MINNEAPOLIS, MN—Lieutenant Chris Gastelum was laid off yesterday by the Minneapolis Police Department after the city council voted to defund the police. As he was walking home, he saw, by chance, some rioters throwing Molotov cocktails at the homes of several city council members. But, sadly, he was powerless to do anything, as he’d just turned in his gun and badge.
“Help, officer — they’re burning down my house!” screamed a city council member.
“Oh, shoot! Sorry! Would love to help but they couldn’t afford me anymore,” Gastelum said. One rioter paused, worried he would be arrested. “Oh, no, sir, go right ahead,” the former officer said. “I’m not a cop anymore. Feel free to continue with your mostly peaceful protest.”
“Better luck next time!” Gastelum said cheerily to the city council member before skipping on his merry way, a newfound spring in his step.
“It’s a real bummer,” he told reporters later. “I would have loved to help out.” Just then, he turned another corner to see another city council member getting mugged. “Hey, good to see you!” he shouted at her. “Hope everything’s going well for you! Have a great day!”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Babylon Beehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Babylon Bee2020-09-29 14:57:242020-09-29 14:58:58Just-Laid-Off Minneapolis Police Officer Looks On Helplessly As Rioters Burn Down City Council Members' Homes
They are working to “collapse America from within.” It is a “political warfare document.” “Know your enemy.” “Globalists letting Marxists and Islamists off the leash.” “Prepare!”
Those are the words of Brannon Howse who takes apart for us the document published in August by the Transition Integrity Project which includes a group of players working to surround this year’s presidential election in chaos and crisis.
And, if you are looking forward to a return to normalcy beginning on November 4th, forget it.
Howse believes that the globalists, Marxists and Islamists actually want a Trump victory (why else pick such a weak candidate as the senile Biden) surrounded by confusion, violence and chaos so over the next 4 years they can change America forever as part of the great global “reset.”
He posits that through this “color revolution” our lives will be so turned upside down within those 4 years that we will beg for normalcy (ha! the new normalcy, that is) while blaming Trump for our unhappy state.
Here are just a few screenshots of portions of the plan that Howse takes apart for us. I thought you should see some of the points that interested me most.
All of the Leftwing talking heads have their marching orders!
You already see the media carrying these themes to American voters!
This first one is amusing since we do know, thanks to Project Veritas just yesterday that Trump is right, ballot harvesting is happening with non-citizens. All of those Somali senior citizens turning their unmarked ballots over to criminals are not US citizens.
Biden the peacemaker while Trump is stoking violence.
They are, throughout the plan, signaling that Trump is to be called an authoritarian promoting “unbridled nativism.”
And, this! Trump supports the Second Amendment, but he is not telling people to take up arms! We take them up only in defense to protect ourselves and our families.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Ann Corcoranhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAnn Corcoran2020-09-29 10:22:202020-09-29 10:25:03VIDEO: Transition Integrity Project Lays Out Strategy for Destroying America as We Know it
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2020-09-29 09:26:072020-09-29 09:26:07VIDEO: Tucker Carlson on the new SCOTUS pick
Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett is in the grip of “dogmas.” So goes a criticism made by, ironically, the most dogmatic of people. In fact, the gripe reflects a certain dogma-born prejudice. Oh, I don’t speak of the anti-Catholic, anti-“religious,” anti-pro-life and anti-conservative varieties, though they’re also present. Nor do I refer to how a Muslim nominee would never be subjected to such scorn. Rather, the prejudice here is seldom recognized and something even good people may exhibit.
“The dogma lives loudly in you,” Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) told Barrett in 2017 during the latter’s nomination hearing for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. My answer to the senator would have begun with a simple but sage statement:
“In truth, there are only two kinds of people; those who accept dogma and know it, and those who accept dogma and don’t know it.”
This was written by potentate of profundity G.K. Chesterton in 1923, and he was, of course, correct (and still is). One of Feinstein’s apparent dogmas, for instance, is a common one: that only religious people have dogmas.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary lists “dogma’s” very first definition as “a: something held as an established opinion,” and, boy, the Left’s minions aren’t short on established opinions. They take as self-evident, for example, that “racism,” “sexism,” “homophobia” and “transphobia” are wrong.
Moreover, the Left’s latest dogmatic model — labeled “wokeness” with typical Idiocracy-level sophistication — upholds many additional dogmas: “white privilege,” Critical Race Theory dictates, that police unfairly target blacks, abortion is civil right, etc. The Left also dogmatically punishes “heretics” with a societal enforcement mechanism called “cancel culture.”
Some may respond that, unlike “religious” dogmas, the aforementioned have not been officialized. But this is a false argument. First, many leftists’ dogmas are part of the Democratic Party’s and other liberal organization’s platforms/guiding principles. More significantly, however, a belief’s correctness or incorrectness isn’t altered by its organizational adoption.
Its nature is what it is, and, in fact, beliefs are always embraced “informally” (at least by some) before they’re ever declared official organization positions. Why, Catholic beliefs, some of which so trouble the left-wing dogmatists, were themselves held as true by many faithful Catholics long before being declared dogma (e.g., the Trinity, not established as official Church doctrine until the Council of Nicea in 325).
Furthermore, it is personal, passionately held dogma that’s far more relevant to an individual’s job performance than dogma officially declared by an organization with which he may have some association.
Consider “Catholic” Justice Sonya Sotomayor. Since her judicial opinions certainly aren’t constrained by constitutional dictates, ask yourself what appears to most inform them. Catholic teaching…or what we currently call “leftism”? Because something does.
The point is that everyone has a world view — a philosophical foundation — that shapes his positions on everything else.
For example, if you believe man is divinely created and infused with a soul upon conception, you’ll almost assuredly be pro-life. But if you’re an atheist, declared or de facto, and consider man just a soulless organic robot comprising some pounds of chemicals and water, you may subscribe to the baby-as-unviable-tissue-mass thesis. Both these positions reflect dogmas. But the dogmas are only recognized as such with respect to the pro-life position because they happen to be dogmas the culture-shaping pseudo-elites, ever blind to their own dogmas, don’t like.
Either way, though, you’ll vote to overturn Roe v. Wade if you’re true to the Constitution because it does not guarantee a “right” to abortion. This is where it gets interesting, however.
It’s clear that so-called “religious” justices — such as Clarence Thomas and the late Antonin Scalia — who certainly believe there’s a higher law than the Constitution and are supposedly “enslaved by dogma,” are nonetheless far more likely to adhere to our founding document than their more “secular” colleagues.
This isn’t merely because, as I’ve explained, the Constitution is by its nature a “conservative” document. It’s not even just that “religious” justices apparently take oaths more seriously, especially those concluding with “So help me God.”
It’s also, first, that since they recognize ours as an ordered universe of moral absolutes, they’re oriented toward absolutes and are more likely to accept legal absolutes as just that — like them or not. Second, having the humility born of worshipping God and accepting that they’re not Him, they’re less apt to deify themselves and play God.
This constitutional adherence, by the way, is precisely what leftists don’t want despite their claims to the contrary. They instead want likeminded justices who view the Constitution as, to quote Thomas Jefferson, “a mere thing of wax…which they may twist and shape in to any form they please.”
Speaking of which, it is these “liberal/secular” judges who upon nomination to a higher court should be grilled mercilessly. They should be asked: “With what dogma do you justify, wholly contrary to the framers’ intent, treating the Constitution as a “living document”?
The most fundamental answer is one they wouldn’t offer even if they were introspective enough to grasp it. To wit: They reject Truth (absolute by definition) and thus are relativists — and, ultimately, such people too often make everything relative to themselves (My will be done!). Hence the judicial thing-of-wax rationalization called “pragmatism.”
Speaking of illusions, there’s another common prejudice here, one related to that concerning dogmas. It’s the idea, implicit in Feinstein’s Barrett criticism, that authentic “religiosity” should be a disqualifying factor. It’s also reflected in our “separation of church and state” (which is not in the Constitution) dogma, which places “religion” on the back of the bus. But consider:
If the ideas in question really are handed down by God, the Creator of the Universe and Author of All, don’t we have an obligation to infuse our public square and schools with them? To this the secularists will say, “Well, that’s your belief — in sky fairies. But these ideas are just man-made.”
Yet if so, why discriminate against them? Why say that ideas we happen to call “secular” may be in the public square but those we happen to call “religious” may not be? If they’re all man-made, wherein lies the relevant difference?
The truth hiding in plain sight is that in the most important sense, the religious/secular distinction is a false distinction. Note here that the current predominant usage of “secular” dates back only to the mid-19th century. In fact, once upon a time in the West the religious vs. secular dichotomy would have made no sense to people at all. Our remote ancestors viewed the relevant distinction as being, most simply put, the true vs. the untrue.
Now, you may take issue with, let’s say, medieval man’s conception of Truth, but the logic is airtight. Consider: If Marxism is essentially false, what’s most significant: that we call it “secular” or that it’s untrue? If God is real, what’s most significant: that belief in Him is labeled “religious” or that it is true?
Oh, and for those assuming there’s some greater correlation between so-called “secularism” and what’s true, the birth of Nazism, fascism, Marxism and other sordid and sundry isms says otherwise.
There is only the true and the untrue — anything obscuring this reality is dark unreality.
And the truth about Amy Coney Barrett is, quite possibly, not that the Democrats are afraid she’ll impose Catholicism. They’re perhaps afraid that because she honors God, she’ll also honor her oath and impose constitutionalism.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Selwyn Dukehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngSelwyn Duke2020-09-29 08:07:522020-09-29 08:07:52Amy Coney Barrett and the Zealots
“Myself and Alicia Garza in particular are trained organizers. We are trained Marxists.” – Patrisse Cullors, Black Lives Matter Founder
“Evil preaches tolerance, until it is dominant, then it seeks to silence the Good.” – Father Altman, 2020
“The communists know, as the American people do not, that the city and community police forces now constitute one of the most important remaining obstacles to the gradual, insidious, and at first invisible establishment of the mechanics of their communist police state.” – Robert Welch, JBS Founder
Most conservatives understand that Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Antifa are communist organizations and are committed to overthrowing America’s culture, society and constitutional order. BLM was founded in 2013 by three black women who are avowed Marxists. They are also prophetesses of demonic darkness.
Antifa was founded in Germany in 1932; they promoted communism over fascism. The two organizations work diligently together fomenting anarchy, along with dozens of smaller communist and Islamic groups, under the guise of eliminating police brutality against black Americans, which national statistics have proven to be false. We are not experiencing a wave of social unrest generated by injustice or police brutality. We are watching an insurrection in progress, one which uses police violence as a pretext, but which has as its goal the destruction of the existing social, economic and political order in the United States.
Most Americans do not understand the demonic reality of Marxism and the communist infiltration of every facet of American society, peoples and culture. This is the story of one black man’s devotion to communism for ten years, and his exit and exposure of their true evil.
Soviet Communists and Black Americans
In 1958, Manning R. Johnson wrote “Color, Communism and Common Sense,” a 78-page pamphlet about the communist infiltration of the black American community to incite strife, anger, envy, violence and riots. Johnson saw inequities against his race, but he was also raised in a Christian home and that core training led him out of the communist regime after ten years of watching how truly evil they were. In 1958, black Americans were still referred to as Negroes and that is how Mr. Johnson writes of his race and the communist penetration.
Manning Johnson’s book should be in everyone’s library. He exposes the names of the communist leaders in society who masqueraded as progressive liberals. The 78-page booklet tells how black churches were subverted and the communist plot to use black Americans, concocted by Stalin in 1928, to create racial hatred. He tells of the real “Uncle Toms,” communists who pose as “friends of the Negro,” and under the guise of a campaign for black rights, set race against race in a cold-blooded struggle for power. They are the ones who plotted with a diabolical foreign power the moral decay, physical slavery and spiritual death of their own race.
Manning Johnson was inducted into the party largely because of the preaching of a communist Bishop of the Episcopal church, but his early Christian upbringing made him revolt at the obscene immorality of the Communist Party and its members. The communists had infiltrated the pulpits of America’s black churches, and don’t think they haven’t infiltrated the white ones as well.
Johnson labored for ten years in the cause of communism and was a dedicated comrade. He believed that the end of capitalism “would bring the beginning of an interminable period of plenty, peace, prosperity and universal comradeship.” He stated, “Being an idealist, I was sold this ‘Bill of Goods’ by a Negro graduate of the Lenin Institute in Moscow.”
Little did Mr. Johnson realize until he was deeply enmeshed in the Red Conspiracy, that just and seeming grievances are exploited to transform idealism into a cold and ruthless weapon against the capitalist system—that this was the end toward which all the communist efforts among black Americans are directed. He stated that he saw communism in its naked cruelty, in its ruthlessness and utter contempt of Christian attributes and passions. He saw the low value placed upon human life, the total lack of respect for the dignity of man, the betrayal of trust, the terror of the Secret Police and the bloody hand of the assassin during and since those fateful years when he embraced communism.
Manning Johnson rose to one of the highest ranks, but found that the communists only intended to use his people in a bloody revolution to destroy America. When he woke up to this evil, he dropped out of the party and spent the rest of his life warning all American citizens of the true nature of the Communist Party as he knew it from the inside.
Reds Seek Division
In 1928, communists said the racial differences between the American people constituted the weakest and most vulnerable point in our fabric. The communists calculated that by constantly straining at this one spot, they believed eventually the cloth could be torn apart and Americans could be divided, weakened and set against each other ultimately ending in open combat. (How many times have we heard that a new civil war is brewing?)
But communist agitators are not just in the black community, they’re working the white community as well. White communist “friends” descended upon the black communities to help them become “liberated” from racial prejudice. Many of today’s BLM anarchists are white and some are school teachers. The goal is hatred, bloodshed and violence between the races and they don’t care how they get it.
Black communists laid all the blame of the ills of black Americans at the feet of the white leaders of America. Statues of historic figures, including America’s founders, have been purposefully destroyed by today’s anarchists. “Capitalism and imperialism are made symbols of oppressive white rule in keeping with instructions from the Kremlin.”
Johnson wrote, “Black rebellion was what Moscow wanted. Bloody racial conflict would split America. During the confusion, demoralization and panic would set in. Then finally the Reds say, ‘Workers stop work,’ and many of them seize arms by attacking arsenals. Street fights become frequent. Under the leadership of the Communist Party, the workers organize revolutionary committees to be in command of the uprising. Armed workers seize the principle government offices, invade the residence of the president and his cabinet members, arrest them, declare the old regime abolished, and establish their own power.” This is the ultimate communist plan.
Reds in America’s Courts
In 1926, R. M. Whitney wrote Reds in America, a book which exposed the Red plot in all its major ramifications. It was profusely illustrated with documents seized from communist sources by Federal authorities. In August of 1922, at a meeting of communist leaders in Bridgman, Michigan, the racial division program was read to all and promoted. In 1958, the tragic effects of public and official indifference were obvious. And now, sixty-two years later we are seeing the race revolution come alive. The Reds have been plotting the overthrow of America for over a century.
Communist agents plotted the use of U.S. courts to aid in their communist goals. In Manning Johnson’s book, he includes a 1917 letter by former President Teddy Roosevelt to Felix Frankfurter wherein he criticizes Frankfurter for supporting “traitors,” “Bolsheviks” and “murderers.” Frankfurter, a Harvard Law School grad, worked for Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson. During World War I, he served as Judge Advocate General. After the war, he helped found the leftist/communist American Civil Liberties Union and returned to his position as professor at Harvard Law School.
Frankfurter was nominated to the high court in 1939 by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and served until 1962. He was a loyal and trusted advisor to FDR and promoted his unconstitutional New Deal. (President Teddy Roosevelt, uncle to Eleanor Roosevelt, was right…FDR was a man who embraced communists in his administration.) Johnson documents that Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter quoted Red propaganda to bolster Supreme Court rulings.
Archibald Roosevelt, the fifth child of Teddy Roosevelt, wrote the preface to Johnson’s book and stated that Justice Frankfurter used a communist statement in his majority opinion for “Communist Party vs. Subversion Board.” One has to wonder how Frankfurter’s communist leanings influenced his judicial decisions
Reds in America’s Universities
Numerous organizations were formed, directed, controlled, and led by Reds and fellow travelers to influence and expose millions of black Americans to communist ideas. Through those organizations and many others, black institutions of higher education like Howard University were penetrated to subvert teachers and students and politically contaminate the intellectual stream of black lives. In 2016, the Washington Times reported that liberal professors outnumbered conservatives by twelve to one.
Here is the testimony of Judge Cobb, a patriotic black American, former professor of Constitutional Law and vice dean of Howard University, in which he tried to alert America to the grave dangers to our internal security inherent in the advocacy of communism by Mr. Mordecai W. Johnson, President of Howard University.
James A. Cobb was admitted to the bar in 1902 and began working for Howard University in 1917. Cobb was a member of the Washington Bar Association for black lawyers and a special assistant to the attorney general. In 1925 President Coolidge appointed him a municipal court judge; he was the only African American on the municipal bench.
The failure to heed the sensational disclosures and timely warnings of Judge Cobb may well lie at the root of much of the present racial conflict, a conflict inspired by communists over a century ago.
Early Black Communists
E. B. Du Bois, writing in 1913, famously called the race question “the great test of the American socialist.” Later generations of socialists tended to agree with him, elevating the antiracist struggle to a place of centrality in left strategy. From the 1930s to the present day, American leftists have seen the struggle against racial oppression, most centrally of black Americans, as one of the key questions radicals face in the movement to remake American society. Du Bois was one of the founders of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 1909. Manning Johnson refers to the NAACP as The National Association for the Agitation of Colored People.
Eugene Victor “Gene” Debs (November 5, 1855 – October 20, 1926) was an American socialist, political activist, trade unionist, one of the founding members of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) and five times the candidate of the Socialist Party of America for President of the United States. And there’s more…
Prior to the founding of the Socialist Party of America in 1901, there were two black socialists who left their mark in the historical record: Peter H. Clark who believed socialism was the remedy for society’s evils. Clark joined the communist Workers Party of the United States (WPUS), the American affiliate of the International Workingmen’s Association, in 1876, shortly after its founding.
George Washington Woodbey was born into slavery in 1854. He moved to San Diego in 1902 and joined the newly formed Socialist Party. He said, “In the days of chattel slavery the masters had a patrol force to keep the negroes in their place and protect the interests of the masters. Today the capitalists use the police for the same purpose.” Sound familiar? This was the very beginning of the communist plot to defund America’s police and leave us indefensible.
Black History Heroes
America’s black communists were the antithesis of men like prominent black scientist, George Washington Carver whose quotes live on as guides to the people of America. “Ninety-nine percent of the failures come from people who have the habit of making excuses.” And, “Fear of something is at the root of hate for others, and hate within will eventually destroy the hater.”
“The surge of progress of black Americans since slavery is largely traced to the work and efforts of these two men, their supporters, their emulators and their followers. They had a deep and abiding pride of race, a firm belief in the ability of their people to rise above their past and stand on an equal plane with all others. Equality was to them, not just a catch-word, but a living thing to be achieved only by demonstrated ability.”
Communists have worked to destroy the magnificent lives of men like Carver and Washington. These are men who loved freedom and loved the country who provided liberty to every American.
The communists raised their ugly heads in the hopes of destroying America’s new found freedoms shortly after the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776 to announce our separation from England. The signing of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 and our unalienable Bill of Rights was ratified in December of 1791 gave us the freedoms granted by God Almighty to all.
Communist missionaries stir over the long dying embers of race hatred, fears and grievances. Decades ago, America consigned this to history, but Marxists want to keep it alive to destroy America’s race relations.
Obvious to even the most ignorant is the fact that everyone has prejudices in one form or another…it can be race differences, nationality, religion, economics, social and cultural standing…it can even be over your weight for heaven’s sake. We all have prejudices in one form or another…whether you wish to admit it or not.
The entire smear job on America has been in the works for a century. Editorial writers, columnists, news commentators and analysts go overboard to destroy America via press, radio and television. They give top coverage to racial incidents, fomented by leftists. The black race is the sacrificial lamb of the widespread racial hatred the left is creating. Race hatred is the Red cause, it feeds their destruction of our country. They want to wipe out all the mutual cooperation and friendship and set the opening of a dark and bloody era in black and white relations.
Congressman Tom Price served as the U.S. Representative for Georgia’s 6th congressional district, encompassing the northern suburbs of Atlanta, A physician Dr Price He was appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services by President Donald Trump. While in Congress, Price chaired the House Committee on the Budget, Republican Study Committee and Republican Policy Committee.
TOPIC: Trump’s Personalized Medicine Vision Is the Clear Choice for Voters!
Daniel Bobinski was an executive coach and workplace issues consultant & trainer – and still does some of that. He was teaching emotional intelligence to managers and leaders since before it was a thing. He’s a prolific columnist and a New York Times best selling author.But a year ago Daniel was given the opportunity to write on political issues, and speaking truth to the issues of the day has become his passion. He’s now the assistant editor at UncoverDC.com and also a contributor at RedState. He’s also the host of the New Book of Daniel, podcast.
TOPIC: The Curious Activity of George Soros!
JESSIE JANE DUFF
Jessie Jane Duff served 20 years in the U.S. Marine Corps and retired as a Gunnery Sergeant. She is on President Trump’s Campaign Advisory Board, Women for Trump and Co-Chair for Veterans for Trump. Jessie is a spokesperson for Americans for Limited Government, a Newsmax TV Contributor and can also be seen and heard on nationally syndicated radio and television shows including Fox News, Fox Business, and OANN.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Conservative Commandos Radio Showhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngConservative Commandos Radio Show2020-09-29 06:10:252020-09-29 06:14:36PODCAST: Biden Sleaze -- Like Father, Like Son!
WASHINGTON (ChurchMilitant.com) – President Trump has announced Judge Amy Coney Barret as his pick for the Supreme Court.
He made the announcement Saturday evening in the Rose Garden to a standing ovation, with Barrett accompanied by her husband and seven children. Maureen Scalia, widow to Justice Antonin Scalia, who once said of Barrett that she was his best student, was also present.
“Law and order is the foundation of the American system of justice,” said Trump. “No matter the issue, no matter the case before her, I am supremely confident Judge Amy Coney Barrett will issue fair rulings based on the law.”
He also hinted at the difficult confirmation battle ahead, and made a plea to Democrats “to refrain from personal or partisan attacks.”
Barrett took to the podium to thank the president, promising to carry out her duties faithfully.
“If the Senate does me the honor of confirming me, I pledge to discharge the responsibility of this job to the very best of my responsibility,” she said. “I love the United States, and I love the United States Constitution.”
In an ode to her mentor Scalia, she said of her judicial philosophy, “The law must be applied as written. Judges are not policy makers.”
A Distinguished Career
Barrett is a graduate of Notre Dame Law School, graduating summa cum laude and going on to serve as law clerk to Judge Laurence Silberman on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. She afterwards clerked for the man to whom she is considered ideological heir: the late Justice Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court.
She taught at Notre Dame Law School for 15 years, and was among hundreds of signatories to a 2012 letter objecting to an accommodation in the HHS Contraception Mandate in Obamacare, described as an “assault on religious liberty and the rights of conscience” of religiously affiliated employers.
Her prolific writings and jurisprudence embody an originalist approach to the Constitution, and a rejection of the activist model followed by jurists who fail to separate personal preference or political ideology from law.
“A judge is obligated to apply the law as it is and not as she wishes it would be,” said Barrett at a 2019 speech at Hillsdale College. “She’s obliged to follow the law even when her personal preferences cut the other way, or when she will experience great public criticism for doing so.”
Barrett has been a member of the influential Federalist Society, founded in 1982 and describing itself as “a group of conservatives and libertarians dedicated to reforming the current legal order.”
A Catholic mother of seven, with two children adopted from Haiti and one child with Down Syndrome, the 48-year-old is hailed by conservatives and liberals alike as a person of integrity and intelligence.
When she was nominated in 2017 for the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, every law clerk who served at the Supreme Court during Barrett’s time there in 1998 — including clerks for Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer — wrote a letter supporting her nomination.
“Professor Barrett is a woman of remarkable intellect and character. She is eminently qualified for the job,” the letter states. “This view is unanimous — every law clerk from October Term 1998 has joined this letter.”
Barrett is careful, conscientious, civil, and charitable, and blessed with an unusual combination of decency, grace under pressure, kindness, rigor, and judgment. If nominated and confirmed, she would be an outstanding justice, committed to the rule of law and to the faithful performance of her judicial duty.
Professor Carter Snead, also of Notre Dame Law School, recently said of her, “She puts people at ease because she always puts the needs of other people, and that includes students, in front of her own — which is very unusual in the world of people who perform at the level she does.”
And former student Laura Wolk, the first blind woman to clerk on the Supreme Court, credits her success to Barrett, while defending her former professor’s Catholic faith: “The warmth and compassion that Judge Barrett has shown me on so many occasions flow from the same wellspring of faith for which she is now so excoriated.”
Roe v. Wade
The landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade case will be front and center in the confirmation battle.
Unlike Trump’s previous nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, who was replacing the moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy, Barrett would be filling the seat of liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who devoted her judicial career to advancing abortion from the bench. And it is the right to abortion the Left finds under greatest threat with Barrett’s nomination.
While Barrett is a devout Catholic and pro-life, she has made clear she will not approach the Constitution from an ideological standpoint. An acknowledged originalist, she believes the historical context and meaning of the Constitution must be taken into account in its interpretation; but she also recognizes the role of stare decisis (precedent).
Even so, she has clarified that precedent — especially when it is bad law — is not insurmountable. And Roe is widely criticized by conservative and liberal jurists alike as poorly reasoned and bad law.
Roe‘s harshest critics, including Justice Clarence Thomas, have described the case as creating a right to abortion “out of whole cloth.”
“Our abortion precedents are grievously wrong and should be overruled,” Thomas wrote in a scathing dissent in June Medical Services v. Russo(2020). “The idea that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment understood the Due Process Clause to protect a right to abortion is farcical.”
Barrett has signaled her own opinion that Roe is not beyond reversal.
“Stare decisis is not a hard-and-fast rule in the Court’s constitutional cases, and the Court has not been afraid to exercise its prerogative to overrule precedent,” she wrote in a 2013 Texas Law Review article. “Moreover, members of the public (and particularly elites) regularly argue that the Court should overrule certain of its cases.”
“If anything, the public response to controversial cases like Roe reflects public rejection of the proposition that stare decisis can declare a permanent victor in a divisive constitutional struggle rather than desire that precedent remain forever unchanging,” she added.
Barrett’s supporters are bracing for a difficult confirmation battle, with questions that will likely swirl around her faith and how it may impact her rulings from the High Court bench.
“At least two people were injured, including a man who was bloodied. Ambulances were summoned. People chased the car, which eventually stopped and was surrounded by sheriff’s deputies,” the OC Register reports.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Pamela Gellerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngPamela Geller2020-09-27 07:50:342020-09-27 07:52:37VIDEO: Multiple Injuries After Car Plows Through Crowd of Trump Supporters in California
Sharia-adherent leftist activist and former Women’s March leader Linda Sarsour tweeted Wednesday: “Justice has NOT been served. Rise UP. All across this country. Everywhere. Rise up for #BreonnaTaylor.”
She meant it: yesterday evening Sarsour, who was bounced from the Women’s March leadership because of her anti-Semitism, was spotted in video from Louisville, walking among protesters and apparently leading them to their next destination. Sarsour’s presence among demonstrators in Louisville, many of whom quickly began rioting (two police officers were shot), was yet another example of the leftist/Islamic alliance.
We saw two other such examples during the riots in New York City several months ago. Urooj Rahman, a Muslim lawyer and activist for the Palestinian jihad, threw a Molotov cocktail into a police cruiser, and in Brooklyn, a Muslim migrant from Bosnia named Dzenan Camovic stabbed an NYPD officer, Yayonfrant Jean Pierre, in the neck while screaming “Allahu akbar.”
Sarsour’s presence in Louisville was no real surprise. She was arrested in Louisville on August 25 at “BreonnaCon,” an earlier protest over the death of Taylor. Back on May 27, she tweeted: “‘A riot,’ Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, ‘is the language of the unheard.’ #JusticeForFloyd.”
Sarsour is also an unapologetic defender of Sharia. As far back as September 22, 2011, Sarsour tweeted: “shariah law is reasonable and once u read into the details it makes a lot of sense. People just know the basics.” Her position didn’t change over time. On May 12, 2015, she tweeted: “If you are still paying interest than Sharia Law hasn’t taken over America. #justsaying.” And on April 10, 2016, Sarsour tweeted about Sharia again: “Sharia Law is misunderstood & has been pushed as some evil Muslim agenda.”
Sarsour tweeted on March 8, 2011: “Brigitte Gabriel = Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She’s asking 4 an a$$ whippin’. I wish I could take their vaginas away – they don’t deserve to be women.” This call for physical violence against someone she hated was a harbinger of things to come, but it received no notice among her sycophants on the left. After all, why would it? They’re committed to the same violence.
This is the left today. Sarsour’s anti-Semitism, her embrace of Sharia, her paranoid “Islamophobia” conspiracy-mongering – all that is the mainstream left now. For Linda Sarsour is not alone; other Muslim activists in the U.S. have actively fostered this alliance. Zahra Billoo, Executive Director of the San Francisco Bay Area office of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-SFBA), tweeted: “Non-Black POC, first and second generation immigrant Muslims friends in particular, what are you doing today to support #BlackLivesMatter?” Imraan Siddiqi of CAIR-Arizona tweeted out a video of a hijab-wearing Muslim woman kicking a tear gas canister toward police with the approving comment, “Drop-kick that tear-gas canister, sister.”
Meanwhile, not long ago in Los Angeles, rioters were so grieved and angered by Floyd’s death that they spray-painted “Free Palestine” on the wall of a synagogue. This was in line with Urooj Rahman’s Molotov cocktail back in Brooklyn. In an interview before her attack, she enunciated the common goal of both movements: “This s–t won’t ever stop unless we f–kin’ take it all down.”
In both the interview and during her attack, Rahman kept a Palestinian keffiyeh close to her face. Her sartorial choice was not incidental. With her attempted torching of the police cruiser (her Molotov cocktail didn’t light), she brought Palestinian jihad tactics to the riots in the U.S. She also revealed the congruence between the ideology of the left in America today and that of jihadists, not just the Palestinians, but all over the world.
Meanwhile, the left’s anti-Americanism and determination to “f–kin’ take it all down” has been on abundant display in the recent riots in Louisville and elsewhere, and continues, to the apparent delight of Muslims such as Linda Sarsour, Urooj Rahman, Zahra Billoo, and Imraan Siddiqi. When Rahman was arrested, she was wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with the slogan “THE STRUGGLE CONTINUES REGARDLESS.” The Arabic word for “struggle” is, of course, jihad.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Robert Spencerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRobert Spencer2020-09-27 07:29:542020-09-27 07:29:54Linda Sarsour In Louisville: The Leftist/Islamic Alliance in Action
On Saturday, September 26, 2020, in the Rose Garden, President Donald J. Trump nominated a woman to the United States Supreme court. Her name is Amy Amy Coney Barrett who currently is a Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Judge Barrett showed her love for the United States of America and the U.S. Constitution.
Judge Barrett is first and foremost a woman, a wife and a loving mother. Democrats and their supporters have given the impression to the nation that they are pro-woman. Remember the 2017 Woman’s March in Washington, D.C.? The stated goal of the Woman’s March was:
“Protection of our rights, our safety, our health, and our families – recognizing that our vibrant and diverse communities are the strength of our country”
The actions of the Democrat Party and their supporters tell a very different story when it comes to Judge Barrett and her diverse family.
The Democrat’s “Illegitimate Sham” Scam
On September 25, 2020 the day before President Trump’s announcement Democrat Senator Tim Kaine appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. Democrat Senator Tim Kaine said he refuses to vote for President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, calling it an “illegitimate process.”
I will oppose the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, as I would any nominee proposed as part of this illegitimate sham process, barely one month before an election as Americans are already casting their votes. Americans deserve a voice in this hugely consequential decision.
Democrat’s Attack ACB’s Black Children and Benjamin, her son with Downs Syndrome
Christopher Wright in an email stated:
Leftists are attacking Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett for adopting two black children from Haiti, one of them with physical challenges who is now a track star. You heard that right – attacking Barrett for sacrificing mightily to help the disadvantaged. Here’s one such attack, insinuating that a conniving Barrett was merely adopting the children to fend off future accusations of racism:
“Some White colonizers ‘adopted’ Black children. They ‘civilized’ these ‘savage’ children in the ‘superior’ ways of White people, while using them as props in their lifelong pictures of denial, while cutting the biological parents of these children out of the picture of humanity.”
Her husband, Jesse M. Barrett, is an attorney and former federal prosecutor. They live in South Bend, Indiana, with their seven children, five biological (the youngest with special needs) and two adopted from Haiti.
Barrett herself was the oldest of seven and grew up in New Orleans, Louisiana. She received a bachelor’s degree, magna cum laude, in English literature from Rhodes College, where she was a member of Phi Beta Kappa.
Barrett attended Notre Dame Law School on a full-tuition scholarship as a Kiley fellow. She graduated summa cum laude from Notre Dame and was first in her 1997 class, receiving the Hoynes Prize. She was executive editor of the Notre Dame Law Review and received awards for the best exam in 10 of her courses.
Barrett, a Roman Catholic, also belongs to People of Praise, a nondenominational, faith-based group that grew out of the Pentecostal revival of the early 20th century. Members provide each other with practical and spiritual advice, and have opened eight Blue Ribbon schools and undertaken missionary work throughout the country.
Barrett clerked for two prominent federal judges, Laurence Silberman on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (1997-98) and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (1998-99).
Back to Notre Dame
After a brief time in private practice, during which she was on the team representing George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore following the 2000 presidential election, and teaching law at George Washington University and the University of Virginia, Barrett headed in 2002 to her alma mater, Notre Dame Law School, where she would teach for the next 15 years.
Barrett became a full professor in 2010; three graduating classes voted her “Distinguished Professor of the Year.”
Barrett’s extensive scholarship focuses on areas of particular relevance to appellate judges, such as constitutional law, the federal courts, and statutory interpretation. In particular, her work on originalism and judicial precedent earned her a national reputation. This scholarship reflects her understanding of the defined, limited role that judges play in our system of government.
In a 2003 article in the University of Colorado Law Review, Barrett examined the relationship between precedent and due process, arguing that a rigid or inflexible adherence to precedent actually might deprive litigants of a full opportunity to present the merits of their claims. The legal doctrine of stare decisis, or adherence to precedent, Barrett wrote, must be “flexible in fact, not just in theory.”
In a 2010 article in Boston University Law Review, Barrett explored textualism, stating:
The bedrock principle of textualism, and the basis on which it has distinguished itself from other interpretive approaches, is its insistence that federal courts cannot contradict the plain language of a statute, whether in the service of legislative intention or in the exercise of a judicial power to render the law more just. … There is no justification for departing from the plain text of a constitutional statute.
In a 2013 article in Texas Law Review, Barrett examined how the principle that the Supreme Court should follow its own past decisions is a “weak presumption” in cases that interpret the Constitution.
She endorsed the view that “a justice’s duty is to the Constitution and that it is thus more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she clearly thinks is in conflict with it.”
In the article, she explained that “public response to controversial cases like Roe [v. Wade] reflects public rejection of the proposition that stare decisis can declare a permanent victor in a divisive constitutional struggle rather than desire that precedent remain forever unchanging.”
Joining the 7th Circuit
When Trump nominated her to the 7th Circuit, every Supreme Court clerk from the year when Barrett clerked there wrote a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee supporting her nomination.
One signatory, Harvard law professor Noah Feldman, a noted liberal scholar, said this about Barrett in 2018 when she was under consideration for the Supreme Court seat that ultimately went to Brett Kavanaugh:
There were just under 40 Supreme Court clerks in October Term 1998, none exactly a slouch. She was one of the two best lawyers of the 40—and arguably the single best. Any Senate Democrat who tries to go toe to toe with Barrett over her legal abilities is going to lose. Badly. She has only eight months’ experience on the court of appeals after a career as a law professor. But she was legally prepared enough to go on the court 20 years ago.
Although Article VI, clause 3 of the Constitution provides that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States,” Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., asked Barrett: “Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?”
And then Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., proclaimed: “When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you. And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for for years in this country.”
Democrats also focused extensively on an article in Marquette Law Review that Barrett co-authored with Notre Dame law professor John H. Garvey. They examined the “cultural collision” that can occur when a Catholic judge handles a death penalty case and whether her church’s teaching can be at odds with her judicial responsibility.
Barrett and Garvey concluded: “Judges cannot—nor should they try to—align our legal system with the Church’s moral teaching whenever the two diverge. They should, however, conform their own behavior to the Church’s standard.”
The solution to an irreconcilable conflict, they wrote, is “the recusal of judges whose convictions keep them from doing their job.”
Barrett’s critics accused her of believing the opposite of what she wrote in this article, continuing to claim that she “thinks judges should put their religion ahead of the law.” By creating this false impression, these critics could suggest that Barrett would rely on her Catholic faith to decide cases on other divisive issues such as abortion.
In response to this onslaught during her confirmation hearing, Barrett exhibited grace under fire, stating what she would do if she faced a conflict between her religious faith and judicial duty.
“I would recuse,” she testified. “I would never impose my own personal convictions upon the law.”
It is “never appropriate,” she added, “for a judge to impose that judge’s personal convictions, whether they derive from faith or anywhere else, on the law.”
What Her Record Shows
As a judge, Barrett’s record reflects what she actually wrote in that article and what she actually said in her Senate testimony.
In Lee v. Watson, for example, Barrett joined an opinion by Chief Judge Diane Sykes vacating an injunction that blocked the execution of Daniel Lewis Lee, a member of the Aryan People’s Republic, convicted of a 1996 triple murder. The opinion is a straightforward application of the Federal Death Penalty Act and criticized the district court judge’s improper “maneuver” of creating her own theory of the case to reach her result. Barrett joined a similar opinion, also written by Sykes, in Peterson v. Barr.
Barrett’s judicial docket has included some hot-button issues. In Kanter v. Barr, Kanter pled guilty to mail fraud, a felony that, under both federal and state law, resulted in a lifetime ban on firearm possession. Kanter sued, arguing that the categorical ban violated the Second Amendment when applied to nonviolent felons like him. The district court rejected his challenge and, by a 2-1 vote, the 7th Circuit affirmed.
The lone dissenter was Barrett, arguing that “[a]bsent evidence that he either belongs to a dangerous category or bears individual markers of risk, permanently disqualifying Kanter from possessing a gun violates the Second Amendment.”
In Barrett’s view, the Constitution grants the right to keep and bear arms to all, while giving Congress the limited authority to take that right away from some. She rejected the alternative view that, in effect, Congress gets to decide who has the right to keep and bear arms and who does not. This may seem like a fine distinction to some, but it shows that Barrett gives fundamental constitutional rights the importance they deserve.
Barrett has joined, but has not written, opinions in abortion-related cases. Planned Parenthood v. Commissioner was a challenge to Indiana’s law prohibiting abortion for the purpose of sex selection or on the basis of disability and regulating disposal of fetal remains. A three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision that the prohibition was unconstitutional.
After the full 7th Circuit declined to rehear the case, Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote a dissenting opinion that was joined by Barrett. Although Indiana had not appealed the decision striking down the abortion ban, Easterbrook noted that Supreme Court precedents such as Roe v. Wade or Planned Parenthood v. Casey did not address whether the right to abortion they established extends to abortion “designed to choose the sex, race, and other attributes of children … We ought not impute to the Justices decisions they have not made about problems they have not faced.”
Regarding the portion of the decision striking down the fetal-disposal regulations, Easterbrook noted that states may protect the welfare of animals, including regulating the disposal of their remains, such that “[t]he panel has held invalid a statute that would be sustained had it concerned the remains of cats or gerbils.” If animal welfare statutes are rational, he wrote, “[i]sn’t that equally true of a statute about fetal remains?”
Planned Parenthood v. Box involved a challenge to an Indiana law requiring minors to notify their parents before obtaining an abortion. A three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit found the statute unconstitutional before it ever had been implemented, and the full 7th Circuit declined to review that decision.
Barrett, with three colleagues, joined a one-paragraph opinion by Judge Michael Kanne, arguing that the full 7th Circuit should have tackled the issue of when federal courts may issue pre-enforcement injunctions against state laws. “Preventing a state statute from taking effect,” he wrote, “is a judicial act of extraordinary gravity in our federal structure.”
In Price v. City of Chicago, pro-life activists challenged a Chicago ordinance that prohibited communication within eight feet of persons in the vicinity of abortion clinics. The district court upheld the ordinance, relying on a Supreme Court decision that the First Amendment permitted a “nearly identical” Colorado law.
Barrett joined a unanimous 7th Circuit panel affirming that decision. The opinion observed that the Supreme Court’s decisions in this area are “hard to reconcile” and are “in tension” with each other. Although the panel stated that the biding precedent “is incompatible with current First Amendment doctrine,” the judges said that they were nonetheless bound by the decision, and that it was up to the Supreme Court to decide whether to overturn that precedent.
Objectively Applying the Law
Barrett’s opinions on the 7th Circuit demonstrate that she is a judge who pays close attention to the factual record in each case and takes seriously the limited role of a federal appellate court (see here, and here).
Her judicial method, for example, emphasizes an objective application of the law, rather than her own subjective feelings about a case. In Mathews v. REV Recreation Group, she wrote that “[w]e sympathize with the Mathews’ plight; they bought a lemon.” But because the plaintiffs had not shown that the manufacturer had failed to honor its warranty, which was the legal issue in the case, the appeals court affirmed the lower court’s judgment for the defendant.
Barrett also wrote the opinion in Doe v. Purdue University, in which a male college student challenged his suspension after he was found guilty of sexual violence. That one-year suspension resulted in his expulsion from the ROTC program and loss of his related scholarship. He sued the university, claiming its procedures resulting in the suspension violated his constitutional rights as well as federal anti-discrimination laws.
In an opinion by Barrett, the 7th Circuit reversed the lower court, which had dismissed the case. Barret’s opinion was not a decision on the merits of the student’s claims, but rather a decision on whether the lawsuit could proceed or should be thrown out before it really began. Barrett concluded: “Purdue’s process fell short of what even a high school must provide to a student facing a days-long suspension.”
The university, for example, refused to disclose the evidence on which it based its decision to suspend the student. This alone, Barrett wrote, is “sufficient to render the process fundamentally unfair.”
She noted that the student might have problems later proving his claims later, “and the factfinder may not buy the inferences that he’s selling.”
“But his claim should have made it past the pleading stage,” she concluded, “so we reverse the magistrate judge’s premature dismissal of it.”
In Cook County v. Wolf, the Illinois county and a nonprofit advocacy organization challenged the Trump administration’s rule implementing the “public charge” provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act. That provision allows denial of admission to an immigrant who is “likely at any time to become a public charge.”
In a 2-1 decision, a panel of the 7th Circuit affirmed a lower court order enjoining the administration from implementing the rule. Barrett dissented, arguing that the majority erred when it said that the term “public charge” referred very narrowly to those who were “primarily and permanently dependent on public assistance.”
Barrett looked at how the term was understood when it first appeared in federal statutes in the late 19th century, concluding that both state legislatures and Congress viewed the term more broadly as a lack of self-sufficiency. Barrett also looked at how courts and administrative agencies used the term in the 20th century, concluding that the 1996 amendments to the public charge provision also took a broader view.
As a result, Barrett concluded that the Trump administration’s rule, which is consistent with this view, is reasonable and therefore likely would be upheld on the merits. As such, an injunction was inappropriate. Those challenging the rule, she wrote, really are challenging the policy choice that it represents, and litigation “is not the vehicle for resolving policy disputes.”
Speaking Outside Court
Barrett has continued to address significant issues outside the courtroom that also help others to understand her judicial philosophy.
In a 2018 speech, she stated that, properly understood, originalism does not involve trying to “think your way into the minds of the Framers.” Rather, she said, it is a recognition that “The text of the Constitution controls, so the meaning of the words at the time they were ratified is the same as their meaning today.”
People should not look to the Supreme Court as a super Legislature. They should look at the Court as an institution that interprets our laws and protects the rule of law, but doesn’t try to impose policy preferences – that’s the job of Congress and the president.
Barrett’s record gives every indication that she would do just that, and would put the law above her personal views.
Again, although Senate Democrats have vowed to do everything in their power to try to block her nomination to the Supreme Court, it will be a hard case for them to make given Barrett’s impressive record, fidelity to the Constitution, and respect for the rule of law.
Amy Coney Barrett no doubt would be an outstanding addition to the Supreme Court.
John G. Malcolm is the vice president of the Institute for Constitutional Government and director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, overseeing The Heritage Foundation’s work to increase understanding of the Constitution and the rule of law. Read his research. Twitter: @malcolm_john.
Democratic Socialists say, “America should be more like socialist countries such as Sweden and Denmark.” And millions of young people believe them…
For years, “Democratic Socialists” have been growing a crop of followers that include students and young professionals. America’s future will be in their hands.
How are socialists deluding a whole generation? One of their most effective arguments is that “democratic socialism” is working in Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Norway. They claim these countries are “proof” that socialism will work for America. But they’re wrong. And it’s easy to explain why.
Our friends at The Heritage Foundation just published a new guide that provides three irrefutable facts that debunks these myths. For a limited time, they’re offering it to readers of The Daily Signal for free.
Get your free copy of “Why Democratic Socialists Can’t Legitimately Claim Sweden and Denmark as Success Stories” today and equip yourself with the facts you need to debunk these myths once and for all.
Last night we received these photos from a reader in California. They appear to show hundreds of alleged unopened ballots in a garbage dumpster in California. We are working to verify. Big if true.
This is an exclusive from a Gateway Pundit reader in California.
Hey Gateway Pundit, I thought you might find this interesting. My dad found THOUSANDS of unopened ballots at the garbage dump in Petaluma, California, north of San Francisco.
From our reader:
My dad was throwing away some trash and saw them so he took some pictures. He told a lady who worked at the dump about it and she claimed that the county dumped them there. After my dad drove back around and saw the workers in the bin covering the ballots up with cardboard.
The guy crawling out of the dumpster in the green shirt worked there. He was covering up the ballots.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Pamela Gellerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngPamela Geller2020-09-26 07:35:102020-09-26 07:35:10CALOFORNIA: Man Finds THOUSANDS of Unopened Ballots in Garbage Dumpster, Workers Quickly Try to Cover Them Up
Amidst the mourning for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, we must ask, “Is it moral to honor evil people?” Ms. Ginsburg is remembered for achieving entry for women into Virginia Military Institute.
Her primary liberal vote was against Hobby Lobby’s right to opt out of health care that conflicts with their religious belief.
In this discussion on David Heavener Live, Pastor Mike Spaulding reflects on the advice of Scripture.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00David Heavenerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDavid Heavener2020-09-25 06:52:312020-09-26 10:43:38Video Commentary on the Passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg — L[R]GBT
How is this legal? In what world? What’s to stop them fro printing millions of them and mailing them from key battleground districts/counties/states.
Biden’s campaign sent this text message to a registered republican in Florida saying they will send them a “pre-filled vote by mail application” — I don’t know about the rest of you, but this seems fishy. pic.twitter.com/8iY7BxZNMQ
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Pamela Gellerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngPamela Geller2020-09-25 06:09:172020-09-25 06:42:16Biden’s campaign mailing out filled in ballots 'PRE-FILLED VOTE BY MAIL application'