We are going through the debate video. Stay tuned.

by Political Arena Editor Chuck Norton

[Editor’s Note – We have no problem with the content of Judge Barrett ‘s personal character. The problem is too many judges and lawyers from academia using willy-nilly reasoning to treat the 1st, 4th and 14th Amendments, Separation of Powers, and other limits in the Constitution as mere suggestions. Far too many law schools teach this very same nonsense – Justice Scalia was right to call it out as he did.]

How many times have conservatives pundits said, “Republican’s stink at picking justices, we keep getting hoodwinked again and again.”  Republicans tend to pick justices, with a few noted exceptions like Justice Thomas, that are breathtaking disappointments. Judge Roberts promised to “call balls and strikes” as a justice and he has become one of the worst political operators in the court’s history. Part of the problem is Republican over reliance on academia and The Federalists Society who promote judges who claim to be originalist and textualists, but fall quite short in practice.

Notice we are NOT bringing up Judge Barrett’s religion. Our problem is that several of her rulings show an authoritarian streak that would make a “Deep Stater” or those illegally engaging in domestic spying giggle with glee. Several of Barrett’s rulings go exactly contrary to President Trump’s stated positions. We linked to several of Judge Barrett’s rulings in a previous post. In this post we are going to delve into her ruling on Illinois’ draconian and selectively partisan enforced enforced COVID shutdowns. It is not just chilling in it’s wrong headedness and intellectual dishonesty, but as some believe, goes against accepted judicial norms.

We are also going to try to keep it as short as possible so that readers can actually get through and understand this piece. Enough milk, time for the meat.

The case is Illinois Republican Party vs Governor Pritzker. This case is exactly what President Trump has been vocally against, Democrat Governors taking the COVID “emergency” and going way too far with it and using it as a political weapon to decide who wins, who loses , who gets to exercise their rights and who doesn’t based on partisan preferences. Governor Pritzker was/is doing what several other Democrat governors are doing, allowing BLM and other left wing protests and activities to go on, but if Republicans or conservatives want to gather to make their voiced heard the police are sent in. Equal justice under the law and similar due process are just the tip of the iceberg of the legal problems with Gov. Pritzker’s behavior.

Judge Barrett wrote that the Supreme Court has ruled that all rights do not have to be measured with the same scrutiny or rule stick. That is true, but she also ruled that government has wide latitude to do what it wants, including the violation of constitutional rights during emergencies and medical crisis….and left it just that broad.

To justify that ruling Barrett cites as precedent Jacobson v Massachusetts, a ruling that has been considered archaic and fails rationality by today’s standards. Jacobson is a 1905 ruling where the court ruled that it was reasonable for the state to force people to get certain vaccinations and set a “precedent” that the government can appear to violate the rights of citizens should a sufficient emergency exist….readers can likely already see a very  steep and slippery slope coming.

In 1905 there was no National Institute of Health, no CDC, no massive medical research being done at most universities, charities, and pharmaceuticals etc. In 1905 communicable disease was the number one cause of death. Today there is no need for such draconian mandates as medical treatments for most any ailment are plentiful and diverse. Even the National Institute of Health has published peer reviewed papers saying that rulings like Jacobson are completely unnecessary and violate people’s liberty.

The authors of Jacobson v Massachusetts foresaw that their ruling could be abused and they issued the following note of caution:

While a local regulation, even if based on the acknowledged police power of a State, must always yield in case of conflict with the exercise by the General Government of any power it possesses under the Constitution, the mode or manner of exercising its police power is wholly within the discretion of the State so long as the Constitution of the United States is not contravened, or any right granted or secured thereby is not infringed, or not exercised in such an arbitrary and oppressive manner as to justify the interference of the courts to prevent wrong and oppression.

For years that warning was ignored and the results were disastrous.

Jacobson v Massachusetts was cited as precedent to justify Buck V. Bell:

In 1927, in Buck v Bell, the US Supreme Court upheld a Virginia law that authorized the involuntary sterilization of “feeble minded” persons in state institutions. Theories of eugenics enjoyed some medical and scientific support during the 1920s and 1930s.49 The Court found that the law served the public health and welfare because “mental defectives” would produce degenerate criminal offspring or imbeciles who “sap the strength of the state.”48(p207) In a chilling opinion, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes concluded:

Society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v Massachusetts, 197 US 11. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

Jacobson was cited as support for the general principle that public welfare was sufficient to justify involuntary sterilization. The decision extended the police power’s reach from imposing a monetary penalty for refusing vaccination to forcing surgery on a young woman against her will and depriving her of the ability to have children. The Court did not require the state to demonstrate that sterilization was necessary and not arbitrary or oppressive. This suggests that the Court did not view Jacobson as having required any substantive standard of necessity or reasonableness that would prevent what today would be considered an indefensible assault. The Court did not even consider that Carrie Buck might have any right to personal liberty. With the Court’s imprimatur of involuntary sterilization laws, more than 60 000 Americans, mostly poor women, were sterilized by 1978.

Horrifying.

Jacobson v Massachusetts was also cited to justify the emergency powers used in Korematsu v United States where the court ruled that the internment of Japanese Americans was acceptable.

Again, horrifying.

A Jacobson citation for government emergency powers in certain emergencies can be used rationally, such as in Justice Thomas’ dissent in Hamdi v Rumsfeld saying that emergency powers can be used to house enemy combatants without habeas corpus. Holding prisoners of war is reasonable, but notice the court majority did not accept Thomas’ view and ruled that the liberty of those prisoners was paramount enough for the court to intervene, Jacobson was ignored.

Jacobson v Massachusetts, in it’s context, is considered archaic and flawed by todays standards. It is used selectively and applied inconsistently for outcome based rulings and judging by President Trump’s many comments on the unfairness of the COVID lockdowns he certainly would not approve of Judge Barrett’s ruling. Judge Barrett ignored the warning quoted above in Jacobson about the application of emergency powers in an arbitrary manner to get to her desired outcome, thus tossing the 14th Amendment, equal justice under the law, and the 1st Amendment out the window.

This idea that Judge Barrett puts forth that Jacobson has always been the guiding light and all the government has to do is declare emergency and most anything goes is ridiculous. The liberty tests such as strict and intermediate scrutiny, among others, that the courts use did not even exist when Jacobson was written. The last fifty years of jurisprudence has severely undermined Jacobson as a functioning precedent and to say that it is overly broad is the understatement of the century, which is why the authors of it warned of the ruling’s potential for abuse.

Fortunately there are judges who paid close attention to the warning in Jacobson and used that warning to apply a rational context to it. Such judges include Justice Samuel Alito and Judge William Stickman IV.

Judge Stickman, a Trump appointee, ruled that Pennsylvania’s COVID shutdown, which was abused in the same way as Illinois, is unconstitutional. His ruling is a legal and academic home run, a clinic of you will, on the liberty of the individual as guaranteed by the Constitution vs the emergency powers of the state when the state violates their own rules for their own partisan advantage. The courts often strike things down for being overbroad and arbitrarily imposed – well read Judge Stickman’s amazing rulings, including where he quotes Justice Alito, at the following links – http://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pawd.266888/gov.uscourts.pawd.266888.79.0_1.pdf

http://htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/files/motion-stay-1600798021.pdf

If you lack the time to read it attorney turned VLAWGer Viva Frei summarizes both of Judge Stickman’s rulings beautifully. You will not regret watching:

Compare Judge Stickman’s ruling to Judge Barrett’s. It shows an intellectual mismatch and understanding of the law that is breathtaking. Barrett’s ruling by comparison is inept,  intellectually dishonest, and quite frankly juvenile. Such a ruling is disqualifying to sit on the highest court in the land. It seems the Deep State has won again.

UPDATE – Famed Attorney Robert Barnes reviewed Judge Barrett’s last forty 4th Amendment cases:

Few judges in America would be worse on FISA & Fourth Amendment issues than Barrett. In 40+ cases I read & reviewed by Barrett, she sided w/ the government over 90% of the time, a near-record, calling judicial remedy for 4th Amendment violations “not a personal right.”

A highlighted list of excuses Barrett used to excuse Fourth Amendment violations: the dog sniff was just a little extra at a traffic stop; “consent” from abbreviated demands by police to sign an unread document; magical sniffing abilities of police; near a border; cars can move.

More Barrett excuses for 4th Amendment violations: blood draws don’t “invade” your privacy; it’s ok to be incompetent in violating civil rights if not “egregiously” or “mostly” incompetent; cops acting “outside jurisdiction” is just “too bad” & no “personal right” to remedy 4th.

Barrett immunized almost everyone accused of rights violations, granting immunity in 90%+ of all cases she decided on the topic & she hasn’t found for a single person that ended up dead in police custody while explaining it’s ok to kick someone on the ground to “control” them.

A list of the cases you can research & read for yourselves – LINK.

Culture reflects life and vice versa. The infectious optimism of Ronald Reagan had an effect on the culture that is difficult to overstate. Watch and see for yourself:

UPDATE – Now we know why Director Wray is saying these crazy things. He is giving Democrat’s talking points. Chris Wray has been a BIG part of the problem in dealing with the coverup of DoJ/FBI investigative and prosecutorial misconduct. Wray has been actively resisting President Trump’s efforts to clean up the bad cops in the FBI and the DoJ.

************************************************

Director Wray saying that ANTIFA is more of an ideology and not a group was laughed at in the face of evidence that is publicly available.

CBS News’ Catherine Herridge reports that documents from the Department of Homeland Security show that the Portland ANTIFA violence was not “opportunistic” but “organized” citing:

Here we have one truck handing out signs and the audio shows another handing out shields. No organization> These Uhauls must rent themselves.

President Trump voices his displeasure with Director Wray’s testimony before Congress:

UPDATE –

http://twitter.com/RepDougCollins/status/1311289675357749248

Meaning the federal government can cut off federal funds, The Constitution guarantees peoples rights and that local governments must also protect their people. If they refuse to protect why the should federal government pay them to do nothing?

NY Post:

New York City was among three cities labeled “anarchist jurisdictions” by the Justice Department on Sunday and targeted to lose federal money for failing to control protesters and defunding cops, The Post has learned.

Portland, Ore., and Seattle, Wash., were the other two cities on the list, which was approved by US Attorney General William Barr.

“When state and local leaders impede their own law enforcement officers and agencies from doing their jobs, it endangers innocent citizens who deserve to be protected, including those who are trying to peacefully assemble and protest,” Barr said in a statement set to be released Monday.

“We cannot allow federal tax dollars to be wasted when the safety of the citizenry hangs in the balance,’’ the AG added.

“It is my hope that the cities identified by the Department of Justice today will reverse course and become serious about performing the basic function of government and start protecting their own citizens.”

White House budget director Russ Vought is set to issue guidance to federal agencies on withdrawing funds from the cities in less than two weeks.

The list of cities eligible for defunding will be updated periodically, the feds have said.

Trump was pretty much the only one taking this seriously, but as is so often the case the Democrats are trying to rewrite history:

It has this nice Avengers feel to it:

Ben Shapiro comments about Democrats sheading our constitutional norms:

Watch what CNN’s Don Lemon says here. This is what the Democratic Party leadership is saying:

This op-ed from the WSJ is so important and relevant that we are including in in it’s entirety here. This is not something we normally do, but everyone who cares about liberty and opposes anarchy should read every word:

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is widely reported to have told his Democratic colleagues on Saturday that “nothing is off the table for next year” if Republicans confirm a Supreme Court nominee in this Congress. He means this as a threat that Democrats will break the filibuster and pack the Court with more Justices in 2021 if they take control of the Senate in November’s election.

So what else is new? Democrats have a long history of breaking procedural norms on judges. While packing the Court would be their most radical decision to date, it would fit their escalating pattern. Let’s review the modern historical lowlights to see which party has really been the political norm-breaker:

• The Bork assault. When Ronald Reagan selected Robert Bork in 1987, the judge was among the most qualified ever nominated. No less than Joe Biden had previously said he might have to vote to confirm him. Then Ted Kennedy issued his demagogic assault from the Senate floor, complete with lies about women “forced into back-alley abortions” and blacks who would have to “sit at segregated lunch counters.” Democrats and the press then unleashed an unprecedented political assault.

Previous nominees who had failed in the Senate were suspected of corruption (Abe Fortas) or thought unqualified (Harrold Carswell). Bork was defeated because of distortions about his jurisprudence. This began the modern era of hyper-politicized judicial nominations, though for the Supreme Court it has largely been a one-way partisan street.

No Democratic nominee has been borked, to use the name that became a verb. Even Justice Sonia Sotomayor, whose left-wing legal views were obvious upon her nomination, received a respectful GOP hearing and was confirmed 68-31 with nine GOP votes. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed 96-3, Stephen Breyer 87-9, and Elena Kagan 63-37.

Democrats, meanwhile, have escalated to character assassination. Clarence Thomas was unfairly smeared on the eve of a Senate vote and barely confirmed. Democrats accused Samuel Alito of racism and sexism for belonging decades earlier to an obscure Princeton alumni group.

Democrats promoted the uncorroborated claims of women accusers against Brett Kavanaugh from his high school and college years. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse undertook a deep dive into Justice Kavanaugh’s high-school yearbook. This treatment has become the real Democratic Party “norm.”

• Filibustering appellate nominees. It’s mostly forgotten now, but in George W. Bush’s first term Senate Democrats pioneered the use of the filibuster to block nominees to the circuit courts. That was also unprecedented.

Miguel Estrada was left hanging for 28 months before he withdrew, though he had support from 55 Senators. A 2001 Judiciary Committee memo to Sen. Dick Durbin was candid in urging opposition to Mr. Estrada because “he is Latino” and couldn’t be allowed to reach the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals lest he later become a candidate for the Supreme Court.

Democrats also filibustered or otherwise blocked appellate nominees Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, Charles Pickering Sr., Henry Saad, Carolyn Kuhl, William Pryor, David McKeague, Richard Griffin and William Myers, among others.

This violation of norms was stopped only after the GOP regained the majority and threatened to change Senate rules. A handful of Senators in both parties then negotiated a deal to vote for nominees except in “extraordinary circumstances.” Republicans did not unilaterally break the filibuster for judicial nominees.

• Breaking the filibuster for appellate nominees. That norm-breaker was executed by Democrats in 2013, led by then Majority Leader Harry Reid with the enthusiastic support of Barack Obama. Democrats rewrote Senate rules in mid-Congress, on a party-line vote, to add three seats to the D.C. Circuit. The goal was to stack that court with liberals who would rubber stamp Mr. Obama’s “pen” and “phone” regulatory diktats.

Those liberals have done that numerous times, while sometimes blocking President Trump’s deregulatory rule-makings. But the political cost has been high, as we warned at the time. Harry Reid’s precedent allowed GOP leader Mitch McConnell to do the same when Democrats tried to filibuster Neil Gorsuch. The GOP majority can now confirm Mr. Trump’s next nominee with 51 votes.

***

Urged on by the progressive media, Democrats are now vowing that they’ll break the 60-vote legislative filibuster rule to add two, or even four, new Justices to the Supreme Court next year for a total of 11 or 13. But they have already been saying this for months. Barack Obama gave the green light when he used John Lewis’s funeral to call the filibuster a “Jim Crow relic.” Never mind that as a Senator he endorsed a filibuster of Mr. Alito. Mr. Whitehouse and four colleagues explicitly threatened in an amicus brief that the Court would be “restructured” if Justices rule the wrong way.

Republicans could surrender and not confirm a nominee, and Senate Democrats would still break the filibuster. Court packing would then become a sword hanging over the Justices if they rule contrary to the policy views of the Senate left. Leader Schumer won’t resist because he is quaking at the prospect of a primary challenge from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in 2022.

Contrast this Democratic record, and now this court-packing threat, with the GOP record. In 2016 Mitch McConnell and his colleagues refused to confirm Merrick Garland and said the voters should decide the issue in the election. Mr. Schumer had previously vowed the same standard in the final years of George W. Bush. Mr. McConnell essentially made a political bet by putting judicial philosophy and the Supreme Court at the center of the 2016 campaign.

Judges were also on the Senate ballot in 2018 after the Kavanaugh ugliness. The GOP gained two net seats. The use of their elected Senate power now to confirm a nominee would be a wholly legitimate use of their constitutional authority. They should not be cowed by Democratic threats from confirming a nominee. Democrats have shown they will do what they want with Senate power no matter what Republicans do now.

What Republicans should do is let the voters know about the Democratic filibuster and court-packing plans, and make them a campaign issue. Democratic Senators and candidates should have to declare themselves not merely on Mr. Trump’s nominee but on the filibuster and court-packing that Mr. Schumer has now told the country will be on the table.

http://twitter.com/realDerekUtley/status/1308561553927610368

This is a really fun ad. Good Luck Dan!

UPDATE – 

1 – Every President that had an opening on the Supreme Court has nominated someone.  Democrats say that Trump should be the only one not to.

2 – Assuming Trump does nominate he will be the 23rd President of 45 that nominated someone in the last year of their first or second team. According to Democrats, Trump must be the only one who shouldn’t be allowed to follow the plain text of the Constitution.

by Political Arena Editor Chuck Norton

UPDATE II – So how did we call this wrong? We trusted that someone close to President Trump would explain how Barrett has a number of rulings that violate judicial norms and go against several of President Trump’s stated positions and what he expects from a judge. It seems that this did not happen. Please read on at the following link –  Amy Coney Barrett Rulings Show Real Problems for Conservatives

UPDATE – The corporate and deep state establishment is pushing hard on President Trump for Judge Barrett – Read this conservatives and those who care about civil liberties and tell me if this is what you want in a judge? –

http://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1308232087342784512.html

Short, sweet, and to the point, this is how we see President Trump’s top three choices for the Supreme Court.

President Trump will not nominate Amy Barrett. He is much more likely to pick Barbara Lagoa or Allison Rushing.

Lagoa and Rushing are more politically acceptable to certain Senators and and are just plain better judges.

Why?

Judge Barrett ruled to support the draconian Democrat shutdown in Illinois. On civil liberties her record just is not as good as Rushing or Lagoa. The academy tends to produce judges that don’t take the Bill of Rights very seriously, they like to find cute ways to get around the limits the Constitution imposes. Barrett, like Roberts, falls into this category.

Barrett, like Roberts, tends to use leaps of logic to get to an outcome. She tends to favor  prosecutors who are overzealous and play games with the rules. She does not see the Constitution as a limiting document nearly as well as Lagoa and Rushing. In an era where the deep state needs its wings clipped, Barrett is not the judge that will do it.

Lagoa has the common touch and is from Florida, Rushing is a conservative civil libertarian intellectual powerhouse. On 1st, 4th and 14th Amendment issues Lagoa and Rushing are better choices than Barrett for today’s Republican voter and for the integrity of the law.

Enjoy!

We are going to say it. Democrats are exploiting Joe Biden in his condition desperately hoping to latch onto power. The fact that no one in the party is standing up to put and end to this speaks volumes. What is being allowed to continue is sick.

This is Tim Pool at his vest and is worth your time:

Well there is more of this:

http://twitter.com/mdp_92/status/1307351193916641281

http://twitter.com/AllRiseAmerica/status/1307449310527840257

Always politics first right Democrats…stay classy:

The threats of violence:

http://twitter.com/AJCalMaga/status/1307380967946874880

Democrats in 2016 vs Democrats now in spite of what Justice Ginsburg said about the process:

“There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.” – RBG

http://twitter.com/JustineAnnSand/status/1307318315602391043

http://twitter.com/FuctupMike/status/1307531140107042817

Jessie Watters tells Republicans to “Buck Up”:

http://twitter.com/TVNewsHQ/status/1307489472112734212

Remember what Democrats did to Kavanaugh and to Amy Berrett:

The most important reaction is from Sen. Mitch McConnell who warned the Democrats that breaking the Senate rules in order to change them to make it easier to confirm judges was going to come back to bite them:

http://twitter.com/AllRiseAmerica/status/1307520516236902403

Some Democrats have threatened to “pack the Supreme Court” by doubling the number of judges on the court and nominating a bunch of political hacks should they ever win a large enough majority, thus requiring Republicans to respond in kind. Democrats tried this before and the voters punished them heavily for it. We will give the last word to Justice Ginsburg herself as she expressed what she thinks of such foolish ideas:

Former Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell:|

It was six mayors as we reported before….but now seven:

[Editor’s Note: Democrats, after betraying our ally Israel time and time again, have the guile to claim that any criticism of their billionaire oligarch George Soros is antisemitism because he is part Jewish. Being clear, Soros is no friend of Israel and never has been, rendering Democrats’ desperate claims rather hollow]

A great piece from Julia Kelly published in the Tennessee Star. We suggest you pop over and read the entire piece but here is the short of it:

Protect the Results lists dozen of sponsors which in reality are mostly funded by only a handful of anti-Trump tycoons.

George Soros: One of Protect the Results main organizers is a nonprofit called Indivisible. Based out of Washington, D.C., Indivisible was founded in 2016 after Trump’s election; according to a political watchdog, Indivisible’s main donor is the Tides Foundation, a Soros-financed pass through organization.

“Started as a Google document detailing techniques for opposing the Republican agenda under Mr. Trump, [Indivisible] now has a mostly Washington-based staff of about 40 people, with more than 6,000 volunteer chapters across the country,” the New York Times reported in 2017. That year, Indivisible raised nearly $8 million, a figure we presume is much higher in 2020. The group’s policy director is a former advisor for an immigration advocacy center partially funded by grants from Soros.

Other Soros-funded entities including MoveOn.org, People for the American Way, 350Action, and Women’s March are listed as Protect the Results partners. In an interview last month, Soros, a longtime Trump nemesis, suggested the president will be indicted if he loses in November “because he has violated the Constitution in many different ways.” One scenario war-gamed out by the post-election plotters is criminal charges brought against Donald Trump and his associates for unspecified crimes.

Pierre Omidyar: The founder of eBay has poured tens of millions into projects headed by NeverTrump “conservatives” including former Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol since 2017.

Omidyar, whose net worth is around $17 billion, this week issued a blueprint for how to “reimagine capitalism in America” which would “ensure that people who have been historically and systematically marginalized by structural racism, colonialism, paternalism, and indifference will have opportunity, power, and the self determination that comes from economic prosperity and a vibrant, fair, and responsive democracy.”

Most of Omidyar’s largess has been directed to left-wing causes and Democratic candidates over the years but he found political soulmates on the NeverTrump Right. Two NeverTrump outfits—Republicans for the Rule of Law and Stand Up Republic—are Protect the Results partners. Stand Up Republic is fronted by NeverTrumper Evan McMullin; Republicans for the Rule of Law, headed by Kristol, is one of many groups that receives grants from Omidyar’s vast network.

Kristol participated in the post-election tabletop exercises and bragged on Twitter that he had played the role of President Trump.

James and Kathryn Murdoch: The son and daughter-in-law of Fox News founder Rupert Murdoch are spending lots of money to separate themselves from the family’s conservative legacy. James resigned from the company’s board in July over disputes with the cable news channel’s “editorial content.”

The Murdochs, worth a reported $2 billion, are donors to Kristol’s Republicans for the Rule of Law and another Kristol-operated group, Defending Democracy Together, which is spending tens of millions on advertisements in swing states featuring purported Republicans planning to vote for Joe Biden. (The Murdochs also support the former vice president.)

Defending Democracy Together publishes The Bulwark, an online magazine that replaced Kristol’s now-defunct Weekly Standard. The blog houses a number of NeverTrumper editors and writers including Charles Sykes and Mona Charen. The Bulwark, like other NeverTrump organs, is pushing the idea that the president, not the Democrats or Joe Biden, won’t accept the results of the election. (Omidyar also supports Defending Democracy Together.)

Tom Steyer: NextGen America, fronted by failed Democratic presidential candidate and multi-billionaire Tom Steyer, is involved in Protect the Results. Steyer spent $123 million in the 2018 election cycle; NextGen America will spend at least $45 million to help elect Joe Biden by persuading young voters to use mail-in ballots. While lamenting out-of-control wildfires in his home state, Steyer told CNN on Monday that the only solution to the alleged climate crisis is “honest to God, Joe Biden.”

While this list covers the anti-Trump vehicles officially bankrolling the post-election revolt, it does not account for the unquantifiable in-kind donations by Big Tech. As I will detail in my next column, Silicon Valley already is seeding the ground for a Biden victory at all costs by using a combination of censorship and intimidation aimed not just at Republican voters but at the president himself—involvement that can justifiably be described as election interference on a scale our foreign adversaries could only dream of.

Albeit after the fact but better late than never and in the process the Washington Post takes some rather unfair shots at President Trump, but at least it’s something.

Tim Poole did a great analysis of this piece from the Washington Post. Well done Tim:

President Trump reacts. No politics, total class:

Below are the Fox News’ reactions. A worthy tribute that is once again respectful, completely classy and informative:

Former VP Joe Biden’s Statement – After a brief tribute, just like Democrats do at funerals, they get political immediately. This is deliberate as Biden is clearly reading a written statement. Biden says that we should wait until after the election to nominate and used the example of barack Obama in 2016, but Biodens leaves out the key difference – Obama was a lame duck and Trump was the following President. In this case Trump is not a lame duck and is heading for an even wider margin of victory than he won in 2016.

CNN and MSNBC are having a meltdown. Most of their coverage is centered around how they can defeat any potential Republican nominee, Orange Man bad etc. As more clips appear online we will insert more of them here.

The social media reaction to Justice Ginsburg’s death from the left is toxic as one might guess. Much of it is simply too disgusting to bother posting much but anyone reading this can search Twitter and look of themselves. The usual “if Republicans nominate they should burn it all down” etc. Considering the fake allegations Democrats drummed up against Justice Kavanaugh it has become clear that the Democrats will just use hearings to smear and intimidate any potential nominee.

http://twitter.com/GregoryEck/status/1307165039435091970

The social media reaction from conservatives center mostly around several differing types of comments; those speaking reverently, those reminding us of how the left gleefully  trashed Justice Scalia at his death, those reminding us how the Democrats have already trashed Ginsburg’s most likely replacement and how they are about to smear her.

http://twitter.com/1776Stonewall/status/1307150097625624577

The Democrat talking point on how long it takes to get a confirmation just is not true:

http://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1307160711664209921

The judge most likely to replace Ginsburg is Amy Coney Barrett:

http://twitter.com/GregoryEck/status/1307135775897772033

This meme popped up on Twitter…

Being a single mom or becoming a parent at all is hard and it is very expensive, especially with COVID shutdowns making everything so much worse. This man, obviously understanding that, decided to make a difference:

The perp started a fire with a molotov cocktail, a home made fire bomb. He gets released the same day so of course he starts six more fires! This is in Portland where they have the BLM/ANTIFA riot/arsons. These same prosecutors refuse to file charges.

Daily Wire:

A man who was arrested in Oregon after allegedly using a Molotov cocktail to start a wildfire was later released from jail but rearrested less than 24 hours later for allegedly starting six more small fires.

Domingo Lopez Jr., 45, was arrested after using a Molotov cocktail “to start a small brush fire,” the Portland Police Bureau said in a statement Monday.

“On Sunday, September 13, 2020 at 4:35p.m., East Precinct officers were dispatched to assist Portland Fire and Rescue with a brush fire in the 9600 block of East Burnside Street,” the statement reads. “Officers saw that a section of grass along the I-205 freeway was burning. Firefighters extinguished the fire. No one was injured and no structures were damaged.”

“About an hour later, East officers were flagged down by a witness who pointed out the suspect in a nearby tent,” the statement continues. “Officers arrested the suspect, who confirmed he lit the fire with the device.”

Authorities booked Lopez Jr. into the Multnomah County Detention Center “on charges of Reckless Burning and Disorderly Conduct in the Second Degree,” the statement adds. “Arson investigators are also doing follow-up to see if other charges are warranted.”

As reported by the New York Post, Lopez Jr. was booked into jail Sunday evening on charges of “reckless burning and second-degree disorderly conduct” and released later that night.

“The alleged arson comes as Oregon is one of the worst hit by wildfires devastating the West Coast, with at least 10 dead in the Beaver State,” the Post notes.

The Portland Police Bureau later reported that the same suspect was arrested just hours later for allegedly starting more fires after being released from jail.

Former presidential candidate Major Tulsi Gabbard, who many consider to be the last sane Democrat left in the leadership bucks her party against and takes a very reasonable stand against ballot harvesting.

Legendary reporter and news anchor Brit Hume standing against outrageous censorship.

Daily Wire – Facebook Censors Pro-Trump Ad After Fact-Checker Admits Claim May Be True – LINK.