Tag Archive for: President Donald J. Trump

Biden’s ‘Build Back Better’ is Bunk

Dems’ plans to import tens of millions of immigrant children prove it.


Despite the optimistic campaign slogan “Build Back Better,” in reality, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and their Radical Leftist political cohorts are waging a war against America and Americans because they know that For Dems to Succeed, Americans Must Fail.

Not unlike most politicians, Biden and Harris promise that if they are elected they will create tens of millions of high-paying jobs.

Of course they won’t tell you how they would create those jobs other than to make some vague statements about how the “Green New Deal” would create jobs as buildings, including houses, will have to be retrofitted to meet the new environmental standards that will be imposed on landlords across the U.S.

They never say who would pay for retrofitting those buildings or what would happen if the owners of the properties are unable to come up with the funding to modify their structures. (Would such property owners have the property confiscated by the Biden administration? No one is discussing this disturbing possibility.)

Meanwhile, Biden and Harris state that if elected they would defund the Border Patrol, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and decriminalize nearly every violation of our immigration laws including unlawful entry and re-entry and, presumably, immigration fraud.

Biden and Harris also insist, as did Hillary Clinton during her unsuccessful run for the Presidency inn 2016, that they would immediately create a massive legalization program for what they estimate are 11 million illegal aliens who are already present in the United States and place them on a path to U.S. citizenship.

That 11 million figure has been claimed by supposed journalists for more than a decade.

It has, however, been estimated that the number of illegal aliens who  could be a population of more than 25 millions illegal aliens.  I believe that even that number is much smaller than he actual number of aliens who would participate.  Back in 1985 the Reagan Amnesty that was part and parcel of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was supposed to provide roughly one million illegal aliens with lawful status.  In reality the final number was between 3.5 million and 4 million.

I addressed this issue in my recent article, Comprehensive Immigration Reform Should be Renamed the “Overwhelm America Act” in which I noted that on September 21, 2018 Yale University reported Yale Study Finds Twice as Many Undocumented Immigrants as Previous Estimates.  That report, published just over two years ago noted:

Using mathematical modeling on a range of demographic and immigration operations data, the researchers estimate there are 22.1 million undocumented immigrants in the United States.

However, as large as the number of illegal aliens who would be eligible to participate in such an ill-conceived program, the ultimate number of aliens who would be provided with lawful status would, in reality, be a multiple of the number of illegal aliens who are present in the United States.

This is because each and every legalized alien would immediately have the absolute right to immediately petition to have their spouses and all of their minor children to be lawfully admitted to the United States.

Many families in Third World Countries have large numbers of children.  If, for argument sake 25 million illegal aliens were to participate in the Biden/Harris Amnesty and if the average alien has four children, we could witness an immediate influx of 100 million alien children enter the United States!

One of the key issues for the Radical Left is the environment.

Every person in the United States has an ecological and economic footprint.  Each person needs more than a place to sleep.  They all need water, food, electricity, sewerage, transportation and healthcare.

As roads and transportation and infrastructure become overwhelmed, traffic will grind to a halt while pollution from cars, busses and trucks spew into the atmosphere.  There are parts of the country that experience droughts and electrical brownouts.  How would this massive influx of immigrants impact these struggling systems?

These tens of millions of immigrant children will all need to attend schools in the United States.  In 2007, nearly 14 years ago, the Congressional Budget Office published a paper,  The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local Governments  That report estimated that there were about 12 million illegal aliens present in the United States at the time the report was published.  It also noted that it costs 20% to 40% more to educate children who lack English language proficiency.

How sustainable would this situation be?

Now consider that among the proposals for Biden/Harris is that everyone in the United Stats, regardless of immigration status would be entitled to free health care and free college education.

How would our government cover the huge expenses that this would cost?

How would hospitals be able to treat all of these people?  There are communities today that already lack adequate health care facilities and capabilities.  Imagine how long the waiting lines in emergency rooms would stretch as seriously ill patients from around the world would flood these emergency rooms.

Add to this is Biden and Harris’ stated goal of creating immigration anarchy, with the promise of free health care would turn our entire country into the world’s ER!

America would become a magnate for the world’s sick.  Our immigration laws make no distinction about race, religion or ethnicity.

8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens enumerates the categories of aliens who are to be excluded. Among these classes of aliens who are to be prevented from entering the United States are aliens who suffer from dangerous communicable, diseases or extreme mental illness.

Additionally, convicted felons, human rights violators, war criminals, terrorists and spies are to be excluded as well as aliens who would seek unlawful employment thus displacing American workers or driving down the wages of American workers who are similarly employed and aliens who would likely become public charges.

Without enforcement the concerns about the entry of aliens with dangerous communicable diseases will go unaddressed.  Aliens from around the world who suffer from such dangerous communicable diseases would head for the United States to seek free treatment.

This could and would likely lead to multiple epidemics of dangerous diseases in the United States.

Hasn’t the COVID-19 Pandemic from China taught Biden or Harris anything?

The loss of secure borders that would result from the Biden/Harris immigration policies would leave America vulnerable to narcotics, transnational gangs and terrorists.  The 9/11 Commission. to which I provided testimony, identified multiple failures of the immigration system as being directly responsible for the ability of terrorists, and not only 9/11 hijacker terrorists, to enter the United States and embed themselves as they went about their deadly preparations.

Under the massive Biden/Harris amnesty program, national security would be irreparably undermined.  Because of the huge number of illegal aliens who could apply for lawful status, in-person interviews could not be conducted and field investigation would be out of the question.  Adjudications officers would have to make quick decisions based nearly entirely on the information provided in the applications for legalization.  This program would suffer from massive fraud and the 9/11 Commission, to which I provided testimony, identified immigration fraud as the key method of entry and embedding for international terrorists.  This issue was the predication and my focus in my extensive article, Immigration Fraud: Lies That Kill.

The obvious question that has never been asked of candidates for the President or other significant elected offices since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 is, “Have you read the 9/11 Commission Report and the companion report that was prepared by the 9/11 Commission staff, 9/11 and Terrorist Travel?

Recently we have seen where the weapon of choice for terrorists is not airliners but motor vehicles.  Yet Democrat-run states such as New York State not only provides illegal aliens with driver’s licenses, but New York State Blocks ICE and Border Patrol Access to DMV Database.

Finally, let us go back to the issue of those amazing jobs Mr. Biden claims he would provide for millions of struggling Americans.   In some of his campaign ads Biden speaks so wistfully about his father telling him when he was a boy that jobs not only provide money but dignity and a sense of purpose.

Of course that statement about the significance of jobs is accurate.  Extremely accurate.

However- with no secure borders and a massive influx of tens of millions of immigrant children who will quickly become adults and flood the labor pool, the Biden/Harris immigration policies would drive down wages and force hapless Americans to compete with tens of millions of foreign born workers for those ever so important jobs.

Barack Obama promised “shovel ready jobs” and now Biden has come up with a “shovel ready” job, shoveling the BS that he and Kamala spew when they make promises that are nothing but bald-faced lies that would irrevocably alter America- and not for the better!

©Michael Cutler. All rights reserved.

RELATED TWEET:

VIDEO: The Vortex — Either/Or

We’ll know God’s will shortly.


TRANSCRIPT

Church Militant (a 501(c)4 corporation) is responsible for the content of this commentary.

What has faithful Catholics (as well as non-Catholics who are men of goodwill) so bothered in their core about this election is one simple thing: The potential conquest of evil over truth on a grand scale.

Of course, we know that at the end of the world or at each person’s death, truth is victorious. But we aren’t living at the moment of the end of the world right now. At the present moment, the forces of evil have so well organized themselves and brought their power to bear — focused on the defeat of Trump — that a temporal victory by them would be devastating.

It would (at least temporarily) crush the spirits of good people everywhere. When you stop and think about the considerable forces arrayed against Trump, it’s truly troublesome. There is not a single power that has not aligned against him. And remember, it’s not really Trump himself who is their target. It’s what he says and promotes.

Sure, they probably don’t like him personally either, but that’s not the point. What they hate about him is his frankness about their evil. So evil has collectivized and is on the road to conquering, at least that is how it appears. There is so much misinformation out there — spread by an evil media devoted to destroying truth — that you don’t really know what to think, who to listen to, what’s real, what’s not, what’s a good guess.

And when it comes to the polls, even considering that the vast majority were pretty wrong in 2016, this year is a different story. There are a few things the seasoned poll watcher looks for in assessing a poll. Here’s a sample:

  • What’s the margin of the lead?
  • Has one candidate breached the 50% mark and sustained it for a while?
  • What’s the sample size?
  • What’s the margin of error?
  • Were those polled likely voters or just registered voters?
  • What was the distribution of those polled among Republican, Democrat and Independent?

Those are all key questions. And here’s the concern as of today: Even the reliable polling agencies (like Rasmussen and IDB) are coming into line with the corrupt media polling outfits. Rasmussen and IDB were the two outfits that got it right in 2016. The other major polls were all wrong — some really wrong.

So as nearly all the polls right now are beginning to show what looks like is shaping up to be something of a Biden landslide, it would not be wise to simply say they are all wrong — nothing to see here folks, and so forth.

One small caveat before we go on to the major point: Every poll begins with an assumption about voter turnout. They build their entire projection based on a somewhat-educated guess about how many people will actually vote. Laying aside the technical aspects of how they arrive at that projection, suffice it to say that their entire prediction rises and falls on that guess.

If a larger-than-assumed number of voters turn out (a surprise turnout it’s called) for one candidate or the other, then the pre-election polls get thrown out the window. But of course, there’s no way to know that until Election Day or after.

So today, we have to go with what’s in front of us, and from a spiritual point of view, we have an either/or situation. Let’s go with the “Biden landslide” scenario. Either God is whittling down His army, ensuring that everyone understands victory would be impossible without Him (like he did with Gideon whom He sent to attack and defeat the Midianite camp).

Recall, Gideon started with an army of 32,000, and God told him to keep cutting it down — it was too big; lose more soldiers. Not enough: Lose even more. Eventually, Gideon had only 300. And, of course, it was then that God said okay, attack.

The point being — no one could look at that battle victory and ascribe it to anyone else other than God. So we might have something like that going on. Or we could have the following scenario: The Church is in desperate need of cleansing. The crooked hierarchy has to be purged.

Nothing these men, many of whom are straight-up wicked, have encountered on an earthly level has dislodged them from their evil and cowardice. The Church is being destroyed on their watch. So since nothing human seems to have any impact, God is allowing people to come to power who will launch a full-scale persecution against the Church where these men will be simply be killed or imprisoned.

All their influence and power will be taken away — not to mention their wealth — and that will be that. And no, even though they have been complicit in bringing about the fall of Western civilization, they will not be spared by their fellow Marxists. They will be executed because they will no longer be useful to the cause.

They will not die as Catholic martyrs, but Catholic traitors who fell victim to their own evil designs. Now, of course, this scenario will entail massive suffering for Catholics: Up to and including death. Death is the currency Marxists traffic in — always has been, always will be.

The world that we have grown accustomed to as Catholics will not be the same. In fact, that world is gone. A Biden victory will create a culture of hate aimed at faithful Catholics because of who their Father is. Satan hates the Church, and once he has secured power for his offspring, he will then use them to turn on the Church, and the blood will begin flowing.

As we said, however, this may be the only way left of purifying the Church of these wicked men in the hierarchy. We are not a Church unaccustomed to persecution and martyrdom. But we as contemporary people are very unaccustomed to it.

Many would apostatize in such a scenario because, in reality, they have already apostatized, thanks to a hierarchy that lost supernatural faith. So, it will be one of these scenarios — either a great shock or a necessary outcome given the circumstances.

Whichever it is — because it will be one — pray and prepare to respond accordingly.

©Church Militant. All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Donald Trump Appeals to Us Because of You!

Reader Cristina sent this explanation (that has been making the rounds) of why Donald Trump will win on November 3rd (or some day thereafter) and although I couldn’t find the author, I found this version of it (and a short YouTube clip echoing the same theme)—we support him because of you!

I’m posting it all because it hits the nail on the head (for me anyway!). LOL! Even if the source turns out to be some Russian campaign!

(Emphasis is mine.)

First, here is a YouTube clip using some of the words and sentiment expressed below:

For Socialists Who Can’t Stand Trump And Can’t Grasp Why Anyone Would Ever Vote For Him…

“If you are a liberal who can’t stand Trump, and cannot possibly fathom why anyone would ever vote for him, let me fill you in.

It’s not that we love Donald Trump so much. It’s that we can’t stand you! And we will do whatever it takes — even if that means electing a rude, obnoxious, unpredictable, narcissist (your words not ours) to the office of President of the United States — because the thing we find more dangerous to this nation than Donald Trump is YOU.How is that possible you might ask?

Well, you have done everything in your power to destroy our country. From tearing down the police, to tearing down our history, to tearing down our borders.From systematically destroying our schools and brainwashing our kids into believing socialism is the answer to anything (despite being an unmitigated failure everywhere), while demonizing religion and faith, and glorifying abortion, violence, and thug culture. From calling us racists every time we expect everyone of any skin color to follow our laws equally to gas lighting us about 52 genders, polyamory, grown men in dresses sharing public locker rooms with little girls, and normalize the sexualization of young children, you simultaneously ridicule us for having the audacity to wish someone a “Merry Christmas” or hang a flag on the 4th of July, stand for the national anthem, or (horror of horrors) don a MAGA hat in public.

So much for your “tolerance.”

(See why we think you are just hypocrites??)

We’re also not interested in the fact that you think you can unilaterally decide that 250 years of the right-to-bear-arms against a tyrannical or ineffective government should be abolished because you can’t get the violence in the cities you manage under control. That free-speech should be tossed out the window, and that those who disagree with your opinions are fair game for public harassment or doxing. That spoiled children with nose-rings and tats who still live off their parent’s dime should be allowed to destroy cities and peoples livelihoods without repercussions. That chaos, and lawlessness, and disrespect for authority should be the norm. This is your agenda. And you wonder why we find you more dangerous than Donald Trump?

Your narrative is a constant drone of oppressor/oppressed race-baiting intended to divide the country in as many ways as you possibly can. You love to sell “victim-hood” to people of color every chance you get because it’s such an easy sell, compared to actually teaching people to stand on their own two feet and take personal responsibility for their own lives and their own communities and their own futures. But you won’t do that, you will never do that, because then you will lose control over people of color. They might actually start thinking for themselves, God forbid!

This is why we will vote for Donald Trump.

Not because he is the most charming character on the block. Not because he is the most polite politician to have ever graced the oval office. Not because he is the most palatable choice, or because we love his moral character or because the man never lies, but because we are sick to death of you and all of the destructive crap you are doing to this once beautiful and relatively safe country.

Your ineffective and completely dysfunctional liberal “leadership”(?) has literally destroyed our most beautiful cities, our public education system, and done it’s damnedest to rip faith out of people’s lives. However bad Donald Trump may be, and he is far from perfect, every day we look at you and feel that no matter what Donald Trump says or does there is no possible way he could be any worse for our country than you people are.

We are sick to death of your stupid, destructive, ignorant, and intolerant behavior and beliefs — parading as “wokeness.” We are beyond sick of your hypocrisy and B.S.

We are fed up with your disrespectful divisiveness and constant unrelenting harping and whining and complaining (while you live in the most privileged nation in the world), while making literally zero contributions of anything positive to our society. Your entire focus is on ripping things down, never ever building anything up. Think about that as there is something fundamentally very wrong in the psychology of people who choose destruction as their primary modus operandi. When Donald J Trump is reelected, don’t blame us, look in the mirror and blame yourselves.

Because you are the ones that are responsible for the rise of Donald Trump. You are the ones who have created this “monster” that you so despise, by your very actions.

By your refusal to respect your fellow Americans, and the things that are important to us. You have made fun of the “fly-over states,” the people who “cling to their guns and religion,” the middle class factory workers and coal miners and underprivileged rural populations that you dismissively call “yahoos” and “deplorables.” You have mocked our faith and our religion. You have mocked our values and our patriotism. You have trampled our flag and insulted our veterans and treated our first responders with contempt and hatred.

You have made environmentalism your religion, while trashing every city you have taken responsibility for. You scream from the rooftops about “global warming” and a “green new deal” while allowing tens of thousands of homeless people to cover your streets in literal sh!t and garbage and needles and plastic waste without doing a single thing to help them or solve the environmental crisis your failed social policies are creating. But we’re supposed to put YOU in charge of the environment while gutting our entire economy to institute this plan when you can’t even clean up a single city??

You complain — endlessly — yet have failed to solve a single social problem anywhere. In fact, all you have done is create more of them. We’ve had enough. We are tired of quietly sitting by and being the “silent” majority. So don’t be surprised when the day comes when we finally respond. And trust me it’s coming, sooner than you might think. And also trust me when I say it won’t be pretty. Get ready.

When Donald Trump is reelected it will be because you and your “comrades” have chosen to trash the police, harass law-abiding citizens, and go on rampages destroying public property that we have all paid for and you have zero respect for. When Donald Trump is reelected it will be because we are sick of your complete and utter nonsense and destruction. How does it feel to know that half of this country finds you FAR more despicable than Donald J. Trump, the man you consider to be the anti-Christ?
Let that sink in.

We consider you to be more despicable, more dangerous, more stupid, and more narcissistic than Donald Trump. Maybe allow yourself a few seconds of self-reflection to let that sink in. This election isn’t about Donald Trump vs. Joe Biden.

This is about Donald Trump vs YOU!

So if on the morning of November 4 (or more likely January 19, by the time the Supreme Court will weigh in on the mail-in ballot fiasco that we are headed towards), and Donald J. Trump is reelected, the only people you have to blame is the left-wing media drones and yourselves.

You did this. Yep you.

If Trump does not win there are millions of Americans who will be looking for a political way to oppose the Harris/Biden Administration’s every move by keeping the Trump legacy alive. I know it is a cliché, but the sleeping giant is awake.

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

PODCAST: Sen. Marsha Blackburn Previews Barrett’s Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings

Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, joins the “Daily Signal News” podcast to talk about the committee’s confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, set to begin next week.

Senate Democrats, who generally have supported virtual hearings during the pandemic, now demand in-person hearings to consider Barrett. How is the Judiciary Committee’s Republican leadership responding? What kind of questions will Barrett face? Blackburn breaks it down.

We also cover these stories:

  • The White House physician, Sean Conley, announces that President Donald Trump no longer has symptoms of COVID-19.
  • Trump tweets: “Flu season is coming up! Many people every year, sometimes over 100,000, and despite the Vaccine, die from the Flu.”
  • The president breaks off negotiations with congressional Democrats over a new coronavirus relief bill.

The “Daily Signal News” podcast is available on Ricochet, Apple PodcastsPippaGoogle Play, and Stitcher. All of our podcasts may be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You also may leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at letters@dailysignal.com. Enjoy the show!

How are socialists deluding a whole generation? Learn more now >>

Rachel del Guidice: I am joined today on “The Daily Signal Podcast” by Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee. Sen. Blackburn, it’s great to have you with us on “The Daily Signal Podcast.”

Sen. Marsha Blackburn: I am thrilled to join you. Thank you so much for the invitation.

Del Guidice: Well, it’s great to have you with us. And you are part of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Next week, the confirmation hearings will be starting for Judge Amy [Coney] Barrett, who is President [Donald] Trump’s Supreme Court nominee. Can you tell us a little bit about how you expect these hearings to go given the whole current situation with coronavirus?

Blackburn: Yes. We are going to follow a model which has been in place for the Senate since COVID hit, and that is called a hybrid model. With this, the hearing is convened in person, but members and witnesses are allowed to attend virtually. All total, the Senate has done about 150 hearings under this model, and the Senate Judiciary Committee itself has done 21 hearings on this model.

So, that’s the model that we are going to use, and we will begin on the 12th. We will wrap up on the 15th. We will vote her out of committee on the 22nd. Then I expect she’ll be on the floor the 26th or 27th.

Del Guidice: Well, Democrats have been supportive of virtual hearings up until now, but now they’re demanding in-person hearings. What is your perspective in response to all this?

Blackburn: They are trying to do anything they can do to delay this confirmation.

What they would like is to have a liberal justice on the court. The reason for that is because they don’t want to have a constitutionalist there who would block them from implementing socialized medicine and taking away the health insurance from 170 million Americans. They don’t want a justice who would block their implementation of the Green New Deal and step on your private property rights.

They want to be able to pack the Supreme Court. They want to be able to abolish the Electoral College and give statehood to D.C. and Puerto Rico. They have a very aggressive first 100-day agenda if they take the White House, the House, and the Senate, and that is what they are planning to move forward on. They know that the Supreme Court could get in their way of achieving their goal of implementing that agenda.

Del Guidice: How is the Senate Judiciary Committee Republican leadership responding to this pressure from Senate Democrats?

Blackburn: We’ve set the schedule, and we’re moving forward on the schedule. We just understand what it is that they are trying to do and why.

Del Guidice: Well, you’re very passionate about the judge’s personal life story. Can you talk to us a little bit about that?

Blackburn: She is a role model, and it should be an encouragement to all women that, indeed, you can be a wife, a mother, a lawyer, a law professor, a judge, and have a wonderful family and home life.

That is what Judge Barrett and her husband have done. They have seven children—two are adopted from Haiti, one has special needs—and they have figured out this work-life balance that so many of us … working moms have been able to figure out.

It is really encouraging to see her. She’d be the first mother with school-age children on the court. So what a great role model for so many women.

I find it also really interesting that what they’re trying to do is use her religion against her—but isn’t this what the left does? They take something that is a strength, and then they try to turn it into a negative. That is what they’re doing with Judge Barrett.

Basically, what they are saying, if you’re a woman of faith, if you’re active in your church, in your religion, if you take your children to church every Sunday, then that should be a disqualifier from serving on the federal bench.

We know that that is not right. It is expressly prohibited from having a religious litmus test in this country for people that want to serve on the judiciary. We know that a lot of the left would like to have only atheists or secularists on the federal bench.

Del Guidice: Sen. Blackburn, I want to get back to the judge’s role as a mom and some of the attacks she’s seen there, but I do want to ask you a little bit more about the attacks we’ve seen on her faith.

We saw them in 2017 with Sen. [Dianne] Feinstein, and I wanted to ask you, do you think it’s appropriate—we talked about this a little bit, but I want to talk about it a little bit more—to attack someone’s faith or religion during a confirmation hearing?

Blackburn: No, I don’t. This came up during her circuit court confirmation hearing. I have to tell you, to refer to your faith as dogma, to ask about orthodoxy in the manner that Sen. [Dick] Durbin did, to attack the Knights of Columbus—which is something we’ve heard come from Sen. [Kamala] Harris—in my opinion, it is just really misplaced and unseemly.

We have religious liberty in this country. We have the right to worship. For them to then begin to attack her and use this as a negative because she is a woman of faith is, I think, very unexpected and is something that’s going to turn a lot of people off.

Del Guidice: Going back to some of the attacks the judge has seen for her … serving as a mother to her children, there is a Boston University professor who had said that Judge Barrett was a racist and a white colonizer for adopting the two black children that she has. I just was wondering, do you have any response or perspective to that statement from this professor?

Blackburn: They feel as if you are pro-life, pro-family, pro-religion, pro-business, pro-military, then your voice does not deserve to be heard. Because of that, we know that they are going to be attacking her and continuing to attack her.

I thought it was so interesting when the reporter came out and said, “Oh, she has seven children. Does she have time to do this job?” Would they ever have said that about a liberal woman? …

So now, they’re going to attack her for those values, for the actions that she has taken, for not staying home and taking care of her children all day long, every day.

Del Guidice: Multiple Democrat senators—including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Kirsten Gillibrand, Richard Blumenthal, a few more—have said that they are even refusing to meet with her before these hearings [start]. They said that this past week. What is your perspective on them refusing to even meet with her?

Blackburn: I think it’s so disrespectful to just not even show up because you want to make a point. Now, think about what they’re sending to millions of young girls and how they are completely discounting Judge Barrett.

Del Guidice: What do you suspect, Sen. Blackburn, [are] some of the questions she’ll receive from your colleagues, as well as the colleagues across the aisle?

Blackburn: Yeah, I think there’ll be questions about the issue of abortion, Roe v. Wade. You’re probably going to hear some about presidential overreach and immigration. You’ll hear some about campus free speech.

Then the Judge has done over a hundred opinions, so there are plenty of things for us to work through and filter through to glean questions. I would imagine most of my colleagues are like me, they’re working through that right now.

Del Guidice: How will you respond? Or how do you think it will be appropriate to respond if we see attacks that mirror what happened to now-Justice [Brett] Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings? Are you expecting anything like that? How do you think that should be responded to if it does in fact happen?

Blackburn: Well, we certainly think that it’s going to happen. They have said as much. They want to delay the hearing so that she doesn’t get through prior to the election. So we’re going into it expecting to hear that.

The response should be, the president is doing his constitutionally-mandated duty by appointing someone. He is following the historical precedents of our nation in making this nomination. He’s not the first one to do it. It has happened 29 times in our nation’s history.

Now, we are going to do our constitutional duty. We’re going to take up the nomination to confirm her. We will vote either to confirm or not to confirm, and then we’ll send it back to the president.

Del Guidice: We’ve talked a little bit about how Judge Barrett is a mom of seven, she’s a professor at Notre Dame, served in the courts, and we’ve talked about the attacks that she has seen [from] people in this country for everything that she has done. I wanted to ask you, what is all she has done in the attacks we’ve seen on her really demonstrated about the president’s confidence in nominating her to the Supreme Court?

Blackburn: The president felt like she was the best individual for the job. She is a constitutionalist, she’s an originalist, and that is the type of justice he wanted to see serve on the Supreme Court. You’re going to hear her talk a little bit about that when she comes up for the hearings.

Del Guidice: Finally, Sen. Blackburn, we’ve talked a little bit about this, but given what we saw with Justice Kavanaugh and some of the attacks we’ve already seen on Judge Barrett, what is your overall perspective on how the media has handled the coverage of Judge Barrett so far?

Blackburn: They have shown their bias and their prejudice against her, and we expect it will continue next week.

Del Guidice: Well, Sen. Blackburn, it’s been great to have you with us on “The Daily Signal Podcast.” We hope to have you back talking about the hearings once they’ve started. Thank you so much for joining us.

Blackburn: Bye-bye.

PODCAST BY

Rachel del Guidice

Rachel del Guidice is a congressional reporter for The Daily Signal. She is a graduate of Franciscan University of Steubenville, Forge Leadership Network, and The Heritage Foundation’s Young Leaders Program. Send an email to Rachel. Twitter: @LRacheldG

RELATED ARTICLE: Barrett’s Former Colleagues: ‘No One … Better Suited to Be on the Supreme Court’


A Note for our Readers:

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.

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW »


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal podcast is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Four Step Theory to Infect The President

Many years ago I heard and use a theory that anyone I want to reach is only four phone calls away. For instance, if I want to speak with or get a message to Mr. D, I call Mr. A , who knows Mr. B, who plays golf with Mr. C, who used to work with Mr. D. Guess what, your message gets delivered and your contact is made. I have used this practice to get interviews for the Conservative Commandos Radio Show and have been able to reach thousands of individuals including Governors, Members of Congress, Celebrities and even Vice President Pence.

I hate conspiracy theories and find them nonproductive. It is widely known that crying wolf and screaming the sky is falling often falls on deaf ears.

And with all that being said here I go! Could the same idea be used for intentionally spreading a virus to a President?

As of this morning 8 to 10 of President Trump’s inner circle have come down with covid 19. This list includes President Trump, first Lady Melania Trump, Hope Hicks, a senior aide to the president, Ronna McDaniel, Chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, Republican Senator Mike Lee, Utah Senator and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Tom Tillis, North Carolina Senator, who is also a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Chris Christie, Advisor to President Trump and Former Governor of New Jersey, Rev. John Jenkins, President of Notre Dame who attended a White House ceremony, Kellyanne Conway, President Trump’s former adviser and Bill Stepien, Trump’s campaign manager. In addition to those who work closely with president Trump at least three journalists who cover President Trump tested positive. And this list grows moment to moment

With at least two Republican Senators on the pivotal Judiciary Committee have also tested positive, with many calling for a pause in the Judge Amy Barrett confirmation hearings. Could this be the October surprise? The hate and vitriol on the left for this president is widely known. There are even many people in the republican party who cannot wait for the day when Donald Trump is no longer in office.

You can also bet the sharks are in the water waiting to take advantage of the situation. Senator Chuck Schumer has called Supreme Court hearings “irresponsible and dangerous” after 2 senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee tested positive. You know he as well as every member of his party would absolutely love to stop the confirmation of Amy Barrett until after the presidential election in hopes that a President Joe Biden would fill the vacant seat. If the two senators remain out this month, it would effectively prevent Barrett from being confirmed to the Supreme Court until after the Election.

Is it too farfetched to think that a foreign power such as the Chinese Communist Party (who actually released this virus on the world) could have played a part in the president’s infection? Would you put this past Vladimir Putin who has attempted similar deeds? Do you remember Viktor Yushchenko: Ukraine’s ex-president who was poisoned? Or Alexei Navalny, a opponent of Putin’s, was poisoned with a deadly nerve agent implicated in other attacks on Russians who have crossed his regime.

Is it coincidental that the President and many of those closest to him tested positive in the same week but no Democrats? Could the virus have been intentionally planted? Remember my four phone call theory?

Is it too farfetched to believe that people around the president were purposely infected in hopes of infecting the president or at least the people around him so as to be an embarrassment to the president and his campaign? We need to find out how all the people so close to the president and the president himself contracted the virus in one of the most extensive protective environments in the world. Once again can you say October surprise?

Who would believe that a project of misinformation could have been constructed spread and believed like the steel dossier? Who would believe somebody actually conspired the Russian hoax? Both of these we now know were flat out lies and compromised witnesses to bring down Donald Trump!!

A conspiracy theory? Oh it must be crazy thinking!

But ask yourself this question: How many presidents have been assassinated? How many assassination attempts? And how many of these attempts have been foiled without the public knowing?

In a country so divided and a day and age when the most unbelievable, inconceivable things have happened, let’s get the facts. A thorough investigation needs to be conducted. And lets start with all those who have publicly wished ill will and hatred toward this President and those who have so much to gain by his demise.

COLUMN BY

RICK TRADER

Rick Trader is the Executive Producer and Co-host of the Conservative Commandos Radio Show.

©Rick Trader. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Cleveland Officials Traced COVID Cases Back to the Debate… Before Trump Was On-site

RELATED TWEET:

Abortion and the Battle Over the Supreme Court

Now that Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (RBG) has passed on to her eternal state, there will be an intense debate over whomever President Trump nominates to replace her.

Why the intensity of the coming debate? The answer is obvious: Abortion.

  • Why did the left 30 years ago pull out all the stops and vilify through vicious lies that man who became one of the most important Black Americans in history, Clarence Thomas? Answer: Abortion
  • Why did the left attempt to sully and drag the reputation of Brett Kavanaugh through the mud, accusing him of misogyny? Ironically, the late Justice Ginsburg even commended Justice Kavanaugh for his true reputation of lifting up women any way he could. But why was there an unending circus of past accusations of alleged sexual misconduct against him, none of which had the slightest corroboration? Answer: Abortion.
  • Why is the left gearing up even now for World War III in the Senate? Why are some of them seemingly losing their minds over the looming battle? For example, CNN host Reza Aslan typifies the left: “If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire f—–g thing down.” Again, the answer is obvious: Abortion.

Abortion, even when not directly mentioned in the Senate judiciary hearings, is the 800-pound gorilla in the room. It is the underlying issue at the heart of the real battle.

On the eve of the Kavanaugh hearings, I interviewed Wendy Wright, president of Christian Freedom International, for D. James Kennedy Ministries television. Little did we know of the extent of the fireworks against the justice’s confirmation that were just around the corner.

I asked Wendy about abortion and such confirmation battles. She told me, “Yes, abortion has become like the symbol, in a sense, of the extreme role of the Supreme Court—a symbol of an atheistic view that God should have no place when it comes to the public square. Abortion has become this symbol of the extreme role of the Supreme Court to rule on our day-to-day lives and to even insert itself in places that the Supreme Court should not be inserting itself.”

Indeed, every human being, even in utero, is made in the image of God. The Greek New Testament uses the word “brephos,” meaning “baby” to describe both babies in the womb and out of the womb.

Since RBG never met an abortion she didn’t like, her replacement will likely change the makeup on the court over the issue of abortion—and other issues. I maintain that if a person cannot get the issue of abortion right, then they can’t get many other things right. And vice versa.

True to his campaign promise, Donald J. Trump has nominated many good pro-life judges and justices to the federal bench, and they are now making a positive difference. He has promised to replace RBG with a female justice before the election (which even RBG said in 2016 is in a president’s constitutional purview).

A frontrunner nominee, of course, is Amy Coney Barrett, a former professor at Notre Dame Law School. The Wall Street Journal (9/21/20) notes: “Judge Barrett has written and spoken favorably of the conservative Justice [Antonin] Scalia, who died in 2016, and his close attention to the texts of statues as written and support for originalism, or interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning.”

Judge Barrett said, “I tend to agree with those who say 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 thinks clearly in conflict with it.”

Abortion is a “right” the Supreme Court created—not from within the pages of the text of the Constitution or its amendments.

You can read the Constitution until you’re blue in the face, and nowhere will you see even remotely the right for an abortion, the right to terminate one’s pregnancy. It’s not there. It had to be imposed onto the Constitution by activist judges.

In this era of “wokeness,” millions of Americans look back, rightfully, with horror at slavery—the evil practice that nearly torpedoed the Constitutional Convention and that tore the country in half during the Civil War. Hundreds of thousands of Americans died “to make men free.”

I believe future generations will look back at us aghast at this horrible practice of abortion, in an age when we have a scientific window into the womb through 3D sonograms and other technology. We are sacrificing tens of millions of babies on the altar of convenience. Those who promote and sanction this barbarity will have to answer to the Almighty one day for this grave injustice. And from Him there is no higher appeal.

©Jerry Newcombe. All rights reserved.

Black Democrat Lawmaker Bernadine Kennedy Kent Endorses President Trump

President Trump will obtain significant support from the Black community on November 3rd. And Trump (unlike the vile racist Joe Biden) deserves it. Black Trump supporters will have a huge role in sinking the racist Joe Biden on November 3rd. Read Rep Kent’s statement here.

https://twitter.com/GaryCoby/status/1311151366434324480?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311151366434324480%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgellerreport.com%2F2020%2F09%2Fblack-democrat-lawmaker-bernadine-kennedy-kent-endorses-president-trump.html%2F

Democrat Ohio Lawmaker Bernadine Kennedy Kent Endorses President Trump

By The Village Reporter, September 29, 2020

As President Donald J. Trump gears up to debate Joe Biden tonight in Cleveland, life-long Democrat and Ohio lawmaker Bernadine Kennedy Kent announced her endorsement of President Trump’s re-election. Joe Biden has spent nearly half a century in Washington and his actions have only resulted in further divisiveness and mass incarceration for Black Americans. Only President Trump has taken historic action to empower the Black community through economic opportunity and access to quality education, resulting in the lowest poverty rate for Black Americans in U.S. history.

The letter from Bernadine Kennedy Kent, Ohio State Representative (D) – District 25 reads:

“No matter what my feelings are towards the Democrat Party, one thing is crystal clear: my values truly align with President Donald J. Trump’s willingness to work with those of differing opinions and perspectives more so than with Joe Biden’s divisive rhetoric, promotion of mass incarceration, and disrespectful, insensitive ideologies that substantiates his infamous comment ‘…if you’re still deciding between me and Trump, then you ain’t Black…’ during an interview on a popular African American radio program earlier this year.

“Not only am I Black, I am a proud American and delighted to endorse President Trump for re-election.  Furthermore, I am honored to share with people my intent to vote for him and spread the word on the value of his leadership and his dedication to the American people.”


HAVE A TIP WE SHOULD KNOW? YOUR ANONYMITY IS NEVER COMPROMISED. EMAIL TIPS@THEGELLERREPORT.COM


RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Iran’s Rouhani: Next US administration will surrender after elections

Is Joe Biden a Jew hater?

Philly firefighters, paramedics union breaks with IAFF to endorse Trump

Investigation Launched After Mail-In Ballots Found Along Road In Swing State, Report Says

As Crime and Murders SOAR, Mayor Bill de Blasio Focues On Mask Enforcement

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

PREDICTION: Fox’s Chris Wallace Will Never Moderate a Presidential Debate Again

That is my prediction of course.  And, heck, maybe last night’s train wreck of a Presidential debate will cool enthusiasm for any more debates this year (or forever!).

I got up this morning pretty down-in-the-dumps after staying up past my bedtime for what I expected would be a hot debate, but never dreamed it would go off the rails as badly as it did.

Not long into the debate it became clear that Biden and Wallace were double-teaming to take down Trump.  Furious, I switched to watching comments fly by on twitter and realized it was apparent to everyone, Left and Right, that Wallace had stepped in to debate Trump whenever Trump sought a response from Biden.

Because I am too lazy to do it, I am so glad to see this compilation by Ryan Saavedra at the Daily Wire of many of the tweets I read in real time last night—tweets that told me that I wasn’t imaging things!

Chris Wallace Faces Intense Backlash, Including From Colleagues, Over Bias During Debate

Fox News host Chris Wallace, a registered Democrat, faced intense backlash on Tuesday night for what was widely deemed as bias in the debate in the favor of Democrat Joe Biden and against Republican President Donald Trump.

One of the issues that Wallace was called out for the most was how he appeared to let Biden interrupt Trump but would jump in to interrupt Trump when Trump would talk over Biden.

Fox News host Brian Kilmeade even noted the discrepancy and called it out on social media, writing: “Why is @JoeBiden allowed to interrupt? @realDonaldTrump is not.”

Continue reading here to see what many citizen and media commenters said on the subject.

By the way, as hot as Trump was he did not call Biden names while Biden called Trump a liar and a clown.

LOL!  One good thing about last night was Joe Biden’s efforts to distance himself from his radical Left base. 

I’m guessing that right now AOC and her gang are working on a plan for him to be so sick he wouldn’t be able to continue in a role as Prez of the US right after inauguration day (if he should win).

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: President Trump Announces Massive Coronavirus Testing Expansion

America has already conducted far more Coronavirus tests than any other nation on Earth—more than the entire European Union and more than all of Latin America combined.

Now, President Trump has announced that his Administration will distribute 150 million rapid, point-of-care Coronavirus tests in the coming weeks. This action will more than double the total number of tests already performed in the United States.

 WATCH: President Trump announces massive testing expansion

Fifty million tests will go to protect the most vulnerable communities, which we’ve always promised to do, including 18 million for nursing homes; 15 million for assisted living facilities; 10 million for home, health, and . . . hospice care agencies; and nearly 1 million for historically black colleges and universities,” the President said.

Another 100 million rapid tests will be given to states and territories to support efforts to reopen their economies and schools as quickly and safely as possible.

“We are now at an inflection point in testing,” President Trump said. The United States now has the capacity to run, on average, 3 million tests per day. That number doesn’t include “pooled testing,” which could multiply that figure several times.

Vice President Pence said he believes an announcement about a Coronavirus vaccine will come soon after yesterday’s historic milestone.

“It’s a testament to great companies like Abbott Laboratories and the thousands of employees who, Mr. President, I know have literally worked around the clock since those early days in this pandemic, when you brought in the greatest research companies in America,” the Vice President added.

 Mississippi Governor: “This is a game-changer.”

©White House. All rights reserved.

In Amy Coney Barrett, Trump Picks an Exacting Scholar for Supreme Court


President Donald Trump on Saturday evening nominated U.S. Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett for the vacancy created by the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Trump appointed Barrett to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in October 2017 and, less than a month later, her name was added to those Trump said he would consider for the Supreme Court.

Senate Democrats have vowed to do everything they can to block Barrett’s nomination, but that will be hard given her impressive record, fidelity to the Constitution, and respect for the rule of law.

Now that Trump has nominated Barrett, 48, Americans want to know who she is and what kind of Supreme Court justice she will be.


How are socialists deluding a whole generation? Learn more now >>


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.

At Barrett’s confirmation hearing for the seat on the 7th Circuit, Senate Democrats subjected her to harsh and inappropriate questions.

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.”

Speaking days before the 2016 election about what impact the next president would have on the Supreme Court, Barrett declared

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.

COMMENTARY BY

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: .

Thomas Jipping is deputy director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Nominates Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme Court

Heritage Foundation Launches Campaign for Barrett’s Confirmation

Dirty Attacks Against Amy Coney Barrett Begin Early


A Note for our Readers:

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.

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW »


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Bipartisan Coalition Rejects Democrats’ Call to Pack Supreme Court

A bipartisan group dominated by former state attorneys general is pushing back against proposals from congressional Democrats and progressive activists to pack the Supreme Court by adding more justices.

“We feel that court packing, adding or for that matter subtracting justices for political advantage, is wrong,” former Tennessee Attorney General Paul Summers, an independent, told The Daily Signal. “It would denigrate the rule of law [in favor of] the rule of men. It undermines the independence of the Supreme Court.”

Summers is part of the Coalition to Preserve the Independence of the Supreme Court, which calls itself “Keep Nine” for short in a reference to the nine justices on the high court.

The coalition, with 27 members, has grown to include former members of Congress and former governors.


How are socialists deluding a whole generation? Learn more now >>


The organization is promoting a 13-word constitutional amendment that says simply: “The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine Justices.”

On the cusp of President Donald Trump’s nomination of another woman to fill the Supreme Court seat of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died last week, some Democrats have insisted that adding justices would be appropriate revenge for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s stated intention to hold a confirmation vote on the nominee.

Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., tweeted about the Kentucky Republican: “Mitch McConnell set the precedent. No Supreme Court vacancies filled in an election year. If he violates it, when Democrats control the Senate in the next Congress, we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., a force in House Democrats’ freshman class, also has indicated support for packing the high court.

“I believe that also we must consider, again, all of the tools available [at] our disposal, and that all of these options should be entertained and on the table,” Ocasio-Cortez told reporters Sunday.

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., reportedly told fellow Senate Democrats on Saturday that “nothing is off the table for next year” if Republicans move to fill the vacant seat on the high court.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., echoed Schumer in tweeting: “If Republicans recklessly & reprehensibly force a SCOTUS vote before the election—nothing is off the table.”

Passing a constitutional amendment to preserve the current total of nine Supreme Court justices would not be easy, Summers said, but noted that the process of amending the Constitution has been completed 27 times in the nation’s history.

“It will be hard to pass a constitutional amendment, but it will be harder on the country to denigrate a separate and equal branch of government,” said Summers, who was Tennessee’s attorney general from 1999 to 2006 and later served as a state appeals court judge. “If one party packs the court, then another party will win power and pack the court, and you could have 27 justices or more.”

A former Democratic attorney general from Virginia, Andrew Miller, contacted Summers about allying with the “Keep Nine” coalition.

“Court packing by one party would almost inevitably lead to retaliatory court packing by another party, undermining the independence of the court and potentially the rule of law itself,” Miller said in a written statement.

Exactly 231 years ago–on Sept. 24, 1789–Congress created a six-member Supreme Court. That same day, President George Washington signed the legislation and nominated the first chief justice and five associate justices. The Constitution doesn’t specify a total number, though, and it varied in the 19th century until stabilizing at nine since 1869.

A constitutional amendment to keep the court at nine justices “should be seriously considered,” said John Malcolm, director of the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

“All of this talk about court packing is dangerous and divisive,” Malcolm told The Daily Signal. “The number is not set in the Constitution, but nine has worked pretty well for a long time.”

Voters support a “Keep Nine” amendment by a 3-1 margin, according to a John Zogby Strategies poll cited by the coalition.  Democrats back the amendment by a 2-1 margin, the poll found, while self-described independents and moderates back the proposal by nearly 4-1.

Other coalition members include former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, a Republican who also served as the first U.S. homeland security secretary; former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett, a Republican who also is a former attorney general; George Jepsen, a Democrat who was Blumenthal’s successor as Connecticut’s attorney general; former New York Attorney General Robert Abrams, a Democrat; and former California Controller Steve Westly, a Democrat.

During his second term, President Franklin Roosevelt tried to add justices to the Supreme Court  and force the retirement of others when the high court ruled against certain New Deal programs. However, fellow Democrats stepped in to oppose the move.

It’s not a better idea today, Summers said.

“There was an attempt by FDR to pack the court,” Summers said. “It just divided the president’s allies and emboldened his opponents.”

COLUMN BY

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is chief national affairs correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Lucas is also the author of “Abuse of Power: Inside The Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump.” Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Help The Daily Signal Cover the New Supreme Court Nominee Fairly

He’s a Friend of Supreme Court Prospect Amy Coney Barrett. Here’s What He Has to Say.


A Note for our Readers:

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.

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW »


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEOS: President Trump Honors Cuban-American Veterans of the Bay of Pigs Invasion

President Donald J. Trump, “America will never be a socialist or a Communist country.”


Remarks by President Trump, Vice President Pence and Cuban-American patriots of Brigade 2506

TRANSCRIPT

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, thank you very much. Please. Thank you very much. And I’m delighted to welcome you to the White House as we honor the Cuban-American veterans of the Bay of Pigs Invasion. Brave people. Great people.

I was honored to receive the endorsement of the Bay of Pigs Veterans Association in 2016, and they gave me a beautiful award. And I have it very proudly on a wall of great importance to me.

And I just understood that, once again, I’ve received your official endorsement and support. And I very much thank you for that. Thank you all very much. That’s a great honor. (Applause.) It’s a great honor.

Today, we reaffirm our ironclad solidarity with the Cuban people and our eternal conviction that freedom will prevail over the sinister forces of communism and evil of many different forms.

Sixty years ago, these Cuban patriots formed Brigade 2506 in a daring effort to liberate their homeland from the communist Castro regime. Today, we declare America’s unwavering commitment to a free Cuba. And you will have that. You will have that very soon.

We’re glad to be joined – (applause) – they will have it, Mike, won’t they? Huh? It’s happening very fast, actually.

We’re glad to be joined by Vice President Mike Pence. And you know what I’d like to do? I’d like to have Mike come up, say a few words. He’s very much wedded to what you are believers in. He believes in Cuba, and he believes in a lot of help for you. So, Mike, please come up and say a few words. (Applause.)

VICE PRESIDENT PENCE: Thank you, Mr. President. It’s a privilege to join you today amongst so many heroes – 23 heroic veterans of Brigade 2506. As you said, Mr. President, April 1961, with American support, Brigade 2506 landed on the beaches along the Bay of Pigs vastly outnumbered by Castro’s socialist forces. Twelve hundred were captured.

America secured the release of nearly all of the prisoners 20 months later, but the last prisoner was not released until 1986. And upon his arrival in Miami, history records that he said, “I am grateful to be in the land of freedom.” (Applause.)

This fall, Mr. President, you’ll also mark 40 years since the conclusion of the Mariel boatlift, when 125,000 Cubans fled socialism for freedom here in America. And I’m proud to stand with you, Mr. President, because President Donald Trump believes this is a hemisphere of freedom, and we will always stand for freedom. (Applause.)

Mr. President, you’ve taken strong action to stand for freedom in Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. And today, with the new sanctions that you’ll be announcing at this event, you will confirm that, in this White House, it will always be: que viva Cuba libre. (Applause.) Thank you, Mr. President.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Thank you very much, Mike. And we appreciate it. And it’s great – ey appreciate your help very much, they so stated.

And thank you as well to Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun. Thank you very much. (Applause.) Where is he? Great job. Ambassador to the Organization of American States Carlos Trujillo. Carlos, thank you very much. (Applause.)

And a friend of mine, a great gentleman, just recovered from a very serious bout, but he is strong. There was nothing going to take him down. Mario Díaz-Balart. Mario? Thank you, Mario. (Applause.) Great. Great job. It was great. And I’m – I know you’re 1,000 percent, and you did it fast. You’re strong. You’re very strong, Mario.

Anthony Gonzalez. Great football player, by the way. (Applause.) Great, great football player — all the way through the NFL. That’s great. And we got Ohio State going. We have the whole Big 10. We got that done, didn’t we, Anthony? And you helped, and I appreciate it. Thank you very much.

And Alex Mooney. Alex, thank you very much. (Applause.) Thank you, Alex.

I also want to recognize Mauricio Claver-Carone, who has just been elected as the first American to lead the Inter-American Development Bank. That’s big stuff. (Applause.) He’s been my friend, and he agrees with what I said. He would get up — and when I talked about Venezuela, it was much different than the so-called experts. You know, the experts that have been talking about it for 20 years and nothing happens? And when I talked about Cuba, much different.

And my friend would get up and say, “You know, the only one that’s been right about this for two years is President Trump.” Hence, he’s heading this big bank now. It’s amazing. See, if you say nice things about the President, that’s what happens. Right? (Laughter.) But congratulations. You deserve it. You’re going to be fantastic. Thank you very much.

This milestone underscores our historic partnerships across Latin America.

On April 17, 1961, the 1,400 Cuban exiles of Brigade 2506 landed at the Bay of Pigs. They were met by fierce airstrikes, by heavy fire — very, very heavy — and 20,000 soldiers from the Castro regime. These brave warriors fought three grueling days. The brutal Castro regime imprisoned them for 20 months, until the United States negotiated their release.

Today, we are profoundly honored by their presence. We’re joined by these 20 incredible veterans — Brigade 2506 — and their families. Could I ask you to stand, please? Because that’s — that’s really great. (Applause.) That’s really good. You’re looking good, too. You’re looking good. Looking good. Wow. (Applause.) That’s great. Good-looking people in Cuba. That’s a good-looking group. I appreciate you being here. This is tremendous.

It’s an honor. You’ve been honoring me for four years, and now I’m honoring you, and that’s a nice way to do it.

PARTICIPANT: (Inaudible) the next four years.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, thank you very much. No, we really appreciate it.

We will honor your courage with my administration’s determination to defeat communism and socialism. And we will do that in our country too. We’re in the process of doing it right now – and it has stepped, in my opinion, beyond the word “socialism” – and we are meeting it with great force.

My administration stands with every citizen of Cuba and Nicaragua and Venezuela in their fight for liberty. And we work for the day when this will become a fully free hemisphere. And it will be, for the first time in human history, a fully free hemisphere. And we will have it. We will have it. And it’s going to happen. (Applause.) It’s going to happen sooner rather than later. A lot of things are going on. A lot of things are going on right now that I can’t tell you about, but I will be soon.

The Obama-Biden administration made a weak, pathetic, one-sided deal with the Castro dictatorship that betrayed the Cuban people and enriched the communist regime. I cancelled the Obama-Biden sellout to the Castro regime. (Applause.)

We will not lift sanctions until all political prisoners are freed, freedoms of assembly and expression are respected, all political parties are legalized, and free elections are scheduled. They will have to go through a lot, but things are happening, and it’s very interesting to see the level at which they’re happening.

Earlier this year, we also demanded the release of human rights activist, José Daniel Ferrer. (Applause.)

Today, as part of our continuing fight against communist oppression, I am announcing that the Treasury Department will prohibit U.S. travelers from staying at properties owned by the Cuban government. (Applause.) We’re also further restricting the importation of Cuban alcohol and Cuban tobacco.

These actions will ensure that U.S. dollars do not fund the Cuban regime and go directly to the Cuban people. Big difference. Big difference, really.

We’re also imposing strict sanctions on the dictatorships of Nicaragua and Venezuela. We brought criminal charges against Maduro for his narco-terrorism.

The courageous veterans here today bear witness to how socialism, radical mobs, and violent communists ruin a nation. Now, the Democratic Party is unleashing socialism right within our own beautiful country.

Today, we proclaim that America will never be a socialist or communist country. And I’m going to add that word, “or communist.” (Applause.) It’s the first time I’ve ever said that. I’ve never added the other word, but I think it’s appropriate, Mike, when you look at the kind of ideology we’re also facing; when you see the rioters, looters, anarchists, and then you see the press — the media — play right into their hands. It’s so sad to see the media, the way they’re being used. The media is being used. Like fools, they’re being used. And it’s very sad to watch. But we will prevail. It’s the first time I’ve said that though, “socialism and communism.”

We did not fight tyranny abroad only to let Marxists destroy our beloved country. Together, we will defend our freedom and our American way of life. And we will defend it strongly and successfully, as we’ve been doing.

And as we celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month, we give thanks to the countless ways that Hispanic Americans uplift and inspire our nation. They’ve been so good to me.

And I must tell you that the big story is the poll numbers. “Trump has gone through the roof with the poll numbers from Hispanics.” They’re all talking about it. I just watched something and read a couple of articles, and they don’t know what’s happening. I guess they didn’t know I love you, but I do. They’re incredible people. Incredible people. They knew it. But they’re all shocked. There hasn’t been a time when something like this has happened.

Nearly 60,000 Hispanic Americans serve as police officers. More than 300,000 Hispanic Americans serve in the military. Over half of the Border Patrol agents are Hispanic and they’re incredible. I’ve gotten to know so many of them. They’re incredible. More than 3 million Hispanic-owned small businesses provide jobs for millions of Americans. They’re fabulous business people.

Hispanic Americans teach their children to love our country, honor our history, and respect our great American flag.

Hispanic Americans embody the American Dream. And my administration is delivering for you that American Dream, like nobody has ever delivered for the Hispanic Americans, and hopefully for everybody else.

We implemented the historic tax cuts, regulation cuts, and I recently created the Hispanic Prosperity Initiative to expand economic opportunity.

Before the China virus, we achieved the lowest Hispanic American unemployment rate ever recorded in our – in our country. I mean, like, it’s not even close. Last year, Hispanic American poverty reached an all-time low. We built the greatest economy in history, and now we’re doing it again. We closed it up; we saved millions and millions of lives. And now we opened it up. And you’ve been hearing about the “V.” We have a “V.” We may have a “super V.” And it’s coming back fast. We’re going to have a very good third quarter. That’ll be announced just prior to the election.

So I’m putting myself at risk when I say that, because if it’s not good, you can imagine there’ll be playing what I just said. They won’t say that I’m here representing the Hispanic Americans or Cubans or anything else. They’ll just say, “Look what he said.” But I’m willing to take that chance. We’re going to have a great third quarter. And next year is going to be one of the greatest economic years we’ve ever had. We feel very confident based on everything we see.

In the last four months, 3.3 million Hispanic Americans were hired to fill new jobs – a record. I’ve taken bold action to defend the right to religious liberty and the right to life.

We are protecting school choice for over 1 million Hispanic American students – such a big deal. In a second term, I will provide school choice to every family in America. We want every American to have a limitless future.

Here with us today is Bay of Pigs veteran, Humberto Cortina. (Applause.) Where’s Humberto? Stand up, please. Come up. Who founded a small business in Miami and was elected to the Florida State House.

Humberto, say a few words.

MR. CORTINA: Thank you, sir.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Good. Please. Be careful. I don’t want you falling on me. You’ll never – you’ll never be the same if you fall. (Laughter.)

MR. CORTINA: No – no way.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: You know, if you fall, they’ll never let you forget it. No matter –

MR. CORTINA: No, but the guys that – I know. All of them I know.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: – how good your speech. (Laughs.) Humberto, no matter how good your speech, it won’t matter, right? Please. Go have a good one.

MR. CORTINA: (Laughs.) Thank you, Mr. President, on behalf of the freedom fighters of the Brigade 2506 for the opportunity of being here with you today.

I was wounded during the Bay of Pigs invasion. As a result, the bullets got the sciatic nerve on both of my legs, and I was not able to walk for two years. When I returned from Castro’s prison, I joined the United States Army with a presidential officer appointment. I felt very honored – very honored to serve in the armed forces of our great country. And I always believed that even though we lost that battle, the war against socialism and communism continues now, as it did then.

After my service in the U.S. Army, I graduated from the University of Florida. I’m a Gator, Mr. President.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Good.

MR. CORTINA: I’m a Gator. I’m a Gator. And for five years, I worked as the Regional Director of the Council of the Americas in Latin America, where I realized the importance of communication, our values, and the opportunities that this great country offers.

In 1982, I was one of the first Cuban Americans elected to the State of Florida House of Representatives. I have a couple here that – earlier or maybe later. I don’t remember. (Laughs.) And what I learned there was a good and strong leadership means. And as a small-businessman, for 20 years, I appreciate the opportunities that this country extends to everyone who puts the time and efforts to achieve the American Dream, regardless of where you come from.

And as a father and grandfather, I appreciate your leadership, Mr. President, and your vision for the future. And I look forward to your presidency for the next four years. (Applause.)

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Thank you very much.

MR. CORTINA: Thank you very much, sir. Thank you. (Applause.)

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Thank you, Humberto, very much. That’s great. Thank you. Thank you very much. That’s great. Thank you very much, Humberto.

Mario, would you please come up and say a couple of words, please? Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE DÍAZ-BALART: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for inviting a group of heroes who have never stopped fighting for freedom for their home and of Cuba, and for freedom and opportunity in the United States. Thank you for inviting these heroes.

And, Mr. President, the cause of a free Cuba, the cause of a free Venezuela, of a free Nicaragua, of a free hemisphere has never had a stronger ally, a stronger leader than this President. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. (Applause.)

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Thank you, Mario, very much. It’s my honor. And it’s my honor. Thank you very much.

Also with us today is Colonel Johnny Lopez de la Cruz – I love that name – President of the Bay of Pigs Veterans Association; was so nice to me four years ago – who went on to serve for 27 years in the United States military.

Johnny, please come up. Please. (Applause.)

MR. LOPEZ DE LA CRUZ: What an honor. Mr. President, on behalf of the members and families of the Brigade 2506, I would like to express our gratitude for the invitation to join you at the White House. It’s quite an honor.

Today, we are celebrating the freedoms that we have and want to preserve. We are here because we share your commitment to conservative principles: individual freedom, the rule of law, and racial equality. We particularly value your support for our troops and veterans, and the restoration of the military might of this nation while brokering peace agreements and avoiding conflicts and endless wars.

You have kept your promises. You are supporting freedom and human rights in this hemisphere while applying severe sanctions to the regimes of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. And we urge you to continue these policies and the efforts to rid the world of these communist, corrupt narco-terrorist regimes. Cuba must again be free after 60 years of communism. People are suffering in there, as well as in Venezuela and Nicaragua.

Mr. President, thank you from the bottom of our heart for this splendid and emotional recognition that you have vested on the veterans of the Bay of Pigs Invasion Brigade 2506.

God bless you, and God bless America. (Applause.)

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Thank you very much. Beautiful. Thank you. Thank you very much. Great job.

The veterans we honor today are a powerful testament to all that a free people can achieve. In the past six decades, you have built strong families, thriving businesses, and vibrant communities.

Today we thank God for the blessings we share as citizens of the greatest country on Earth. And we hope, pray, and work for the day when the people of Cuba can finally reclaim their glorious destiny. It will happen soon.

Thank you. And God bless America. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

©White House. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump Announces New Restrictions on Cuba, Including Travel and Cigars

ASSOCIATED PRESS: Woman Arrested! Accused of Sending Ricin Letter to President Trump

UDATE: 


WASHINGTON (AP) — A woman suspected of sending an envelope containing the poison ricin, which was addressed to White House, has been arrested at the New York-Canada border, three law enforcement officials told The Associated Press on Sunday.

The letter had been intercepted earlier this week before it reached the White House. The woman was taken into custody by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers at the Peace Bridge border crossing near Buffalo and is expected to face federal charges, the officials said. Her name was not immediately released.

The letter addressed to the White House appeared to have originated in Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have said. It was intercepted at a government facility that screens mail addressed to the White House and President Donald Trump and a preliminary investigation indicated it tested positive for ricin, according to the officials.

The officials were not authorized to discuss the ongoing investigation publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

There have been several prior instances in which U.S. officials have been targeted with ricin sent through the mail.

A Navy veteran was arrested in 2018 and confessed to sending envelopes to Trump and members of his administration that contained the substance from which ricin is derived. The letters were intercepted, and no one was hurt.

In 2014, a Mississippi man was sentenced to 25 years in prison after sending letters dusted with ricin to President Barack Obama and other officials.

©Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Trump’s ban on Critical Race Theory, explained

Does Critical Race Theory promote racial harmony or does it “sow division” as the Trump administration claims? And what is its relation, if any, to Marxism?


With the November election just around the corner, it’s only to be expected that President Trump would seek to rally conservative voters and drive his supporters to the polls. So, when his administration, on September 4, instructed the federal government to eliminate all training in “Critical Race Theory,” some thought it was just a red-meat stunt to excite the Republican base. Others saw it as an act of right-wing censorship and an obstruction of racial progress.

In truth, there’s much more to this development than mere politicization and censorship.

Here’s a breakdown of what the administration is doing and why it’s a welcome move.

The executive memo

“It has come to the President’s attention that Executive Branch agencies have spent millions of taxpayer dollars to date ‘training’ government workers to believe divisive, anti-American propaganda,” Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought wrote in the executive memorandum.

“Employees across the Executive Branch have been required to attend trainings where they are told that ‘virtually all White people contribute to racism’ or where they are required to say that they ‘benefit from racism,’” Vought explained. “According to press reports, in some cases these training [sic] have further claimed that there is racism embedded in the belief that America is the land of opportunity or the belief that the most qualified person should receive a job.”

The order instructed federal agencies to identify and eliminate any contracts or spending that train employees in “critical race theory,” “white privilege,” “or any other training or propaganda effort that teaches or suggests either that the United States is an inherently racist or evil country or that any race or ethnicity is inherently racist or evil.”

The exposé

How did it “come to the President’s attention,” and what press reports is Vought referring to?

Well, President Trump is known to watch Tucker Carlson’s show on Fox News. And days before the memo was issued, Carlson had on journalist Christopher Rufo to discuss his multiple reports uncovering the extent to which Critical Race Theory (CRT) was being used in federal training programs.

“For example, Rufo claimed, the Treasury Department recently hired a diversity trainer who said the U.S. was a fundamentally White supremacist country,” wrote Sam Dorman for the Fox News web site, “and that White people upheld the system of racism in the nation. In another case, which Rufo discussed with Carlson last month, Sandia National Laboratories, which designs nuclear weapons, sent its white male executives to a mandatory training in which they, according to Rufo, wrote letters apologizing to women and people of color.”

Rufo challenged President Trump to use his executive authority to extirpate CRT from the federal government.

The debate

CNN’s Brian Stelter (as well as Rufo himself) traced Trump’s decision directly to the independent investigative journalist’s self-proclaimed “one-man war” on CRT, of which the recent Carlson appearance was only the latest salvo.

Selter characterized Trump’s move as a reactionary attack on the current national “reckoning” on race. He cited the Washington Post’s claim that, “racial and diversity awareness trainings are essential steps in helping rectify the pervasive racial inequities in American society, including those perpetuated by the federal government.”

So which is it? Is CRT “divisive” and “toxic” or is it “rectifying” and “anti-racist”?

Intellectual ancestry

To answer that, it would help to trace CRT to its roots. Critical Race Theory is a branch of Critical Theory, which began as an academic movement in the 1930s. Critical Theory emphasizes the “critique of society and culture in order to reveal and challenge power structures,” as Wikipedia states. Critical Race Theory does the same, with a focus on racial power structures, especially white supremacy and the oppression of people of color.

The “power structure” prism stems largely from Critical Theory’s own roots in Marxism—Critical Theory was developed by members of the Marxist “Frankfurt School.” Traditional Marxism emphasized economic power structures, especially the supremacy of capital over labor under capitalism. Marxism interpreted most of human history as a zero-sum class war for economic power.

“According to the Marxian view,” wrote the economist Ludwig von Mises, “human society is organized into classes whose interests stand in irreconcilable opposition.”

Mises called this view a “conflict doctrine,” which opposed the “harmony doctrine” of classical liberalism. According to the classical liberals, in a free market economy, capitalists and workers were natural allies, not enemies. Indeed, in a free society all rights-respecting individuals were natural allies.

A bitter inheritance

Critical Race Theory arose as a distinct movement in law schools in the late 1980s. CRT inherited many of its premises and perspectives from its Marxist ancestry.

The pre-CRT Civil Rights Movement had emphasized equal rights and treating people as individuals, as opposed to as members of a racial collective. “I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character,” Martin Luther King famously said.

In contrast, CRT dwells on inequalities of outcome, which it generally attributes to racial power structures. And, as we’ve seen from the government training curricula, modern CRT forthrightly judges white people by the color of their skin, prejudging them as racist by virtue of their race. This race-based “pre-trial guilty verdict” of racism is itself, by definition, racist.

The classical liberal “harmony doctrine” was deeply influential in the movements to abolish all forms of inequality under the law: from feudal serfdom, to race-based slavery, to Jim Crow.

But, with the rise of Critical Race Theory, the cause of racial justice became more influenced by the fixations on conflict, discord, and domination that CRT inherited from Marxism.

Social life was predominantly cast as a zero-sum struggle between collectives: capital vs. labor for Marxism, whites vs. people of color for CRT.

A huge portion of society’s ills were attributed to one particular collective’s diabolical domination: capitalist hegemony for Marxism, white supremacy for CRT.

Just as Marxism demonized capitalists, CRT vilifies white people. Both try to foment resentment, envy, and a victimhood complex among the oppressed class it claims to champion.

Traditional Marxists claimed that all capitalists benefit from the zero-sum exploitation of workers. Similarly, CRT “diversity trainers” require white trainees to admit that they “benefit from racism.”

Traditional Marxists insisted that bourgeois thoughts were inescapably conditioned by “class interest.” In the same way, CRT trainers push the notion that “virtually all White people contribute to racism” as a result of their whiteness.

Given the above, it should be no wonder that CRT has been criticized as “racist” and “divisive.”

Reckoning or retrogression?

Supporters of CRT cast it as a force for good in today’s “rectifying reckoning” over race.

But CRT’s neo-Marxist orientation only damages race relations and harms the interests of those it claims to serve.

In practice, the class war rhetoric of Marxism was divisive and toxic for economic relations. And, far from advancing the interests of the working classes, it led to mass poverty and devastating famines, not to mention staggering inequality between the elites and the masses.

Today, the CRT-informed philosophy, rhetoric, and strategy of the Black Lives Matter organization (whose leadership professed to be “trained Marxists”) is leading to mass riots, looting, vandalism, and assault. The divisive violence has arrested progress for the cause of police reform, destroyed countless black-owned small businesses, and economically devastated many black communities.

Those who truly wish to see racial harmony should dump the neo-Marxists and learn more about classical liberalism. (FEE.org is the perfect place to start.)

So much for CRT being a force for good. Of course, even horrible ideas are protected by the First Amendment. The government should never use force to suppress people from expressing ideas, speech, or theories it dislikes.

Critics insist that President Trump is engaged in this kind of censorship by targeting CRT.

Not so.

No one is banning White Fragility, the blockbuster CRT manifesto. No one is locking up those who preach CRT or ordering mentions of it stripped from the internet.

The memo simply says that taxpayer dollars will no longer be spent promulgating this theory to federal government employees. As heads of the executive branch, presidents have wide latitude to make the rules for federal agencies under their control. Deciding how money is spent certainly falls under their proper discretion—and it is always done with political preferences in mind, one way or the other.

It is not censorship for Trump to eliminate funding for CRT, anymore than it was “censorship” for the Obama administration to choose to tie federal contracts to a business’s embrace of LGBT rights.

Elections have consequences, one of the most obvious being that the president gets to run the executive branch. If we don’t want the president’s political preferences to be so significant in training programs, then we should simply reduce the size of government and the number of bureaucrats.

In the meantime, stripping the federal government of the divisive, toxic, and neo-Marxist ideology of Critical Race Theory is a positive development for the sake of racial justice and harmony.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

COLUMN BY

Dan Sanchez

Dan Sanchez is the Director of Content at the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) and the editor-in-chief of FEE.org. He co-hosts the weekly web show FEEcast, serving as the resident “explainer.” … 

Tyler Brandt

Tyler Brandt is a Senior Associate Editor at FEE. He is a graduate of UW-Madison with a B.A. in Political Science. In college, Tyler was a FEE Campus Ambassador, President of his campus YAL chapter, and… 

Brad Polumbo

Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is a libertarian-conservative journalist and the Eugene S. Thorpe Writing Fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education. He was previously a Media and Journalism Fellow at… 

RELATED ARTICLES:

STUDY: Black Lives Matter Accounts For Nearly 100% of Riots Across the Country Over 3 Months

Lest we forget, some US slave owners were honorable men

Helping our teens navigate gender ideology: ages 14-18

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE MAURICE RICHARDS: In A Time Of Violence, Americans Must Take A Stand Against Lawlessness

Periods of civil disorder, like elections, are a time for choosing sides. Democrats have chosen their side — against police, against safety and against the rule of law. On November 3, the American people will choose whether to join them.

For more than three months we have witnessed riots, lawlessness and political violence instigated by antifa and Black Lives Matter (BLM) radicals — cities burned, stores looted, police officers and citizens attacked and even killed. Vicious mobs felt emboldened to “occupy” our streets, block traffic and invade our neighborhoods.

While Democrat mayors, governors and prosecutors refused to stop the violence, President Trump refused to surrender to the mob, standing up for our police and for the safety and security of American families.

Their rhetoric now seeks to rewrite history, but when the moment came to pick sides, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and the Democrats cast their lots with the mob, not the law-abiding citizens being terrorized in their homes. Their silence — and in some cases outright support — allowed our cities to descend into chaos. The Democrats denied the violence and tried to convince us that the arson, looting and beatings were actually just “peaceful protests.”

But we all saw the truth with our own eyes.

In Portland, the mob dragged a man from his truck, then beat, stomped, savagely kicked him in the head before leaving him for dead in the street. In New York City, violent radicals attacked three NYPD supervisors, opening a huge gash in one officer’s head. One of the attackers was arrested, only to be immediately set free to continue rioting under New York’s radical “bail reform” law — the same policy of eliminating cash bail that Kamala Harris hopes to implement nationwide. In Kenosha, Wisconsin, a 71-year-old man defending his business was viciously beaten by a group of thugs, suffering a broken jaw at the hands of the “peaceful protestors” who then stepped over him to loot and burn his store.

This mob violence spread and intensified because Democrat mayors prevented the police from confronting it, and even gave the rioters moral sanction to run wild.

When a Black Lives Matter mob in Washington, D.C. threatened innocent bystanders who were peacefully dining outdoors, demanding the diners shout their slogan, they went unchallenged by police. Radicals took note that such behavior would be tolerated, and now the same type of intimidation has spread to Rochester and Pittsburgh.

Another mob set upon peaceful citizens departing the Republican National Convention. Among the victims were U.S. Senator Rand Paul and his wife. Surrounded and in fear for their lives, the couple only escaped the possibility of serious injury or death thanks to the extraordinary action of four brave police officers, who kept the antagonists at bay until Sen. Paul and the others made it to safety. Biden and the Democrats refused to denounce the mob — after all, the violent rioters are their base, and they hoped to ride that kind of “enthusiasm” into the White House.

No Democrat official has acted more shamefully than Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler. For 104 days and counting, he has allowed mobs to riot, destroy public and private property, and even attempt to burn police officers alive. Wheeler has openly supported the violence, literally standing with the mob while law enforcement officers were being attacked. Even when rioters threatened a federal courthouse, Wheeler refused President Trump’s offers of assistance while his prosecutors continued to let those responsible out of jail without posting a cent of bail. His tolerance for violence reached its inevitable result on August 29 with the assassination of a Trump supporter.

This dramatic politically-motivated violence grabs headlines, but it’s just the tip of the iceberg. Toleration of violence and disorder by those tasked with maintaining public safety and order only breeds more violence. Predictably, violent crime is going through the roof in Portland, Seattle, Chicago, New York, Baltimore and other Democrat-run cities.

New York City has seen a 166 percent increase in shootings and a 34 percent rise in murders from August 2020 compared to the same period last year. In Chicago, shootings have increased by 52 percent and murders by 49 percent, with 2,152 people shot and 503 murdered already this year. During July and August alone, 1,087 were shot and 168 killed in the Windy City.

As demonstrated in Chicago and Minneapolis, Democrat mayors have legitimized the activists’ belief that looting is an acceptable response to any perceived injustice involving the police. Inevitably, Black Lives Matter interpreted that as permission to go even further. “No justice, no peace” has now evolved into a belief that looting is justified as a form of reparations for slavery.

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are the official, acknowledged leaders of their party. They could — and should — have exercised real leadership and condemned these radicals. But at the Democratic National Convention, neither Biden nor Harris, nor any other Democrat uttered a word condemning the riots and mob violence that had already been going on for months by that point. Instead, they used the anti-American lie of “systemic racism” as a central theme of the convention, making common cause with activists who believe America is evil, illegitimate, and inherently racist.

They approved a Democratic Party platform that enshrines the false and dangerous myth that police are “systemically racist,” slandering the brave men and women of American law enforcement and giving their imprimatur to radical rhetoric likening federal agents to the Ku Klux Klan and police officers to Nazi “stormtroopers.”

The violence we are seeing now is a direct result of the false narrative about systemic police racism. Democrats may just be trying to win an election, but in the process they have dealt a significant blow to the legitimacy of the police in the eyes of many citizens, and law-abiding Americans are suffering mightily for it.

American civilization rests upon the will of the people, not the fury of the mob. If we lose the rule of law, we lose our country. Democrats have shown how they run cities — in the process making it clear that our families will not be safe if they are allowed to run our country. They have chosen their side, but it’s not too late for us to choose President Trump’s — and our own.

COLUMN BY

MAURICE RICHARDS

Maurice Richards is the former Chief of the Martinsburg Police Department in West Virginia. He served as Chief from 2015 to 2020 after 24 years as an officer and lieutenant in the Chicago Police Department. Richards holds a doctorate in Adult Education from Northern Illinois University.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Detroit Police Chief Shreds Dem Senator for Suggesting Police Should Be Unarmed

Journalistic Extortion: Atlantic Column Promises More Riots and Looting if Biden Doesn’t Win

Several Recent Protests And Riots Sparked By Deaths Of Armed Suspects

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.