Islamic State’s Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (who Trump described as “dying like a dog”) and Iranian general Qasem Soleimani. In addition, Trump has negotiated or renegotiated key trade deals with our European and North American trade partners, demanded accountability from China and beefed up our military. Trump repeatedly says he hopes the military would never be used. Better off? America’s sons and daughters aren’t being sent overseas to die in conflicts unrelated to our national security. And this isn’t even mentioning Trump’s work to foster peace in the Middle East. Four, there’s a greater emphasis on patriotism, self-protection and being able to earn a living under Trump’s guidance. Unlike Biden and Obama, Trump unabashedly promotes American exceptionalism and putting the needs of Americans first. There’s no reason to hide the flag or one’s support for first responders -- Trump even had a huge Blue Lives Matter flag proudly flying at his Florida rally. Trump is also a true backer of Second Amendment rights, and judging by the record weapons sales this year (after the leftist instigated “mostly peaceful” protests, riots and looting), Americans feel they’re better off protecting themselves when the authorities aren’t able to do it. With numerous Democrat constituencies questioning the existence of police forces or prisons, a Joe Biden presidency wouldn’t guarantee anyone’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of property. These are the most fundamental freedoms of all, aren’t they? Lastly (there are more, but we have to stop somewhere), President Trump has made people’s lives better because he supports unborn life. Whereas Republican establishment politicians regularly pay lip service to the pro-life cause, Trump has lent his name and face to it. As the first president to attend and speak at the annual March for Life, Trump didn’t hesitate to put the power of the office behind the cause of life. Needless to say, Trump’s originalism-minded judicial appointments will interpret the laws rather than “discover” new rights in the penumbras of the Constitution. What better way to make one’s life better than ensuring accountability in government? All in all, it’s not surprising that Gallup found 56 percent of registered voters admitting that they’re better off than they were four years ago. Remember this the next time some slanted establishment media poll finds Biden with a double-digit lead. Biden himself says people shouldn’t vote for him if they believe their lives are better than they were four years ago. Here’s thinking many will do just that (not vote for him). Defiant Sen. Jones turns a deaf ear to Alabama’s voters; don’t let the door hit you on the way out, Doug Among the many Democrats who aren’t concerned about making lives better is Alabama Democrat Senator Doug Jones. The liberal from a blood red conservative state says he doesn’t plan to support Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination. Like practically every other party member in the Senate, Jones is a servant of “Chucky” Schumer and his bitter and angry minions. James Varney reported at The Washington Times, “Sen. Doug Jones of Alabama is by far the most endangered Senate Democrat on the ballot in November, but that won’t stop him from thumbing his nose one last time at his state’s overwhelmingly conservative electorate… “He opposed the 2018 confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, whom polls indicated most people in deep-red Alabama supported. He also defied voters early this year in voting to convict President Trump on the House-passed impeachment charges. “Now, just weeks before standing for reelection, Mr. Jones bucked Alabama voters again by announced he will oppose Mr. Trump’s latest nominee to the Supreme Court, federal Judge Amy Coney Barrett.” Senators are tasked with representing the interests of their states, not bobbing and swaying to the whims of the radicals within (how’s that for another civics lesson?). Jones isn’t exactly doing his job when he refuses to seat a Supreme Court justice who will honor the legislative preferences of the states themselves. People like Jones have turned the upper chamber into a smaller, snobbier House of Representatives. The fact Jones is on his way out gives all conservatives a better outlook. Trump’s recovery from COVID-19 has transcended the damage done to his campaign from the first presidential debate. Paired with the impeccably professional testimony of Amy Coney Barrett, the news narrative is decidedly more positive than it was even a week ago. It just goes to show, a lot can change in a little time in American politics. 2020 Election Mike Pence Kamala Harris Vice President debate Donald Trump Joe Biden COVID-19 healthcare law and order riots protests Sen. Doug Jones

In two just-released bombshell videos James O’Keefe and his team at Project Veritas have exposed how closely linked the Democratic Party is with the Antifa domestic terrorist group. James O’Keefe, the founder and CEO of Project Veritas said, “We’ve been following Kris Jacks for a long time. We first met him, during the presidential primary race. Now, we have caught up with him in Colorado.” O’Keefe said Project Veritas journalists recorded Jacks with hidden cameras to capture the true nature of his violent political agenda. “Jacks represents the radical wing of the Democratic Party in Colorado--he is someone most Americans should be afraid of,” O’Keefe said. Kristopher Jacks, who is on the Colorado Democratic Party Executive and Central Committees, was secretly caught on camera by an undercover Project Veritas operative explaining that his group of violent radicals have a majority on the Democratic leadership committee. Jacks reveals depth of his “Our Revolution Organization's infiltration into the Colorado Democratic Party; "I'm part of the Colorado Democratic Party Executive Committee...and DOZENS of other committees." "We now have a comfortable majority on the Weld County Democratic Exec Committee," and “It’s not just me… 12 of 14 who go to the Colorado Democrats are part of Our Revolution…”. And just days after Lee Keltner, a Trump supporter attending a patriot rally in Denver was assassinated, Jacks boasted on tape that part of his plan was “killing random Nazis in the street.” He later said if Trump is reelected, he will be waiting in his garage, “right next to my gun safe all night long.” “At that point,” Jacks continued, “that’s when we gotta find like the John Brown Gun Society people. You know there’s going to be, just look at every, look through history, right? Well when it comes to civil war violence type stuff, there are always military guys like former guys that stand up for the right thing.” The John Brown Gun Club is a militant leftist group whose members patrolled the CHAZ zone in Seattle and were in charge of security when at least two African American teenagers were shot and killed. “I want to make this point very loudly and very clearly. I said it nicely before, but I’ll say it more curtly now. 2020 is a political revolution,” said Jacks on one undercover video. “I think the right wing has a monopoly right now on strong, violent rhetoric, and I think they underestimate how many people on the left are organized, trained, armed, and ready to go should they decide to do their sh*t. And I think all it will take is our numbers and a reminder that yeah, there’s a reason you guys feared the Communists more than you feared the Nazis.” Project Veritas Journalist: “So, you think the right wing—" Jacks: “They’re a bunch of b*tches. They’re b*tch *ss bootlickers, man.” Project Veritas Journalist: “Who’s the people on the left though?” Jacks: “Doesn’t matter. We have the army already. We’re gonna show up in numbers. We’re gonna show up in mass.” And later: Project Veritas Journalist: “What do you think about like Antifa?” Jacks: “Antifa’s great, man. I think it’s uh, Charlottesville dude. When you got people marching in the street, running people over and sh*t like that, you got people firing guns, trying to provoke sh*t, yeah even people there that are willing to stand between them and ordinary people.” Jacks said he is ready for insurrection. “Well, when it comes to civil war, violence type stuff there’s always military guys, like former guys that stand up for the right thing--when that time comes, then we gotta get some of those type people involved,” he said. In his “It’s the Ballgame” memo to the conservative movement, CHQ Chairman Richard A Viguerie made the case that the future of our constitutional republic hangs in the balance in the 2020 election. In his article “America Slides into a New Civil War” David Franke reviewed today’s political situation and made the case that a pent-up political bubble has burst and revolution in the form of civil war has come to America, and in “Unconventional Warfare – The Democrat Plan To Oust Trump” we outlined the likely initial Phase Lines and tactics the Left will use in that civil war. None of those articles suggest that the Left is going to shoot it out in the streets with the US military or conservative defenders of the existing constitutional order, but with the Kristopher Jacks disclosures captured by our friends at Project Veritas it is now time to start to seriously consider that possibility. 2020 Election Antifa Portland political violence Black Lives Matter protests vote fraud coup disruption James O'Keefe Project Veritas Kris Jacks Lee Keltner John Brown Gun Club

At the conclusion of Wednesday’s confirmation hearing for Judge Amy Coney Barrett, the Babylon Bee, our favorite parody site, posted the above image with the headline, “ACB Calmly Answers Questions While Typing Up Appellate Court Decision And Cooking Dinner For 9”. And, like so many parodies the Bee posts, that one was hilarious because it was so close to the truth – Judge Coney Barrett did make Democrats look like idiots by simply calmly and professionally being herself. Democrats on the Senate judiciary committee attempted to get Judge Coney Barrett to express views on everything from the Affordable Care Act, to the right-to-life, to same-sex marriage, gun control and any potential cases related to the result of the looming 2020 election. And ACB stuck to “the Ginsburg rule” and avoided answering directly about how she would rule on any of the issues that the court may be asked to address. But that didn’t stop Democrats from using their time for political grandstanding and lengthy speeches that lacked a question mark at the end. One of the weirdest was a soliloquy by Democrat Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois who raised the case of California v. Texas, which centers on whether the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate is still constitutional now that there is no tax attached to it and whether the act itself can survive without it. The Trump administration has sided with states that contend that ObamaCare should be stricken down in its entirety. "There is a political agenda here. Whether you are privy to it, part of it notwithstanding, it has to do with the Affordable Care Act," Durbin said. "Nov. 10 is the absolute date they have to fill the vacancy if the president, and those who support him, and those who support the Republican platform are going to keep their promise to end the Affordable Care Act. They need that ninth justice, and that's why it has to be hurried. Unfortunately, that is the cloud, the orange cloud over your nomination." We presume that Durbin’s “orange cloud” was an “Orange Man Bad” reference to President Trump, but Judge Coney Barrett answered with an excellent Law School 101 primer on severability – it’s like a Jenga game – without giving any hint as to how she might rule on the case. Another weird moment was when Democrat Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey asked Judge Coney Barrett if President Trump could pardon himself. "That would be a legal question. That would be a Constitutional question — and so in keeping with my obligation not to give hints, previews or forecasts of how I would resolve a case, that's not one that I can answer," she said. "I think I agree with you," Booker said according to NPR. "It is an issue right now. It's never been an issue before. But it is an issue right now — that our president may intend to pardon himself for future crimes or past crimes." There's no legal consensus about that aspect of a president's pardon power and no president has ever tested it. Plus, President Trump denies he has broken any laws or done anything wrong, so there wasn’t really a question there, just another “Orange Man bad” opportunity for Democrats. As Charlie Gerow said in an op-ed for The Hill, “Democrats have no case against Amy Coney Barrett — but that won't stop them.” The simple fact is, the opponents of Judge Barrett can’t make a case against her qualifications because they’re unassailable. Judge Barrett is uniformly regarded as a brilliant legal mind, possessing a fair and impartial approach, a judicial temperament, and a deep and abiding respect for the rule of law and the Constitution. Even if Judge Barrett had somehow communicated that she was going to “protect” Obamacare from the bench, Democrats would all still vote against her, because what Democrats were really trying to do is get Judge Coney Barrett to commit to continuing the activist judiciary’s five decades of legislating from the bench. Judge Coney Barrett’s steadfast statement that, “The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the people,” is further confirmation that President Trump made an inspired choice in nominating her and Senator McConnell is doing the right thing by steering her confirmation through the Senate as expeditiously as possible. Call the toll-free Capitol Switchboard (1-866-220-0044), tell Senator Lindsey Graham, Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell there should be no let up or slowdown in the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett. 2020 Election Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court Super Legislature Democrats confirmation hearings Antonin Scalia ACA Affordable Care Act Abortion Roe v. Wade preexisting conditions separation of powers Second Amendment gun control NRA gun rights Gun Owners of America

Regular readers will recall that in our September 4, 2020 article, Unconventional Warfare – The Democrat Plan To Oust Trump, we explained the plan to overthrow the government that Democrats and their Far Left allies were telegraphing. Our motivation for writing the article was that Republicans and perhaps the Trump campaign appeared to be totally unprepared for what Democrats were telegraphing, because they seem to assume they are facing the conventional Election Day threats of being inundated with mail-in ballots, garden variety vote fraud, such as individuals casting multiple in-person ballots, and the chaos attendant to conducting an election in the midst of media-generated pandemic hysteria. All those things will happen, but they are not what will determine the outcome of the election in the Democrats’ favor. To get rid of President Trump and to seize power permanently we contended Democrats will rely on the principles of unconventional warfare. And now the Far Left has not only confirmed the existence of the plot, they have released their plan as well. Our friend Joel B. Pollak, reporting for Breitbart, disclosed the existence of an online guide to “disruption” that outlines a plan to shut down the country and force President Donald Trump from power. The guide, “Stopping the Coup,” available as a Google doc, is being circulated by a group called ShutDownDC. It casts its plan for disruption as a response to an imagined “coup” by the president in the case of a close election. In an email promoting the guide, reported by Mr. Pollak, ShutDownDC declares: “Preventing Donald Trump from stealing the election and remaining in office is likely to take mass, sustained disruptive movements all over the country.” The guide is a manual to that “disruption.” Parts of the guide are committed to ensuring a “fair election.” Parts of it, however, read like a manual for staging a coup rather than a guide to preventing one: In the context of a coup or highly contested election we need to be clear that our actions must directly affect the structures and pillars of power. Our largest asset in this regard utilizes the ideas of non-compliance through massive, broad based direct action. Where we can, we need to be in the streets, on the highways, or at the sites of power and power holders. In our jobs and lives we must refuse to allow those taking control the legitimacy of the power they seek through strikes, slowdowns, and boycotts, and public refusal to accept an illegitimate ruling party. Another section urges activists to stop American life from continuing if the election does not go their way (original emphasis): In order to really win we will need to force some pillars of power (business, military, media, or other major institutions) to decide to side with the people, or at least get out of the way. If everyday life goes on, a despot will not leave power, and so there will be no incentive for real systems change. You want to think about what it might take to stop business-as-usual. The guide also says that activists plan on “physically protecting the vote count from counter-protestors, federal agents, or white supremacist militias.” The guide indicates that activists intend to “demand that no winner be announced until every vote is counted,” and that they will launch “mass coordinated action” to that end. One section says that in the case of a contested election, “we must take action” (original emphasis): In the end, the actual electorate might be split, half truly believing that Trump was elected legally, and half knowing that he was not. It is in this muddied context of legal and political wrangling that we must take action. We cannot wait to see how the chips fall. That will only ensure more power for the violent white supremacist machine that is the Trump administration and its supporters. We want to be clear here, though: we are not a group of Biden supporters. This is not about ensuring that the Democrats win, but actually preparing for the possibility that white supremacist violence will continue. The guide also suggests that activists will continue their “disruption” regardless of who wins the election. The document appears to be the product of a group called the Disruption Project, whose website describes itself as “dedicated to supporting uprisings, resistance and mass direct action.” ShutDownDC’s website indicates that it expects Trump to be “forced from office,” adding: “We are not seeking a ‘return to normalcy,’ because we know that returning to ‘normal’ means returning to a system that was built on oppression. Rather, we see this as the time to rise up against the current crisis and move forward to dismantle the interlocking systems of oppression that have plagued this land for centuries.” Translation: Prepare for the revolution. This is a “no BS moment” for armed patriots and anyone else who simply wants to be left alone to live in the constitutional republic bequeathed to us by the Founders. We urge CHQ readers and friends to take this warning seriously and if you haven’t downloaded it and read it, click this link to get your copy of Insurrection and Violence - A Citizen’s Guide to prepare yourself and your family for what the violent Left promises is coming. CHQ Editor George Rasley is a certified rifle and pistol instructor, a Glock ® certified pistol armorer and a veteran of over 300 political campaigns, including every Republican presidential campaign from 1976 to 2008. He served as lead advance representative for Governor Sarah Palin in 2008 and has served as a staff member, consultant, or advance representative for some of America's most recognized conservative Republican political figures, including President Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp. He served in policy and communications positions on the House and Senate staff, and during the George H.W. Bush administration he served on the White House staff of Vice President Dan Quayle. 2020 Election Antifa Portland political violence Black Lives Matter protests vote fraud coup disruption

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court, is a gun owner who says she shares the outlook of her mentor, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, and that's got gun control advocates worrying that big changes could be on the way if Judge Coney Barrett is confirmed. NPR reports Kris Brown, president of Brady United Against Gun Violence, said she has "grave concerns" about that prospect. "There's a whole host of public safety bills and laws that we've had in effect for a quarter century, including the Brady background check system, that we are concerned about with her on the court," Brown said. The case that has gun-controllers worried is a 7th Circuit case, Kanter v Barr, which NPR’s Carrie Johnson reports involved a man convicted of one count of mail fraud. Rickey Kanter, who ran a company called Dr. Comfort, served his time and wanted his gun rights back. The court majority rejected the idea. But Barrett produced a 37-page dissent tracing the history of the Second Amendment and the history of punishing convicted felons. In essence, reported Ms. Johnson, Judge Coney Barrett concluded that historical precedent led to the conclusion that only people convicted of dangerous felonies should lose their right to keep and bear arms. The judge left open the possibility that others convicted of misdemeanor charges — on, for instance, domestic violence — should lose their gun rights for some time. "In sum, founding-era legislatures categorically disarmed groups whom they judged to be a threat to the public safety," Barrett wrote. "But neither the convention proposals nor historical practice supports a legislative power to categorically disarm felons because of their status as felons." UCLA law professor Adam Winkler, who wrote a book about Second Amendment jurisprudence called Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, said her originalist approach to the Second Amendment could throw into question a lot of newer laws on the books, from prohibitions on machine guns to so-called red flag laws in at least 20 states that allow authorities or relatives to ask for court permission to remove weapons from people who represent a danger to themselves or others. "We only started banning machine guns from civilian hands in the 1980s," Winkler said. "Does that mean that there's a constitutional right to have machine guns because there's no strong historical precedent for banning those weapons?" Editor’s note: One could only hope! When asked by the Senate Judiciary Committee to list her ten most significant cases Judge Coney Barrett list Kanter v Barr as number one. Debra Cassens Weiss, writing for the ABA Journal, noted the Supreme Court declined to hear 10 Second Amendment cases in June. Four justices who commented on the decision to decline review appear ready to address gun rights issues, according to the National Law Journal. The four justices—Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh—have raised concerns that Second Amendment rights are being applied too narrowly. Our friends at the NRA-ILA recently noted that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has regularly disparaged (here, here and here) “the lower courts’ general failure to afford the Second Amendment the respect due an enumerated constitutional right.” Only four votes were needed to grant review, but the four conservative justices may have been reluctant to hear a case because of fears that they did not have a fifth vote for their side, according to the National Law Journal. Erich Pratt, senior vice president at Gun Owners of America, told Bloomberg Law that Barrett’s approach indicates “a willingness to examine and apply the Second Amendment as written, by looking at its text and using history as a guide, instead of engaging in the judge-empowering interest balancing that has run rampant in the lower courts.” Olivia Li, writing for the anti-gun website The Trace observed that litigants need only four justices to agree to take their case, and cases abound. Currently, there are petitions on issues like public carry permits and felon dispossession poised to go before the Supreme Court. With Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation, the justices will have the votes to end the court’s decade of silence on the scope of the right to bear arms — and a 6-3 conservative majority is likely to reimagine the real-life application of the Second Amendment. CHQ Editor George Rasley is a certified rifle and pistol instructor, a Glock ® certified pistol armorer and a veteran of over 300 political campaigns, including every Republican presidential campaign from 1976 to 2008. He served as lead advance representative for Governor Sarah Palin in 2008 and has served as a staff member, consultant, or advance representative for some of America's most recognized conservative Republican political figures, including President Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp. He served in policy and communications positions on the House and Senate staff, and during the George H.W. Bush administration he served on the White House staff of Vice President Dan Quayle. 2020 Election Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court Super Legislature Democrats confirmation hearings Antonin Scalia opening statement ACA Affordable Care Act Abortion Roe v. Wade preexisting conditions separation of powers Second Amendment gun control NRA gun rights Gun Owners of America

Can Dems win an election based on masks, lockdowns and non-answers to court packing? Nobody ever said politics was easy explained, but in this ultra-odd year of 2020, one of the two major American political parties is staking their claim to the presidency on requiring the wearing of personal protective masks, maintaining economic lockdowns that keep people from working, and potential Supreme Court packing. These are issues that some polls claim are popular depending on how the questions are asked… but are people really buying into it? It defies common sense to believe that the direction of the country -- and therefore its history -- could be determined by such frivolous preferences, but Democrats seem bent on playing out the Chinese Communist Party (CCP, or Wuhan, if you prefer) virus paranoia to its fullest extreme. With just under three weeks to go until Election Day, and early voting having already started in many if not most states, the rush to drive voters to make their choice is intense. The problem being that many, many people are well on their journey to reassessing whether voting to oust an otherwise successful incumbent president is the prudent thing to do, especially when the alternative is hazy, evasive and unclear, as it is with Democrat nominee Joe Biden and his passive/aggressive smiley and angry at-the-same-time running mate, Kamala Harris. You don’t see it much in the mainstream establishment media, which prefers to home in on voter fear and terror of catching the CCP virus (COVID-19), but if you look behind the proverbial curtain, Americans are darn sick of the Democrats’ fearmongering over the foreign plague. In a piece titled “Were COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns worse than doing nothing?”, Michael McKenna summed it up well at The Washington Times, “We are well on our way to sacrificing a year in the lives of all of our citizens. That’s 350 million years of life lost. If 400,000 Americans die of the virus, and those people die 10 years earlier than their life expectancy (a reasonable assumption given that the virus is especially dangerous to the aged), that’s 4 million years of life lost. Even if you assume that one set of numbers is way too generous and the other way too stingy, the policy analysis outcome is clear. “In short, the destruction of economic, social, personal and familial lives may have accomplished little or actually been worse than doing nothing. There is no convincing evidence to the alternative at the moment, and, interestingly, none has been asked for by anyone in authority. “Everyone picks what science they choose to follow, even Mr. Biden.” Having closely followed the issue for the past seven months, I’ve never seen it put quite as succinctly as Mr. McKenna managed in one column. It’s safe to say Americans have been bludgeoned over the head by liberal politicians pontificating about “following the science” since the day the CCP virus invaded our shores from China or Europe. It’s almost as though a white coat wearing academic with pens in his pocket is positioned on every doorstep in the country, providing data and prescriptions for each of us on how we should safely proceed. Practically everyone in the western world relies on “science” to some extent every day. Those of us with kids participating in outdoor sports routinely check the weather forecast to see if a practice or game will go on and if we’ll need a jacket for it. Or if you live along the west coast, you’re hoping badly needed rain is on its way to help suppress the fire danger. Or if you’re along the gulf coast (or east coast) you want some indication and advance warning if tropical weather is in store. Some of it is life and death, and other times, not so much. “Science” is important. It is inexact, however, since there’s simply no way to plug in data from an unknown natural (or man-made?) occurrence like the CCP virus and produce predictable outcomes well ahead of time. In addition, there are lots of scientists with lots of opinions, only some of which we see commenting on the proper course for government to take in combatting a societal problem. And aren’t there lots of sciences? Which discipline to trust? My undergraduate degree is in Political Science, and I also earned a juris doctorate in law school, so I’m both a doctor and a scientist. There’s at least one “scientist” who isn’t full of (well, you know)! Somehow, the lockdowns just didn’t seem right from the beginning. One can only imagine policy makers holed up in a conference room tossing out ideas on what to say to the public. Some likely advocated for a full lockdown of everyone, similar to what took place in Italy. Others likely reasoned a partial curtailing would be best for folks, relying on experience and common sense to get us through it, along with recommendations from experts. Still others might’ve suggested doing nothing at all -- or very little. No country in the world is the same as any other, and different populations of people contain their own variations. Here in the United States, it’s safe to say the residents of sparsely populated western North Dakota have little in common with the densely packed boroughs of New York City. President Trump and his administration took an easily supportable position of providing federal aid to the entire nation and then letting local authorities decide how to implement their action plans. At first Democrats went along with the notion, commending Trump for his willingness to offer non-partisan help and each devised a means to fight the virus. Then the numbers kept ticking upwards and people in the most effected categories started dying by the thousands. The “science” hadn’t saved them from succumbing and the political class initiated the blame game. Democrats realized they didn’t have much else to offer the voters other than unified opposition to Trump and everything he did, so they placed fault at his feet. Nothing quite like an election year to change the “science” to reflect a negative point-of-view. The lockdowns, which received reluctant backing from most people in the beginning, didn’t do a whole lot to “slow the spread.” Democrats hid behind “science” to find scapegoats and pointed fingers at “super spreader” events where one infected person conceivably transmits the virus to another, and that person gives it to others, and so on and so on and so on. These same harbingers of doom said it all could’ve been prevented if that one person had worn his or her mask! It’s a patriotic duty to wear one! Save your fellow man! Don’t be selfish! Tuck your liberty away! The cheekiest mask morons accused Trump of failing to “control the spread” in the White House, too. It just goes to show there’s no environment that’s foolproof -- except for maybe Joe Biden’s basement bunker. President Trump deserves a lot of credit for continuing to function in office. In essence, “do his job.” If we keep seeing signs that say “Heroes work here” on post offices and medical buildings, why should the president of the United States be seen in any lesser light just because he contracted the virus? There’s loss of life and then there’s more loss of life. Death totals don’t reflect The Democrats’ “House on Fire!” warnings about the dangers from the virus are eroding in effectiveness, and Trump’s experience with the treatment and recovery process play out the notion. Back on the campaign trail after less than ten days off it, Trump has a lot more to talk about than he did prior to October 2 (when he revealed his diagnosis). Far from spelling doom for all Republican candidates, the mandatory rest and recuperation period seem to have injected even more fight and energy into his reelection drive. It's been liberating in some ways. For far too long, Democrats and their “science” dictated responses have basically instructed people to cease living a normal life. How much has been given up? Of course, there are the health-related consequences from putting life on hold to battle COVID-19 alone. McKenna did a great job of highlighting those. But what about the life events that have been lost to the pandemic? In addition to the tremendous job reductions in the effected industries -- travel, tourism, hospitality, restaurants, retail stores, etc. -- how many weddings were postponed or outright canceled? Or baptisms? Or funerals? How about Bar and Bat Mitzvas? Confirmation classes? Youth gatherings? Graduation ceremonies? How many houses of worship will permanently close their doors because parishioners were ordered to stay away? What about family reunions or vacations? How do people feel about giving up that dream cruise to Alaska they’ve been planning for years? Or not getting to see their son’s high school football games because of crowd gathering restrictions? How many friendships weren’t formed or were ended? How many dating relationships weren’t formed? It’s impossible to quantify, even with “science” as a guide. How many parents across the country have realized that the public school system isn’t necessarily what’s best for their children? Will there be increased calls for school vouchers and school choice now? Will voters keep being receptive to the Democrats’ incessant secular sermons on “science” and mask-wearing when they recognize that their lives have been permanently altered (in a bad way) by mandates and lectures that don’t make any sense? What about the hypocrisy they display? Trump provides new meaning to the refrain, “Believe all survivors!” It's hard to fathom how it’s been two weeks since President Donald Trump and Joe Biden met face-to-face in the first presidential debate. A tired and irritable Trump lost perspective, and, perhaps because he’d had all the “It’s his fault” insults that he could stand, the man constantly interrupted and pecked at Biden. Most observers agreed Biden won the debate on style, even if Trump was correct about his administration’s response and the fact many, many thousands of lives were saved by the president’s swift and comprehensive action. There was no doubt Trump knew volumes more about the virus than Biden did, though it didn’t shine through due to the president’s overly defensive posture. It sounded petty and angry, not hopeful and resolute. Ironically, his tone changed -- dramatically -- when Trump and first lady Melania tested positive for the virus. The president strolled to a helicopter to be transferred to Walter Reed hospital, but worries about the future invaded the brains of everyone. For supporters, this looked awful bad. Trump had largely disdained the masks and downplayed the risk for himself. There was no good way to spin it. After successful treatment and returning to the White House, however, Trump has a new positive way to describe the virus. Instead of maintaining a defensive stance on COVID-19, the president is empowered to speak from first-hand experience about it. How can his enemies possibly assault him as uncaring and ignorant of the virus’s purported danger when he’s a “survivor” himself? Don’t liberals shout that we must “believe all survivors!”? Trump has been given a new lease on the virus that didn’t exist a couple weeks ago. No wonder Grampa Joe won’t get anywhere near the debate stage with Trump this week. It has nothing to do with health risks. It’s about minimizing Trump’s ability to speak on a subject that’s personal -- and “humanizes” him. Democrats can’t tolerate it. To pack or not to pack. You don’t deserve to know, dang it! Whoever taught Biden and the rest of his fellow Democrats how to keep avoiding the senate filibuster/pack the Supreme Court question clearly didn’t think things through. The “Let’s not make my answer the issue” explanation sounded nice a time or two, but the refrain has gotten old. Not just old, either -- it’s Joe Biden old. Watching the way Democrat senators have treated Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett the past couple days, it’s clear they’re planning to pack the institution as soon as they can get their grubby little paws on the power to do it. But even if Grampa Joe is elected president, it’s not a foregone conclusion that the filibuster will end, which may preclude a bill to increase the size of the bench. Biden said Americans don’t “deserve” to know his position on the issue. What a dolt. Democrats keep mentioning that Barrett’s nomination comes too close to the election. But would they have voted to confirm her if she’d been the nominee instead of Kavanaugh two years ago? Such gross hypocrisy is infuriating. The Republican senate is doing the right thing. Few would dispute that Americans have grown weary of coronavirus restrictions that show no connection to common sense and haven’t proven effective in saving lives. President Trump knows the virus and can speak to its treatments and potential lethality. Democrats don’t have a clue, and they’re lying about their Supreme Court packing schemes, too. 2020 election COVID-19 restrictions masks lockdowns economic recovery Donald Trump coronavirus coronavirus treatments court packing Amy Coney Barrett hearings science

If Democrats love Colin Kaepernick’s cause so much, shouldn’t they openly embrace him? Despite the utter absence of evidence that President Donald Trump and members of the Republican Party are racists, Democrats and their followers are still accusing conservatives of thought crimes and “systemic” bias nonetheless. One of the leftists’ leading spokesmen, former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, recently advanced some fresh thoughts on an issue that’s very much at the forefront of this year’s election. In a story titled, “Colin Kaepernick calls to abolish 'White supremacist' police, prisons: 'F---k reform'”, Jessica Chasmar reported at The Washington Times, “Colin Kaepernick said he wants to completely abolish police and prisons in a new essay, arguing that such institutions are rooted in White supremacy and cannot be reformed. As part of his new publishing series, ‘Abolition For The People’ on Medium, the former NFL quarterback and Black Lives Matter activist wrote Wednesday that ‘systemic problems demand systemic solutions.’ … “’The central intent of policing is to surveil, terrorize, capture, and kill marginalized populations, specifically Black folks,’ he wrote. ‘In order to eradicate anti-Blackness, we must also abolish the police. The abolition of one without the other is impossible.’ “In a section titled, ‘F—K Reform,’ Mr. Kaepernick argued that police reforms like adding body cameras and more training ‘will never alter the outcome of a system rooted in Black death,’ and that defunding the police is the first step to complete abolition.” There you have it. Democrats and their leftist freakshow activist base have even found a new meaning for “Black Death.” Instead of referring to a historic plague that killed as many as 300 million (as opposed to COVID-19 killing just one-million-plus this year) people in the dark ages, thanks to the warm and fuzzy ruminations of Colin Kaepernick, the term now applies to the way police officers and the prison system treat law breakers. Seeing as African-Americans only make up a percentage of those impacted by the criminal justice system, does this mean officers specifically target whites, Hispanics and Asians who run afoul of the laws too? Or should Kaepernick’s proposals only apply to black suspects and convicted criminals? It’s an interesting concept, isn’t it? If Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren had her DNA tested to reveal she’s 1/1024th Native American, shouldn’t everyone who’s arrested need to be similarly checked to determine their degree of blackness? The test results could then be handed over to the slavery reparations bureaucrats, and instead of being tried and imprisoned, the guy or gal could be mailed a check according to their ancestry! What a concept! Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is no doubt working on it right now. This is yet another not-so-subtle hint of what’s in store for America if good ol’ hair sniffin’, race baitin’, crooked son coddlin’, shoulders massagin’, child repellin’, nude swimmin’, sexual assault denyin’ Grampa Joe Biden is elected president! He and his identity politics queen running mate, Kamala Harris, love the Colin Kaepernicks of the world. They’re the storm troops of the party, the statue destroyers, fist thrusters, building burners, store looters and “mostly peaceful” front line losers we see on the news (well, at least on Fox News’s evening line-up). Kaepernick can and should be given a leading role in the new Biden administration if it comes to pass. How about as a “systemic racism” czar charged with meeting with police representatives to set the new rules for policing. Biden already said he’d bring the antagonistic groups to meet at the White House, right? A little Kumbaya session will definitely lead to the police agreeing to disband themselves at Colin’s demand. Everyone will go away happy! And forget simply defunding the police -- or as Biden himself has advocated, reallocating funds -- let’s get rid of the concept altogether! And prisons too! While we’re at it, why not just trash the entire criminal code! Why make theft, child molestation, rape and murder a crime when we, as a society, can just forgive and forget ahead of time! Yes, this is where we are in 2020, folks. Instead of seeking to further an already color-blind society, Democrats want to make everything about skin color. This is the reverse Civil Rights Movement of today’s vintage. Who needs Affirmative Action when you can just judge everything by what you are as opposed to who you are? The white supremacy thing has never made sense where Trump is concerned, not that it made any more impact when other Republicans were at issue. American voters have short memories, but remember how much hay the media made over Hurricane Katrina in 2005? Much of New Orleans was under water because a damn failed and people were stuck on their rooftops awaiting rescue after the storm. The African-American mayor and pasty white female Democrat governor (Kathleen Babineaux Blanco) didn’t do a whole lot to improve the situation, yet it was President George W. Bush who was labeled a racist because most of the storm’s victims were black. The whole idea that Bush withheld or slowed federal aid because of race considerations was patently unfair -- and false. Yet liberals used the opportunity to weaken the second term Republican and permanently sidetrack his agenda. Democrats had been pinning the “racist” label to the GOP since the beginning of political time, but this was perhaps the most egregious example. So no, assigning the “racist” tag to a Republican isn’t new. Racism is just one item in the irredeemable basket of deplorables’ repertoire Such kneejerk reactions are perfunctory for Democrats. It isn’t just skin color either. National origin (xenophobia), sexual orientation (homophobia), sexism, gender-ism, religion-ism (Islamophobia), discrimination against the poor, dissing the medically indigent (pre-existing conditions), etc. Democrats seem to believe that within every Republican chest beats a heart full of hate. Trump is a particularly easy target for the evil-speakers because he won’t break down and apologize for every little hint of non-politically correct thought. What a crock. Racism is their go-to smear, however. There have been a number of women from Trump’s past who emerged to accuse him of certain transgressions, but there haven’t been any employees that I’m aware of that accused him of outright racism. His friends haven’t. Former football great Herschel Walker is on cable news all the time denying the assertion. Even Kanye West has never indicated that Trump discriminates based on skin color. The #MeToo movement cleared the way for women to make unsubstantiated claims based on the emotional impact of the moment. Many of the stories were true; others were basically a he-said-she-said divergence of distant memories. Yet all claims were adjudicated by the thought police. But calling someone a racist is serious and could be legally actionable. The standard of proof is extremely high, however. Like with libel and slander against a public figure, a complainant must prove that the accused acted with intent, and in this realm, malice due to race. Looking inside someone’s heart and head isn’t exactly the easiest thing to do, and tweets and social media posts don’t necessarily prove someone is of a certain mindset or persuasion. If this were true, half of Hollywood and the rap music industry would be behind bars. Nevertheless, Democrats persist with the hypothesis that Trump harbors ill-feelings towards non-white people. The allegation that he refuses to disavow white supremacy is a total farce; he’s already done it dozens of times. It’s therefore understandable why he doesn’t want to gratify the media by doing it again. But by failing to give them what they want -- another condemnation -- it keeps the subject in the headlines and guarantees that it will remain there indefinitely. Shouldn’t Democrats have to pledge allegiance to Colin K’s anti-police message? We have Colin Kaepernick, who is on record spouting racist statements and depicting the nation’s police forces as backwards and prejudicial, portrayed as a leader of the liberal black community. Shouldn’t Democrats be asked to disavow Kaepernick and his ideology? They’d never do it because then half of professional athletes -- the all-race-all-the-time crybabies who kneel and raise their fists when the national anthem is played -- would repudiate their support for the party. Major professional sports’ ratings are already in the tank because of their renewed emphasis on granting players a right to “speak out” on social causes. What happens when some of those athletes invariably join Kaepernick in calling for police forces and prisons to be abolished? Doesn’t this view deserve an audience too? Free speech on the football gridiron, basketball court, hockey ice and baseball diamond is all well and good until the real meaning of what these people are saying begins sinking in to the paying customer. What if the police and security personnel start boycotting the games themselves? Would this drive home the greater point? Liberal mind-controllers have used Kaepernick as an example of someone who’s been discriminated against for what he believes. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said it was a mistake to bar players from using their high profiles to speak out on causes that they believe in. This year’s games have not included fans in most stadiums as a “safety” measure. But what “safety” are the powers-that-be adhering to? Is it the virtually harmless (to the age group) coronavirus or is it erecting an invisible barrier against fan reaction? If NFL owners are so worried about what the players think (and not the fans), why not replace Goodell with Kaepernick? Or how about giving Kaepernick and his anti-law enforcement message a prominent role in public relations? If the football poohbahs are so convinced that they need to bow before the altar of racism, why don’t they really do something about it? I haven’t watched much NFL football this season. I haven’t missed it either. Thankfully Colin Kaepernick is someone else’s problem. Joe Biden should tell us what the thinks about the former quarterback’s ideas. But the media wouldn’t dare ask him. Michelle Obama lays the racism angle on thick It could be said Colin Kaepernick is considered to be on the fringe of Democrat party thought, but former first lady Michelle Obama is right in the mainstream. Lady Obama made a video last week, pleading with Americans to reject Trump because he’s a racist. In a piece titled “Are Americans Tired of Being Called ‘Racist’ Yet?,” Robert Stacy McCain wrote at The American Spectator, “Racism simply fails to explain everything Democrats say it can explain, and adding such modifiers as ‘systemic’ or ‘structural’ is just linguistic camouflage, deployed to conceal this explanatory failure. “In her video, Mrs. Obama praised Biden as ‘the kind of leader our nation deserves.’ Does she mean by this that Americans are confused and have difficulty speaking a coherent sentence? The RealClearPolitics average of national polls shows Biden ahead by nearly 10 points, so apparently a majority agree with Democrats that we are a profoundly racist country. Or maybe the polls are all wrong, and Trump will repeat his against-all-odds upset in 2016. If Trump wins again, we shall see if Democrats are ‘overwhelmingly peaceful’ in their reaction.” It's curious how Democrats are pushing racism so hard this late in the campaign with polls showing them well in front. It could be that they’re trying to guarantee that African-Americans turn out in the kind of numbers they need to secure a victory for their compromised ticket of ultra-liberal riot appeasers. Or maybe their internal polling shows Trump and Republicans making inroads into the solid voting bloc. Democrats automatically assume all black voters think the same (Biden’s even said it, several times), like they all agree with Maxine Waters’ mindset and would love to place Al Sharpton in a high position to dictate policy. Liberals bet that most African-Americans process information just like Colin Kaepernick and LeBron James, and they’ll all kneel for the national anthem. All it would take is a small percentage of black votes in key states to switch and the entire foundation of the Democrat party collapses. Let’s not forget that liberals are hoping to capture the senate and maintain their majority in the House. Sooner or later the racism lie will be exposed. Perhaps the lesson will arrive on Election Day. We can only hope. In the year 2020, it's astonishing that someone like Colin Kaepernick is granted a platform to spew his offensive and expletive-laden anti-law enforcement venom, and it’s equally shocking that Democrats are so openly embracing a “Trump and Republicans are racist” campaign message. When you haven’t got much else to offer, just call the other side names. 2020 election racism defund the police law and order riots looting Donald Trump Joe Biden systemic racism Colin Kaepernick NFL LeBron James deplorables

The Amy Coney Barrett confirmation has, so far, been a victory for conservatives on one important front: After we pounded them for their previous expressions of religious bigotry against Amy Coney Barrett and Brian Buescher – there have been no overt anti-Catholic or anti-Christian statements or questions. But it is early yet, so give the Democrats time. And it isn’t like the Democrats didn’t blow a few dog whistles, just to see how far they could push their anti-Christian bigotry and get away with it. Delaware Democrat Sen. Chris Coons' opening statement — which alluded to the 1965 Supreme Court Case, Griswold v. Connecticut, that involved married couples' use of contraception — was an ill-concealed religious attack against Judge Coney Barrett given her large family and the Catholic church's religious opposition to it. And as Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) pointed out, in the past Democrats have made a point of questioning judicial nominees about their faith and editorializing about it to justify voting NO on conservative nominees. “This is an attempt to broach a new frontier, to set a new standard—actually, it’s an attempt to bring back an old standard that the Constitution of the United States explicitly forbids,” Hawley said. “I’m talking about a religious test for office.” As NRO’s Zachary Evans reported, in 2017, ranking Senate Judiciary Committee member Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said during the judge’s previous confirmation hearing that it was “of concern” that Barrett’s Catholic “dogma lives loudly within you.” Senator Kamala Harris in 2018 questioned a different judicial nominee, Brian Buescher, on whether his membership in the Catholic Knights of Columbus would “interfere” with his judicial rulings. Hawley also pointed out that Sen. Maisie Hirono (D-HI) said she worried then-Professor Coney Barrett would be a ‘Catholic’ judge if she were confirmed, as opposed to an American judge. "This pattern and practice of religious bigotry — because that's what it is, when you tell somebody they are too Catholic to be on the bench, when you say they will be a Catholic judge, not an American judge — that is bigotry," said Sen. Hawley, R-Mo. "The practice of bigotry from members of this committee must stop and I would expect that it be renounced." Sens. Ben Sasse, (R-NE), and Sen. John Kennedy, (R-LA), echoed those comments with statements of their own. "I know it must hurt for someone of deep Christian faith like yourself to be called a religious bigot and to have it implied that because you are a devout Christian that you're somehow unfit for public service," Kennedy said, according to reporting by NPR’s Philip Ewing However, as strongly and as effectively as Sen. Hawley and others argued that religious bigotry by Democrats was un-American and unconstitutional it appears that the bigots on the Left have only made a tactical retreat. During a break in the hearing on Monday afternoon, Sen. Dick Durbin, (D-IL), was asked about Republicans' defense of Barrett's religion and whether the minority had any intention to continue bringing it up. "Not at this point," he said according to Mr. Ewing’s reporting. Our question for Senator Durban and the rest of the Senate Democrats is, if not at this point, at what point will you bring religious bigotry back into the argument against Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation? If you are a Christian who lives to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ, or a Jew who lives according to the Law, the bigotry against Amy Coney Barrett isn’t just bigotry against Roman Catholics. Scratch the surface and you will find it is bigotry against anyone who lives their faith and rejects the secularism of the cultural Left, and if you haven’t experienced it yet, be assured it will come for you eventually. Our friends at Americans for Limited Government have made it easy to urge your Senators to vote in favor of the confirmation of the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, please click this link to express your support for Amy Coney Barrett and your opposition to the religious bigotry being deployed against her by the Democrats and their Far Left allies. 2020 Election Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court Super Legislature Democrats confirmation hearings Antonin Scalia opening statement ACA, Affordable Care Act Abortion Roe v. Wade preexisting conditions separation of powers Catholics bigotry Chris Coons