Categories
CNN Don Lemon electoral college Intelwars Mainstream media Media Bias

CNN’s Don Lemon tries to backtrack on abolishing Electoral College, claims he did not say what he literally said

CNN host Don Lemon is attempting to backtrack from controversial comments he made on Monday in light of President Donald Trump having the opportunity to confirm his third Supreme Court justice.

What did Lemon say Monday?

Speaking with fellow CNN host Chris Cuomo, who said both Republicans and Democrats are being “hypocritical” in comparison to their 2016 position on Supreme Court vacancies during an election year, Lemon advocated dismantling the American electoral system.

“We’re going to have to blow up the entire system,” Lemon said.

Specifically, Lemon said the Electoral College should be abolished — which would require a constitutional amendment — and Democrats should pack the Supreme Court with ideologically liberal judges.

“You’re going to have to get rid of the Electoral College, because the people — because the minority in this country decides who the judges are and they decide who the president is. Is that — is that fair?” Lemon said. “If Democrats, if Joe Biden wins, Democrats can stack the courts and they can do that amendment and they can get it passed.”

What is Lemon saying now?

The CNN host claimed Tuesday that his words were taken out of context, alleging he did not mean exactly what he said.

“I woke up and saw these headlines like, ‘Don Lemon is calling for the abolishing of the Electoral College.’ But let me tell you. I don’t care,” Lemon said, adding that he was merely responding to Cuomo’s suggestion of electing politicians with integrity.

“And I said, well then, we have to blow up the whole system. Right?” Lemon continued. “But I said here’s what Democrats can do. And I said that’s the danger. They can stack the court. But all of a sudden, I am calling for the abolishing of the Electoral College and what else do they say, and that I’m a Democrat because I said ‘we.’ I mean, the American people.”

Lemon went on to explain that he chose to respond to the criticism because the “context was so egregious.” He claimed critics used an out-of-context “sound bite” against him.

In fact, Lemon claimed he was not personally suggesting the abolition of the Electoral College — but merely repeating others who are.

“But here’s what I say, run and tell this: I do think that we need to look at the Electoral College because I think that it disenfranchises voters, both Democrats and Republicans. If you’re in a blue state, and all of the electoral votes go to the Democratic person, then the Republicans’ votes aren’t counted, the people who voted for the Republican candidate,” Lemon said.

“So, I do think it should be looked at because I think it does disenfranchises certain people,” he added. “Should it be abolished? That’s not for me to say. I’m saying, this is what Democrats are saying. Stack the courts. Get rid of the Electoral College. But there is no nuance and no context anymore.”

Share
Categories
Intelwars Lisa Murkowski republican party Senate Supreme Court

GOP Sen. Murkowski already backtracks after initially saying she won’t support SCOTUS confirmation

As President Donald Trump prepares to announce his nomination to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, Senate Republicans are shoring up their numbers to ensure the nominee is confirmed prior to the election.

Now, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who originally said she would not vote to confirm a new justice before the election on Nov. 3, is already seemingly backtracking.

What did Murkowski say before?

In a statement over the weekend, Murkowski explained that she did not support filling the high court vacancy in an election year four years ago — and she does not support doing so now.

For weeks, I have stated I would not support taking up a potential Supreme Court vacancy this close to the election. Sadly, what was then hypothetical is now our reality, but my position has not changed. I did not support taking up a nomination before the 2016 election to fill the vacancy created by the passing of Justice Scalia, we are now even closer to the 2020 election — less than two months out and I believe the same standard must apply.

Murkowski’s statement came one day after Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who is fighting to keep her Senate seat, said she believes the winner of the election should decide who fills the Supreme Court vacancy.

Murkowski and Collins are two of the most moderate Senate Republicans.

What is Murkowski saying now?

Despite her comments just two days prior, Murkowski suggested Tuesday that she may vote to confirm whomever Trump nominates.

“I know everybody wants to ask the question, ‘Will you confirm the nominee?’ We don’t have a nominee yet. You and I don’t know who that is. And so I can’t confirm whether or not I can confirm a nominee when I don’t know who the nominee is,” she said, Alaska Public Media reported.

However, Murkowski reiterated her opposition to confirming a new Supreme Court justice so close to the election — but again implied the timetable will not make a difference in how she votes.

“I do not support this process moving forward,” she said. “Now, having said that, this process is moving forward with or without me.

“If I had felt that there was a rush to move this through because you’re up against a deadline that is hard and fast, like an election, and that a nominee had not been thoroughly and fairly evaluated through our process, then I’m going to have to look at that,” she added.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell confirmed Monday that he has enough support to confirm Trump’s nominee.

Share
Categories
Coronavirus Covid relief Gretchen Whitmer Intelwars Kirk caldwell Melvin carter

Report: Democrats funding pet projects like free college with taxpayer dollars meant for COVID relief

Taxpayer dollars allocated to states and municipalities in the coronavirus relief bill known as the CARES Act are reportedly being used for pet projects by Democratic politicians.

What are the details?

The CARES Act, passed in March after COVID-related lockdowns crippled the American economy, allocated $150 billion to the COVID Relief Fund, $139 billion of which was earmarked to state and local governments to be used exclusively for public health costs.

But according to Fox News, Democratic governors and mayors are using the taxpayer dollars to fund projects completely unrelated to COVID-19 relief.

For example, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, announced earlier in September that she will use $24 million of CARES Act money to fund free college for some Michigan essential workers.

“This initiative is Michigan’s way of expressing gratitude to essential workers for protecting public health and keeping our state running,” Whitmer said.

Meanwhile, St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter, a Democrat, announced a plan earlier in September to use $300,000 in CARES Act funds to pilot a universal basic income project. Carter said he would sign an executive order giving 150 families in his city $500 per month, no strings attached, according to the Twin Cities Pioneer Press. Rep. Betty McCollum (D) has raised questions over Carter’s spending.

Honolulu Mayor Kirk Caldwell, another Democrat, is also getting in on the action.

Caldwell is using $629,000 in CARES Act money to hire more than a dozen community relations specialists and another $200,000 to pressure-wash sidewalks in one part of his city, the Honolulu Civil Beat reported.

Why so much wasteful spending?

State and local governments are racing to use the funds because they will be forced to return unused monies by Dec. 30, 2020, according to the Department of Treasury.

But didn’t Democrats want more money?

Part of the reason Democrats have refused to compromise with Republicans on a second COVID relief bill — which they say is critical for the millions of Americans whose livelihood remains in limbo due to virus-related economic woes — is because they say states need more money than Republicans are willing to give.

Last month, after lawmakers failed to compromise, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi lashed out at Republicans.

“Their contempt for state, local, tribal and territorial governments endangers health care workers, first responders and other frontline workers, in addition to teachers. Support for teachers and education are essential for the children. But Mitch McConnell has said that states should just go bankrupt,” she said.

But as it turned out, states were given more money they could spend, hence they’re racing to spend it on pet projects now.

In fact, the Washington Free Beacon reported that, at the end of July, states had spent less than one-quarter of the money they received.

That fact, however, did not stop Democrats from demanding nearly $1 trillion more for state and local governments.

“They also want to spend another trillion dollars bailing out state and local governments that have only spent 25% of the money we sent them in March,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said.

Share
Categories
Chris Cuomo CNN Court packing Don Lemon electoral college Intelwars Supreme Court

Don Lemon wants to ‘blow up the entire system,’ pack SCOTUS with liberals to abolish Electoral College

CNN host Don Lemon is angry — and he wants to “blow up” the American electoral system.

On his show Monday, Lemon vented his frustrations over the prospect of President Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Senate confirming yet another justice to the Supreme Court.

Trump said over the weekend that the Republican Party would move forward “without delay” to fill the high court vacancy left by Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell confirmed Monday the Republican caucus
already has enough votes to confirm a new justice.

What did Lemon say?

During a heated discussion with fellow CNN host Chris Cuomo, during which Cuomo argued that both Republicans and Democrats are being “hypocritical” with respect to the position they took on the Supreme Court vacancy in 2016, Lemon advocated the complete demolition of American governing systems.

“We’re going to have to blow up the entire system,” Lemon said.

Lemon then specified how such destruction should occur: He suggested eliminating the Electoral College and stacking the Supreme Court.

“You’re going to have to get rid of the Electoral College, because the people — because the minority in this country decides who the judges are and they decide who the president is. Is that — is that fair?” Lemon said.

Cuomo responded by noting a constitutional amendment — which requires two-thirds approval from Congress and three-fourths approval from states — is required to eliminate the Electoral College.

Lemon shot back, “If Democrats, if Joe Biden wins, Democrats can stack the courts and they can do that amendment and they can get it passed.”

Could Lemon’s wish come true?

Democrats are actively threatening to expand the Supreme Court and pack it with ideologically liberal justices if they win the White House and a Senate majority. It would definitely be possible if Democrats hold a majority in Washington, because Congress has the power to determine the number of judges on the Supreme Court.

However, abolishing the Electoral College would be a nearly impossible feat, requiring bipartisan support in Congress and in the majority of state legislatures.

Still, Democrats, angry that Trump handily won the 2016 election despite losing the so-called “popular vote,” are increasingly floating the idea of eliminating the Electoral College.

Such a move is politically expedient for Democrats because it would allow them to win more national elections, as the current American electoral system does not give the nationwide popular vote significance over the Electoral College. But Democrat-controlled states still have the upper hand. California, New York, Illinois, Washington, New Jersey, and Massachusetts — states that are essentially guaranteed to vote Democratic in a presidential election — hold over 50% of the Electoral College votes required to win the presidency.

Share
Categories
Andrew Cuomo Bill de Blasio brooklyn Intelwars New York City

‘F*** Cuomo and de Blasio’: Brooklyn street painting takes aim at NY Democratic leaders, city quickly responds

Apparently, New Yorkers are not happy with Gov. Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, both Democrats.

Over the weekend, the message “F*** CUOMO AND DE BLASIO” was painted in large, yellow block letters on a Brooklyn street.

According to the New York Post, the message, which appeared in similar style to the “Black Lives Matter” street murals that have appeared across the country, was painted early Saturday morning as a party, dubbed a “small business owner protest,” wound down.

“A few partygoers got the idea to paint in huge [letters, using] yellow paint with rollers on North 15th, ‘F*** Cuomo and de Blasio,'” one party attendee told the news outlet.

“The party continued. Everyone took photos,” the attendee added. “It was a big hit. The crowds cheered, even the cops chuckled.”

Unfortunately, not everyone was thrilled. Within 24 hours of the message appearing, city officials painted over the free speech expression.

More from the Post:

Bucking widely held notions about municipal inefficiency, workers from the city Department of Transportation descended on the display less than 24 hours later — around 10 p.m. Saturday — to cover up the message with black, according to the attendee.

“They told the partygoers it came from up top and they were told the sign said ‘F–k the police,'” the attendee said, though it was unclear whether the workers meant that the order came from top DOT officials or City Hall.

The exact grievances against Cuomo and de Blasio were not made clear.

However, both Democratic leaders have earned fierce criticism over their handling of the coronavirus pandemic.

On one hand, Cuomo signed an executive order forcing nursing homes to accept COVID-positive patients, which triggered a tsunami of COVID deaths among nursing home residents. Cuomo has refused to accept responsibility or accountability for the deaths.

On the other hand, de Blasio has been slow to rescind strict COVID-related lockdown measures despite New York City, once the global epicenter of the pandemic, having very few cases.

In fact, just last week, de Blasio once again delayed the reopening of public schools in the Big Apple.

Meanwhile, restaurants in the city still cannot serve diners indoors.

For weeks, restaurants have been forced to offer dining in the street. Fortunately for New Yorkers, indoor dining is slated to resume on Sept. 30, although with just 25% capacity.

Share
Categories
Alexandria ocasio-cortez Chuck Schumer Donald Trump IMPEACHMENT Intelwars Supreme Court William Barr

Democrats threaten possible second Trump impeachment over GOP filling SCOTUS vacancy as Constitution allows

Powerful Democrats are floating impeachment — both of President Donald Trump and Attorney General William Barr — as one possible option to stop Trump from fulling his constitutional duty to nominate a judge to fill the Supreme Court vacancy or as a measure of retaliation if he proceeds with the nomination process.

What are Democrats saying?

Freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), one of the most influential progressive lawmakers, confirmed Sunday that Democrats may consider impeachment against Trump and Barr.

During a press conference in New York Sunday evening, a reporter asked Ocasio-Cortez, “Congresswoman, you mentioned being open to all ideas to buy time. Would you be in support of potentially renewing talks of impeachment hearings either against the attorney general or the president?”

Ocasio-Cortez responded:

Well, you know, I believe that certainly there has been an enormous amount of law-breaking in the Trump administration. I believe that Attorney General Barr is unfit for office and that he has pursued potentially law-breaking behavior.

That being said, these are procedures and decisions that are largely up to House Democratic leadership. But I believe that also we must consider, again, all of the tools available to our disposal, and that all of these options should be entertained and on the table.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who was standing next to Ocasio-Cortez, nodded in agreement when she said impeachment should be on the table.

Anything else?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also admitted Sunday that retaliatory impeachment is on the table if Trump fills the Supreme Court vacancy prior to the election.

“Well, we have our options. We have arrows in our quiver that I’m not about to discuss right now,” Pelosi said.

Pelosi’s comments, as well as those made by Ocasio-Cortez, only came after media members asked them whether Democrats would consider impeachment as a response to Trump.

Not only are Democrats considering impeachment, but many are advocating that, once Democrats regain control of the White House and Senate, they expand the number of Supreme Court justices and pack the court with ideological liberals.

How did Ginsburg feel?

As TheBlaze reported, Ruth Bader Ginsburg did not support court-packing or expanding the court.

“I have heard that there are some people on the Democratic side who would like to increase the number of judges. I think that was a bad idea when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to pack the court,” Ginsburg said in an interview with NPR last July.

“You mention before the quote of appearing partisan. Well, if anything would make the court appear partisan then it would be that, one side saying, ‘When we’re in power we’re going to enlarge the number of judges so we’ll have more people who will vote the way we want them to,'” she added.

Share
Categories
Intelwars Lindsey Graham Protesters Supreme Court washington dc

Capitol Police forced to respond after left-wing protesters gather outside Lindsey Graham’s house

The United States Capitol Police were forced to protect the house of Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) early Monday after protesters gathered outside his Washington, D.C., home.

What happened?

Democrats, angry that President Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Senate have the opportunity to fill yet another Supreme Court vacancy, have made it clear they will do anything in their power to disrupt the confirmation process, or at least have their voices heard.

Well, every one of Graham’s neighbors was subjected to those voices early Monday.

According to WUSA-TV, left-wing members of the ShutDown D.C. and Sunrise movement gathered outside Graham’s house at 6 a.m. Monday morning. Protesters were seen trespassing on the property, they made noise with bells and sirens, and some even attempted to knock on Graham’s door.

U.S. Capitol Police responded by forming a line on the sidewalk between the protesters and Graham’s house.

“DC residents will be fighting for their children and grandchildren early Monday morning, by insisting that Trump should not be allowed to fill his third lifelong Supreme Court appointment, tipping the court for generations,” ShutDown D.C. said in a statement, WUSA reported.

Both protest groups were formed to advocate for progressive climate policies. However, ShutDown D.C. also states on its website, “As the 2020 election approaches we are making plans to rise up to confront the Trump administration’s attacks on democracy.”

Anything else?

Within minutes of the announcement of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death late Friday, protesters gathered outside the Washington, D.C., home of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

Left-wing activist Charlotte Clymer tweeted, “We’re now walking to Mitch McConnell’s house to protest.”

Clymer also tweeted the street intersection of McConnell’s house — essentially making public his private address — but that tweet was removed from Twitter because it violated the social network’s rules.

Protesters also gathered outside McConnell’s Louisville home over the weekend, the Louisville Courier-Journal reported. Democrats are angry that McConnell essentially blocked the nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016, but has already confirmed that Trump’s latest nominee will receive a vote before Election Day.

About 100 protesters gathered Saturday, the newspaper reported. The demonstrators dispersed in the afternoon after police made one arrest.

“I’m disgusted that Senator McConnell would treat this opportunity in a complete different manner than he treated the opportunity when there was a vacancy when Obama was nine or 10 months away from the election,” one of the protesters told the Courier Journal. “I’m not surprised, but I am disgusted. I think that’s appalling.”

Share
Categories
Campaign 2020 Intelwars poll Supreme Court

Poll reveals majority of Americans support filling Supreme Court vacancy in election year

A majority of Americans support filling a Supreme Court vacancy during an election year, according to a poll taken just days before Ruth Bader Ginsburg died.

The question of whether a vacancy should be filled during an election year has taken center stage in the national discourse following Ginsburg’s death. Democrats say the court should remain short one justice until after the election, over fears that President Donald Trump will nominate another conservative justice. Republicans, on the other hand, have said they will move forward and fill the vacancy.

What did the poll find?

The Marquette University poll found that two-thirds of American adults — a whopping 67% — support conducting the Supreme Court confirmation process during an election year, while just 32% of respondents said they oppose it.

Among political parties, 68% of Republicans, 63% of Democrats, and 71% of Independents said they support holding hearings during an election year.

There was, however, significant partisan disagreement over whether blocking Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court was the right thing to do.

In 2016, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell effectively blocked Garland’s nomination by refusing to hold confirmation hearings. The politically motivated move allowed a Republican president, not Democratic then-President Barack Obama, to fill the high court vacancy left by Antonin Scalia’s sudden death.

A whopping 78% of Independents and 84% of Democrats told Marquette University the move was the “wrong thing to do.” By contrast, 45% of Republican respondents said it was the “right thing to do.”

Unfortunately for Democrats, they will be unable to block whomever Trump nominates because Republicans enjoy a majority in the Senate.

What about court-packing?

The poll found that Republicans and Independents — 65% and 58%, respectively — overwhelmingly “oppose” or “strongly oppose” altering the composition of the Supreme Court to pack it with ideological judges.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the poll also found that a majority of Democrats — 61% — support court-packing.

In alignment with that sentiment, Democrats are now threatening court-packing as retaliation over Trump filling the Supreme Court vacancy in an election year. Democrats say that, once their party regains control of the White House and Senate, they will both expand the number of Supreme Court justices and appoint all ideologically liberal justices.

Not only are they threatening to pack the court, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday refused to rule out impeachment as another retaliatory measure if Trump successfully appoints his third justice to the court.

Share
Categories
Court packing FDR Intelwars Ruth Bader Ginsburg Supreme Court

Ginsburg’s own words fire back at Democrats threatening to pack Supreme Court with liberal justices

In retaliation for President Donald Trump filling a Supreme Court vacancy just months before Election Day, Democrats are threatening to expand the high court and pack it with liberal justices once they regain control of the White House and Senate.

But even Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the respected Supreme Court justice who died Friday, thought court-packing is not a good idea.

What did Ginsburg believe?

In an interview with NPR last July, Ginsburg made herself clear: Nine justices on the Supreme Court works for the United States.

“There is no fixed number in the Constitution. So this court has had as few as five as many as 10. Nine seems to be a good number and it’s been that way for a long time,” Ginsburg said.

In fact, Congress is responsible for establishing the number of justices on the Supreme Court. The guidelines of one chief justice and eight associate justices was made law in the Judiciary Act of 1869.

But there have been attempts to change the composition of the court. Former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt attempted to pack the court with justices favorable to his political ideology with the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 after parts of the New Deal were ruled unconstitutional. His effort ultimately failed.

Ginsburg bluntly told NPR that Roosevelt’s attempt at Supreme Court reform “was a bad idea.”

I have heard that there are some people on the Democratic side who would like to increase the number of judges. I think that was a bad idea when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt pack the court. His plan was for every justice who stays on the court past the age of 70, the president would have the authority to nominate another justice. If that plan had been effective, the court’s number would have swelled immediately from nine to 15, and the president would have six appointments to make.

You mention before the quote of appearing partisan. Well, if anything would make the court appear partisan then it would be that, one side saying, “When we’re in power we’re going to enlarge the number of judges so we’ll have more people who will vote the way we want them to.”

“So, I am not at all in-favor of that solution to what I see is a temporary situation,” Ginsburg added.

As TheBlaze reported, Ginsburg also advocated for filling a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year, a prospect Democrats are now furiously fighting.

“There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year,” Ginsburg said in 2016 after Antonin Scalia’s sudden death left the Supreme Court with just eight justices less than one year before the election.

“Eight is not a good number,” she later said.

Share
Categories
Barack Obama Donald Trump Intelwars Supreme Court

President Trump has biting response for Barack Obama over filing SCOTUS vacancy

President Donald Trump had poignant words for his predecessor over the new Supreme Court vacancy.

In an essay commemorating Ruth Bader Ginsburg, former President Barack Obama suggested the high court’s vacancy must remain open in the spirit of “consistency.”

Obama wrote:

Four and a half years ago, when Republicans refused to hold a hearing or an up-or-down vote on Merrick Garland, they invented the principle that the Senate shouldn’t fill an open seat on the Supreme Court before a new president was sworn in. A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment. The rule of law, the legitimacy of our courts, the fundamental workings of our democracy all depend on that basic principle.

On Saturday, before traveling to North Carolina for a campaign rally, Trump responded to Obama’s request.

A reporter asked: “Sir, President Obama’s pick in 2016, Merrick Garland, didn’t get a chance to move forward. That was an election year. Why should your pick get a chance to move forward in an election year?”

Trump responded: “Well, that’s called ‘the consequences of losing an election.’ He lost the election. He didn’t have the votes. When you lose elections, sometimes things don’t work out well.”

Trump has said he and the Republican-controlled Senate will move forward to fulfill their constitutional duty of filling the Supreme Court vacancy.

Share
Categories
ABC News Donald Trump George Stephanopoulos IMPEACHMENT Intelwars Mainstream media Media Bias Nancy Pelosi Ruth Bader Ginsburg Supreme Court

Pelosi admits retaliatory impeachment on table if Trump fills SCOTUS vacancy: ‘We have our options’

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi revealed Sunday that impeaching President Donald Trump is one option of retaliation Democrats are considering if the president fills the Supreme Court vacancy left by Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death.

During an interview on ABC “This Week,” show host George Stephanopoulos — who served as a senior adviser to former President Bill Clinton in the mid-1990s — floated the possibility that Democrats respond to Trump filling the vacancy during an election year by once again pursuing his impeachment.

Stephanopoulos said, “Some have mentioned the possibility, if they try to push through a nominee in a lame duck session, that you and the House could move to impeach President Trump or Attorney General Barr as a way of stalling and preventing the Senate from acting on this nomination.”

Pelosi responded by refusing to rule out impeachment as a retaliatory measure.

“Well, we have our options. We have arrows in our quiver that I’m not about to discuss right now,” she told Stephanopoulos.

The ABC News host then followed up, “But to clear, you’re not taking any arrows out of your quiver, you’re not ruling anything out?”

Pelosi responded:

Good morning. Sunday morning. We have a responsibility, we take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. We have a responsibility to meet the needs of the American people, uh, that, uh, is, uh, when the we weigh the equities of protecting our democracy requires us to use every arrow in our quiver.

House Democrats, who hold a majority in the lower chamber, voted to impeach Trump last December. However, the effort, widely seen as driven by partisan politics, ultimately failed once it reached the Senate.

The Senate officially acquitted Trump in February.

What else are Democrats threatening?

Aware that Trump has the possibility to nominate his third Supreme Court justice, altering the ideological composition of the Supreme Court for a generation, Democrats are furiously fighting back against a nomination prior to Election Day.

However, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already said the Senate will vote on Trump’s nominee prior to the election, and the president has said that Republicans will act “without delay” to fulfill their constitutional duty by filling the vacancy.

In response, Democrats are threatening to expand the Supreme Court — and the federal judiciary — and pack the courts with liberal justices.

“If he holds a vote in 2020, we pack the court in 2021. It’s that simple,” Rep. Joe Kennedy (D-Mass.) said Saturday.


‘We have our options’ if GOP push a SCOTUS nomination before election: Speaker Pelosi | ABC News

www.youtube.com

Share
Categories
Campaign 2020 Colby covington Donald Trump Intelwars Joe Biden ufc

UFC star predicts Trump ‘landslide’ in fiery post-victory speech — then Trump calls him live on air

UFC star Colby Covington delivered a booming post-victory speech Saturday night during which he predicted President Donald Trump will defeat Joe Biden in a “landslide” and took a shot at NBA star LeBron James and “woke athletes.”

Later, Trump called Covington when he was live on air for another post-victory interview.

What did Covington say?

After Covington’s fight, which he won with a total knockout, the UFC star said “Sleepy Joe” — the nickname the president has mockingly assigned Biden — will get the same result as his opponent this November at the ballot box.

“Ladies and gentleman, the silent majority is ready to make some noise. If you thought that was a beating wait until November 3rd, when Donald Trump gets his hands on Sleepy Joe. That’s gonna be a landslide,” Covington said.

Then Covington showered praise on first responders before taking a shot at NBA star LeBron James and “woke athletes.”

“I want to dedicate this fight to all the first responders, all the military out there,” he said. “This world would not be safe without you guys. You keep us safe and not these woke athletes. I’m sick of these woke athletes and these spineless cowards like LeBron James.”

The Trump phone call

Later, during an interview with ESPN, Covington, wearing a red “Make America Great Again” hat adorned with Trump’s autograph, received a personal call from Trump.

“You’re a great fighter, man,” Trump said. “I tell you, you make it so easy, I don’t know how the hell you do that. Congratulations, I wanted to watch that fight tonight, I wanted to watch it, you were great.”

Covington replied, “Thank you so much, Mr. President. You gave me the dragon energy when you shook my hand on Sunday at your rally. It doesn’t matter if King Kong was in front of me, I was not going to lose after getting to shake your hand.”

The UFC star added that it did not matter who he fought, no one could stop him from winning after having met Trump personally.

“I’m proud of you man, I’m a big fan and I’m proud of you,” Trump responded. “You’re tough, you’re tough, you have the right spirit. So, now go win the next one, and just keep it for a long time, right? Just keep that championship for a long time. But you are something…I appreciated the shout-out tonight, too. I’m your fan, you’re my fan. Two of a kind, two of a kind.”

Share
Categories
Campaign 2020 Chuck Schumer ed markey Intelwars Joe kennedy Ruth Bader Ginsburg Supreme Court

Democrats threaten retaliation if Trump fills SCOTUS vacancy, promise to expand, pack court with liberals

Democrats are threatening to expand the Supreme Court and pack it with liberal justices if the Republican Party moved forward with filling the Supreme Court vacancy left by Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death.

The process, known as “court-packing,” could forever alter the shape of the Supreme Court. The move, although not likely politically advantageous in the long run, is not actually constitutionally prohibited. Congress, not the Constitution, dictates the number of justices who sit on the Supreme Court.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt attempted to pack the court in 1937 to obtain favorable outcomes after parts of the New Deal were ruled unconstitutional. His effort ultimately failed.

What are Democrats saying?

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said, “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. Joe Kennedy (D-Mass.) said, “If he holds a vote in 2020, we pack the court in 2021. It’s that simple.”

Markos Moulitsas, founder of multiple left-wing news websites, said, “If Republicans refuse to follow their own McConnell Rule, about confirming a justice in a presidential election year, then Democrats should, with zero ambiguity, promise to expand the court if they win this November. Expand it to 15.”

Moulitsas added, “This is the equation: Wait until next year to fill RGB’s seat, and conservatives maintain a 5-4 advantage. Replace her with a conservative this year, and it’s 6-3 for a short time, but Dems increase court size by at least four, and it’s a 7-6 liberal court.”

John Dean, who served as White House counsel for Richard Nixon, said court-packing should not be limited to the Supreme Court. He urged Democrats to expand the lower federal courts and pack them with liberal justices, too.

“@JoeBiden must announce that if the GOP rushes to pack the Court, the Dems will expand the SCOTUS to 11 justices, and expand the lower federal courts by 70 to 100 new judgeships, which have long been needed. In short, he will depoliticize the federal judiciary!” he said.

Indeed, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told Democrats on a conference call Saturday that “nothing is off the table next year” if Republicans move to fill the Supreme Court vacancy.

However, contrary to claims made by Markey and Moulitsas, the “precedent” that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell followed in 2016 — when he blocked then-President Barack Obama’s nominee to fill a vacancy left by Antonin Scalia’s sudden death — was that Supreme Court confirmations should wait until after an election when different political parties control the Senate and the White House.

At the time, Republicans controlled the Senate and Democrats controlled the White House. Now, the Republican Party controls both.

McConnell has already said Trump’s nominee will receive a vote before Election Day.

Share
Categories
Alexandria ocasio-cortez AOC Campaign 2020 Intelwars Radicalize Ruth Bader Ginsburg Supreme Court

Ocasio-Cortez says Ginsburg’s death should ‘radicalize’ Democrats: ‘We can, and must, fight’

Freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said Friday that Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s “earth-shattering” death should “radicalize” Democrats.

What are the details?

Speaking to followers in a lengthy Instagram video, Ocasio-Cortez said, “Let this moment radicalize you.”

“Let this moment really put everything into stark focus because this election has always been about the fight of and for our lives. And if anything, tonight is making that more clear to more people than ever before,” she added, the Washington Examiner reported.

Despite being a stalwart progressive who supported Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) for the Democratic nomination, Ocasio-Cortez also urged supporters to immediately check their voter registration — so they can vote for Joe Biden in November.

“Voting for Joe Biden is not about whether you agree with him. It’s a vote to let our democracy live another day,” she said. “We need to act in solidarity and protection for the most vulnerable people in our society who have already experienced the violent repercussions of this administration.”

“We need to focus on voting for Joe Biden. I don’t care if you like him or not,” she added, Fox News reported.

Later, Ocasio-Cortez suggested the American democracy hinges on whomever fills the Supreme Court vacancy.

“This kind of vacancy and this kind of tipping point is the difference between people having reproductive rights and the government controlling people’s bodies for them,” she said. “This kind of vacancy is the difference between us having healthcare and not. It’s the difference between us having a future and our climate or not, and the timing of this vacancy is extremely unsettling and scary to a lot of people.”

Meanwhile, on Twitter, Ocasio-Cortez wrote, “I want to make one thing clear: we can, and must, fight.”

“Our first, no 1 priority is to do everything possible to secure electoral college victory in Nov. This is the fight of and for our lives. That has always been true, & it becomes more true each day,” she added.

However, any fight that Democrats initiate may not succeed.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced late Friday that the Senate will vote on President Donald Trump’s nominee before the election.

Trump similarly said Saturday that Republicans must respond to the vacancy “without delay.”

“@GOP We were put in this position of power and importance to make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us, the most important of which has long been considered to be the selection of United States Supreme Court Justices. We have this obligation, without delay!” Trump said.

Share
Categories
Intelwars Mcconnell rule Mitch McConnell Supreme Court

Democrats, media grossly misrepresent the ‘McConnell Rule.’ Here’s why it doesn’t apply now.

It took just minutes after the announcement of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death for Republicans and Democrats to begin fighting over whether President Donald Trump should nominate a judge to fill the new vacancy on the high court and whether the Senate should consider whomever Trump nominates.

Citing the so-called “McConnell Rule,” Democrats have claimed that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) should wait until after the election to consider filing the vacancy.

For example, Ian Sams, a former aide to Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris, said, “No SCOTUS justice before the election. McConnell rule.”

But McConnell was quick to announce Friday that the Senate will, in fact, vote on Trump’s nominee.

“President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate,” McConnell said.

The announcement was immediately met with claims that McConnell has hypocritically reversed his position in 2016, when he blocked Merrick Garland, then-President Barack Obama’s nominee to fill a Supreme Court vacancy left by Antonin Scalia’s sudden death.

The New York Times initially headlined its story on McConnell’s announcement, “For McConnell, Ginsburg’s Death Prompts Stark Turnabout From 2016 Stance.”

The story claimed:

It was a stark turnabout from his position four years ago, when Mr. McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, reacted to the death of Justice Antonin Scalia by declaring that a successor should await the outcome of the presidential election, and then proceeded to block President Barack Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick B. Garland.

However, McConnell’s position is not exactly a reversal of the one he took in 2016.

What is the ‘McConnell Rule’?

Like the so-called “Biden Rule,” the standard that McConnell advocated in 2016 was that a Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled in an election year when the political party that has a majority in the Senate is not the same political party that controls the White House.

“You can disagree with the McConnell rule, which was previously known as the Biden rule, but you should describe it accurately. It’s no confirmations in a presidential election year *when senate and presidency are held by different parties.* Doesn’t apply this year,” commentator Mollie Hemingway explained.

In response to Sams, the Daily Caller’s Peter Hasson reiterated, “This is inaccurate. The McConnell rule was that when the Senate and White House are held by *different parties* in an election year.”

The rule applied in 2016 because Republicans controlled the Senate while a Democrat, then-President Obama, was in the White House.

Now, however, the Republican Party controls both the Senate and the White House — and McConnell has made clear that the Senate will move forward with filling the high court’s vacancy.

Share
Categories
Intelwars Ruth Bader Ginsburg Supreme Court

Here’s what Ruth Bader Ginsburg said about voting on Supreme Court nominations in election year

News of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death has triggered further division in an already fractured political world: Democrats say the Supreme Court’s new vacancy should not be filled in an election year, while Republicans are vowing to hold a vote on whomever President Donald Trump nominates.

But how did Ginsburg feel about election year Supreme Court nominations?

Fortunately, she made it clear in 2016 when Republicans and Democrats fought over filling the vacancy left by Antonin Scalia’s sudden death nine months before the election.

When asked if the Senate should consider then-President Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, Ginsburg said, “That’s their job,” the New York Times reported.

“There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year,” Ginsburg added.

Several months later, Ginsburg said having only eight justices on the Supreme Court is not good.

“Eight is not a good number,” she said, the Washington Post reported.

And there you have it.

Share
Categories
Barack Obama Campaign 2020 Intelwars Joe Biden Ruth Bader Ginsburg Supreme Court

Barack Obama, Joe Biden perform total 180 on filling Supreme Court vacancy in election year

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and former President Barack Obama declared Friday the Supreme Court vacancy caused by Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death should not be filled until after the election.

Their position is a complete reversal of what they said in 2016, when Antonin Scalia’s sudden death left a vacancy on the high court just nine months before the presidential election.

What did Biden say in 2016?

In response to Republicans who vowed to not consider Obama’s nominee — Appellate Judge Merrick Garland — Biden said it is acceptable to move forward with Supreme Court hearings even just months before an election.

Biden’s comments,
made in March 2016, came in response to Republicans citing a speech he delivered in 1992 about election year Supreme Court nominations. He said:

They completely ignore the fact at the time I was speaking of the time of the dangers of nominating an extreme candidate without proper Senate consultation. They completely neglected to quote my unequivocal bottom line. So let me set the record straight as they say. I said, and I quote, “If the president consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selection then nominees may enjoy my support as did Justice Kennedy and Justice Souter.”

I made it absolutely clear I would go forward with the confirmation process as chairman, even a few months ahead of a presidential election, if the nominee were chosen with the advise and not merely the consent of the Senate, just as the Constitution requires.”

But Biden said on Friday: “Let me be clear: The voters should pick a President, and that President should select a successor to Justice Ginsburg.”

What did Obama say in 2016?

Obama stated plainly that the Constitution requires the Senate to consider Supreme Court nominees, declaring that no rule exists stating that such consideration may only happen in non-election years.

“When there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court, the president is to nominate someone, the Senate is to consider that nomination, and either they disapprove of that nominee or that nominee is elevated to the Supreme Court,” Obama said in February 2016, just days after Scalia’s death.

“Historically, this has not been viewed as a question,” he continued. “There’s no unwritten law that says that it can only be done on off-years. That’s not in the constitutional text.”

But on Friday, Obama said: “Four and a half years ago, when Republicans refused to hold a hearing or an up-or-down vote on Merrick Garland, they invented the principle that the Senate shouldn’t fill an open seat on the Supreme Court before a new president was sworn in. A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment.”

Share
Categories
Intelwars Riots Ruth Bader Ginsburg Supreme Court Violence

Democrats threaten violence if GOP fills SCOTUS vacancy: ‘Burn the entire f***ing thing down’

Democrats, members of the media, and Hollywood figures threatened violence on Friday if the Republican-controlled Senate moves to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death.

Reza Aslan, a former CNN host, said, “If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire f***ing thing down.”

In response to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s commitment to vote on President Donald Trump’s nominee prior to the election, Aslan said, “Over our dead bodies. Literally.”

Hollywood screenwriter Beau Willimon said, “We’re shutting this country down if Trump and McConnell try to ram through an appointment before the election.”

Dr. Jessie Christiansen, an Australian astrophysicist who works at the NASA Exoplanet Science Institute, said, “IF THEY RAM THROUGH AN APPOINTMENT IN THE NEXT TWO MONTHS I WILL RIOT.”

Emmett Macfarlane, a political science professor at the University of Waterloo in Canada, said, “Burn Congress down before letting Trump try to appoint anyone to SCOTUS.”

Author Aaron Gouveia responded to McConnell’s commitment by saying, “F*** no. Burn it all down.”

Laura Bassett — who has written for GQ magazine, the Washington Post, Rolling Stone, Cosmopolitan, among other outlets — tweeted, “If McConnell jams someone through, which he will, there will be riots.”

She followed that tweet by saying, “*more, bigger riots.” She has since deleted her clarification.

What’s the background?

With the 2020 election less than two months away, Democrats and Republicans disagree on whether the vacancy should be filled. Democrats advocated filling a high court vacancy in 2016 when Barack Obama was president, while the Republican-controlled Senate blocked Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland.

However, Democrats now say the vacancy should be filled after Election Day, while McConnell has already said the Senate will vote on Trump’s nominee.

Meanwhile, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) warned a “constitutional crisis” may unfold if the vacancy is not filled prior to the election, considering the increased likelihood of a legally contested election.

“We cannot have Election Day come and go with a 4-4 court,” Cruz said Friday. “A 4-4 court that is equally divided cannot decide anything. And I think we risk a constitutional crisis if we do not have a nine justice Supreme Court, particularly when there’s such a risk of a contested litigation and a contested election.”

“Twenty years ago, I was part of the legal team that litigated Bush v. Gore and went to the Supreme Court. Thirty-seven days the country did not know who the president was going to be, and if we had a 4-4 court it could have dragged on for weeks and month,” he explained.

Trump said Saturday that Republicans have an “obligation” to fill the Supreme Court vacancy “without delay.”

“@GOP We were put in this position of power and importance to make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us, the most important of which has long been considered to be the selection of United States Supreme Court Justices. We have this obligation, without delay!” the president said.

Share
Categories
Campaign 2020 election Fox News Intelwars Ruth Bader Ginsburg Supreme Court Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz explains the grave danger of not filling SCOTUS vacancy before election: ‘A constitutional crisis’

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) explained late Friday why the Supreme Court vacancy, caused by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, must be filled before Election Day.

What did Cruz say?

Speaking with Fox News host Sean Hannity, Cruz said the integrity of the election depends on the court having nine justices, especially considering the enhanced likelihood of a legally contested contest this year.

“I think it is tremendously important that not only does the nomination happen next week but that the confirmation before Election Day,” Cruz explained. “Democrats and Joe Biden have made clear, they intend to challenge this election, they intend to fight the legitimacy of the election. As you know, Hillary Clinton has told Joe Biden ‘under no circumstances should you concede. You should challenge this election.'”

“We cannot have Election Day come and go with a 4-4 court,” Cruz said.

If the seat is not filled prior to Election Day, America risks a “constitutional crisis,” the Texas senator went on to say.

“A 4-4 court that is equally divided cannot decide anything. And I think we risk a constitutional crisis if we do not have a nine justice Supreme Court, particularly when there’s such a risk of a contested litigation and a contested election,” Cruz explained.

“Twenty years ago, I was part of the legal team that litigated Bush v. Gore and went to the Supreme Court. Thirty-seven days the country did not know who the president was going to be, and if we had a 4-4 court it could have dragged on for weeks and months,” he continued.

“So, I think we have a responsibility — a responsibility to do our job,” Cruz said. “The president should nominate a principled constitutionalist with a proven record, and the Senate is going to take a lot of work to get it done before Election Day but I think we should do our job and protect the country from the constitutional crisis that could result otherwise.”

Earlier in his interview, Cruz said, “This nomination is why Donald Trump was elected. This confirmation is why the voters voted for a Republican majority in the Senate.”

Anything else?

It’s not yet clear who President Donald Trump will nominate to fill the high court vacancy.

However, just last week, the White House released an updated list of potential nominees for future Supreme Court vacancies. Cruz’s name is on the list, although he has since stated that he is not interested in serving on the Supreme Court.

Judge Amy Comey Barrett, a conservative justice who was confirmed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017, is thought to be one of the top contenders for the seat.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell confirmed late Friday that the Senate will vote on Trump’s nominee before Election Day.

Share
Categories
democratic party Divide the nys caucus Intelwars James seward John salka New York

Newly introduced plan would split New York into three ‘autonomous regions,’ strip power from Democratic leaders

Some New York lawmakers are fed up with the power disparity held by Democratic leaders, and they’ve hatched a plan to neutralize the clear power imbalance.

What’s the background?

Although New York often gets a bad rap for being overwhelmingly liberal, much of the Empire State is not actually progressive.

But because the state’s population is concentrated in New York City and the surrounding area, the voice of upstate and rural residents often goes unheard.

What is the plan?

New York lawmakers, including state Sen. James Seward (R) and state Rep. John Salka (R), are looking to even the playing field.

They are co-sponsoring a plan to split New York into three autonomous regions, Gannett journalist Julie Sherwood
reported.

The three proposed regions are:

  • The New York Region, including the five boroughs of New York City
  • The Montauk Region, including Long Island, Westchester, and Rockland
  • The New Amsterdam Religion, encompassing the upstate

John Bergener Jr., chairman of the Divide New York State Caucus, has said the plan would strip the state government in Albany of “90 percent of its power,” reducing the governor — currently Democrat Andrew Cuomo — to essentially a figurehead, similar to the British monarch.

The plan would establish bi-cameral legislatures in each region, whose regional senators and assembly members would also serve in the New York State Assembly.

In theory, the division would create a power balance.

“New Amsterdam & Montauk regional governments would have the power to repeal these unnecessary NYS regulations and bad laws that are killing jobs,” Divide New York State Caucus explains, Sherwood reported. “While the New York regional government could enact those changes it wants for NYC only that upstate currently blocks.”

Seward said in a statement:

Downstate domination of the state legislature has become a serious problem, and the division of New York into multiple regions would help restore our upstate voice and values. The SAFE Act, bail reform, and farm policies, are just a few recent areas where New York City based politicians have strong-armed their beliefs into law over the objection of the rest of the state. As we work to rebound following the COVID-19 outbreak there are a number of upstate priorities — increased broadband, help for small businesses, lower taxes — that are not high on the list of downstate officials. Clearly, the time is right to thoroughly explore the idea of dividing New York State and I certainly hope that a majority of my colleagues and the voters will agree.

What are the legal roadblocks?

The bill has been introduced in both New York State Assembly chambers — SB 5416 and AB 5498 — but it currently remains in committee.

However, to become official, the New York state constitution would need to be amended.

Divide New York State Caucus said that spitting New York into multiple new states is “preferable” to creating autonomous zones within the Empire State, but would be a more difficult task because it would need the approval of the U.S. Congress.

Share
Categories
Defund the police Intelwars Minneapolis Minneapolis city council Police violent crime

After vowing to abolish police, Minneapolis City Council demands to know ‘Where are the police?’ as violence plagues the city

After the tragic death of George Floyd rocked the nation, the Minneapolis City Council — which is composed of nearly all Democrats — took the lead in the anti-police movement, voting to defund the city’s police department. The council sought to replace traditional law enforcement with newer community-based, alternative forms of policing.

But as violent crime has plagued the city for months, the city council is now asking: “Where are the police?”

What’s the background?

As TheBlaze reported, the Minneapolis City Council passed a resolution in June to replace the city’s police department with an alternative “community safety” model.

The development came days after the council promised anti-police residents that they would completely dismantle the city’s policing system.

What is happening now?

During a two-hour meeting with Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo this week, the Democratic city council, in brazen fashion, demanded to know why city police are not responding to the violence with enhanced law enforcement measures.

From Minnesota Public Radio:

The number of reported violent crimes, like assaults, robberies and homicides are up compared to 2019, according to MPD crime data. More people have been killed in the city in the first nine months of 2020 than were slain in all of last year. Property crimes, like burglaries and auto thefts, are also up. Incidents of arson have increased 55 percent over the total at this point in 2019.

“Residents are asking, ‘Where are the police?'” Councilman Jamal Osman said, MPR reported. “That is the only public safety option they have at the moment. MPD. They rely on MPD. And they are saying they are nowhere to be seen.”

Council President Lisa Bender, one of the loudest anti-police voices just months ago, claimed police are being “defiant,” according to MPR.

“This is not new,” she claimed.

Meanwhile, Phillipe Cunningham chided his colleagues for looking to the police for solutions when they called for the department’s abolition just a few months ago.

“What I am sort of flabbergasted by right now is colleagues, who a very short time ago were calling for abolition, are now suggesting we should be putting more resources and funding into MPD,” Cunningham said.

How was the response?

Arradondo told the council that he actually has taken measures to combat the spike in crime.

Arradondo explained that more officers have been added to patrols, additional resources have been allocated for investigative duties, and he has reiterated the seriousness of the crime issue with top department brass.

However, the department is also hemorrhaging personnel, Arradondo explained. In fact, more than 100 officers have left the department this year alone, more than double the usual number. With fewer officers, law enforcement becomes much more difficult.

Anything else?

As TheBlaze reported, momentum driving the push to disband the Minneapolis police department has dissipated because, as the Minneapolis City Council has learned, highly emotional rhetoric does not translate into functional policy.

“I think when you take a statement and then move into policy work, it gets more complicated,” Bender told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.

Share
Categories
Alex villanueva Black Lives Matter Intelwars LeBron James Los Angeles Police

LA County sheriff fires back at anti-police activists who said they hoped injured deputies died

Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva has a stern message for the anti-police activists who wished for the deaths of two Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies who were ambushed while sitting in their patrol vehicle over the weekend.

What’s the background?

As TheBlaze reported, shortly after the deputies were ambushed Saturday night, alleged Black Lives Matter activists stormed the hospital where the deputies were taken for emergency surgery.

Witnesses said they saw the protesters attempt to block hospital entrances and exists. Meanwhile, numerous social media videos showed the anti-police activists telling law enforcement officers outside the hospital that they hoped the injured officers would die; others even threatened that they would kill every police officer “one by one.”

What did Villanueva say?

During an interview Tuesday on Fox News, Villanueva said those activists who shouted “we hope they die,” referring to the injured officers, are “almost worthy of ISIS.”

“It’s just a new low for hatred that I don’t think anyone in this nation has ever seen before, and it’s something almost worthy of ISIS,” Villanueva said.

“We just don’t expect it on our own shores,” he continued. “We have been here fighting to save people’s lives across the county — it doesn’t matter who you are. It is not something we are going to expect or tolerate.”

Later in the interview, Villanueva also challenged Los Angeles Lakers superstar LeBron James, whom Villanueva has called on to match the reward money for Saturday’s crime.

On Monday, Villanueva said publicly:

This challenge is to LeBron James. I want you to match that and double that reward. I know you care about law enforcement. You expressed a very interesting statement about your perspective on race relations and on officer-involved shootings and the impact that it has on the African American community. And I appreciated that. But likewise, we need to appreciate that respect for life goes across professions, across races, creeds, and I’d like to see LeBron James step up to the plate and double that.

During his interview on Fox News, Villanueva said James has not yet responded to him — but said the NBA superstar needs “to take some ownership of exactly what he said in terms of propagating the idea that people are being hunted everywhere because of the color of their skin.”

James said in May, in response to uproar over the death of Ahmaud Arbery, that black people “literally hunted EVERYDAY/EVERYTIME we step foot outside the comfort of our homes!”

Villanueva said, “I think that is just flat out not the case.”

“I think we need to hold those accountable for breaking the law, be it law enforcement when we are crossing the line,” Villanueva added. “But then we have to acknowledge the bigger problem of violence overall and this ambush, cowardly ambush, of the two deputies just doing their own job, doing their business there in Compton, really illustrates that. That is the problem we need to address.”

Share
Categories
Christianity Intelwars J.d. greear Racism SLAVERY Southern Baptist Convention

Southern Baptist leaders dropping ‘Southern,’ calling name a reminder of slavery past

Leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest American Protestant denomination, are increasingly dropping “southern” from their denominational phraseology — and the word could be dropped for good.

What are the details?

According to the Washington Post, the denomination’s leaders are concerned their name pays homage to the group’s historic support for slavery. In fact, J.D. Greear, current president of the SBC, told the Post that denomination elders have weighed dropping “southern” from their name altogether.

Instead, the group is considering a name change to “Great Commission Baptists.”

“Our Lord Jesus was not a white southerner but a brown-skinned Middle Eastern refugee,” Greear told the Post. “Every week we gather to worship a savior who died for the whole world, not one part of it. What we call ourselves should make that clear.”

The name change would serve two purposes, according to the Post. Primarily, it would help the denomination reckon with its sordid racial history. But it would also give the group better footing for a global presence.

More from the Post:

The convention formed in 1845, splitting from Northern Baptists over Southern support for missionaries who owned enslaved people, and is considered the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, with 14.5 million members. It will continue to legally operate as the SBC, officials said, citing the hefty cost and complexity of a legal name change. But since August, the denomination’s website has declared “We Are Great Commission Baptists,” an alternative moniker that refers to the verses in the New Testament when Jesus commands his disciples to baptize believers in all nations.

The SBC did not formally apologize for supporting slavery and racism until 1995, more than 100 years after slavery was abolished and decades after the Civil Rights era.

What was the reaction?

Nathan Finn, a Southern Baptist historian who is provost of North Greenville University, told the Post that the name change is not about southern embarrassment — but rather loving one’s neighbor well.

“I’m not embarrassed to be a Southerner,” Finn said. “It’s about what that word conjures up for people, especially people of color. They’re saying: ‘That name is a hang-up. When my people hear that name, they think slavery.’ God forbid we keep a name that evokes that.”

However, author Jemar Tisby, whose book about the history of racism in American evangelical circles hit the New York Time’s best-seller list this summer, cautioned against shying away from the “southern” moniker completely.

Tisby’s concern, as he told the Post, is that a name change could make learning about the SBC’s past more difficult.

“I don’t know the denomination as a whole has done a good job of teaching its sordid history,” Tisby said. “Changing the name now might make that even harder.”

Share
Categories
Antifa Brian Murphy Homeland Security Intelwars portland

Leaked DHS email reveals Antifa violence in Portland is ‘organized,’ not ‘opportunistic’

Investigative reporter Catherine Herridge obtained a leaked email from a former top Homeland Security official on Monday revealing that Antifa violence in Portland is, in fact, organized.

What’s the background?

Although the black-clad militant protesters have been mainstays in unrest across the country for years, those who claim to be members of Antifa often refuse to acknowledge centralized organization of their group.

Mark Bray, author of “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook,” recently claimed in an essay for the Washington Post that the government cannot designate Antifa as a “terrorist organization,” which President Donald Trump has threatened to do, because Antifa “is not an organization.”

Bray also claimed that Antifa is not associated with Black Lives Matter, the Democratic Party, or “liberal financiers like George Soros,” and that Antifa is not actually fascist.

What does the email say?

The email — sent by Brian Murphy, former acting under secretary for intelligence and analysis at DHS, who has now become a government whistleblower — stated the violence seen in Portland over the summer has been “organized.”

Murphy’s message, sent July 25, was to inform staff of a definition change, that future references to the violent activity taking place in Portland would be referred to as being “violent Antifa anarchists inspired.”

The individuals are violently attacking the Federal facilities based on these ideologies. We can’t say any longer that this violent situation is opportunistic. Additionally, we have overwhelmingly intelligence regarding the ideologies driving individuals towards violence and why the violence has continued. A core set of Threat actors are organized, show up night after night, share common [Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures] and drawing on like minded individuals to their cause.

I recognize we may not be able to attribute every individual as VAAI however we need to look at the totality of the intelligence both current and previous and recognize the motivation for the violence and why people have shown up to commit violence for about 60 days. And why the individuals are using social media to encourage the VAAI on the ground to carry out acts of violence.

Murphy concluded the email, “Threat actors who are motivated by Anarchist or ANTIFA (or a combination of both) ideologies to carry out acts of violence against State, Local, and Federal authorities and infrastructure they believe represent authority or represent political and social ideas they reject.”

Recognizing centralization within Antifa is significant because it could make future prosecution of the group easier.

Indeed, acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf said last month the government is “targeting” the leaders of Antifa and other groups perpetuating unrest across the country.

Share