|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 19, 2020 19:04:34 GMT -6
www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/09/no-mercy-democrats-sowed-nuclear-option-now-can-reap-whirlwind-6th-conservative-supreme-court-justice/NO MERCY: Democrats Sowed the Nuclear Option – Now They Can Reap the Whirlwind of a 6th Conservative Supreme Court Justice By Joe Hoft Published September 19, 2020 at 7:00pm “Politics,” as they say, “ain’t bean-bag.” Nevertheless, Harry Reid’s elimination of the Senate filibuster for Executive Branch and Judicial nominees in 2013 was rightly described as the “nuclear option.” “The Senate is a living thing,” said Harry. Advertisement - story continues below At the time, Democrats cheered Reid’s decision. It was the age of Obama, and Democrats were content to revel in it – and ram it down our throats. What goes around, comes around. 00:00 01:39 This Day in History TRENDING: Obama Statement on Ginsburg Demands GOP Senate Honors Her Dying 'Instructions' and Put Off Vote on Supreme Court Nominee Until New President Sworn In Historically, use of the filibuster either forced bipartisanship, or it resulted in a deadlock on nominations and legislation. As anyone who has lived through the age of Trump could tell you, Democrats don’t give a tinker’s damn about bipartisanship. They haven’t, they don’t now, and they never, ever, will. Democrats have: Advertisement - story continues below repeatedly and illegally attempted to negate the 2016 election through numerous coups against the President; rioted, looted, and burned our cities all over the nation; set forest fires all over the West; used their federally imposed tech immunities to destroy any news outlet outside the mainstream echo chamber; censored tens of thousands of Americans; sowed racial division and demanded total thought conformity through lies and propaganda; and even now, they conspire to steal the 2020 election through fraud. But then Ruth Ginsburg died. And guess who NOW is preaching “fairness” and “bipartisanship”? Ginsburg’s “dying wish” was supposedly to not be replaced until the next president was inaugurated. Hollywood and the Left are all up in arms. Barack Obama now pleads for “everyday fairness … that we apply the rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment.” He certainly lived by that mantra when he was president, didn’t he? This is why it was called the nuclear option, Barry. And, no doubt, neo-cons and conservative fraudsters will make a similar plea to the public to block a 6th conservative justice. Because: fairness. Advertisement - story continues below Make no mistake, Democrats are merciless and ruthless. They seize every possible opportunity to steal this country from you and your children. If elected, Biden-Harris will work quickly to render this nation unrecognizable. Here’s Victor Davis Hanson explaining what the Democrats have in store for us if they win in November. We will all be thought-slaves to hardcore communists and their deep state henchmen. No mercy, Mr. President! No Mercy, Mitch! Advertisement - story continues below No Mercy Susan Collins (ME), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Lindsey Graham (SC), Chuck Grassley (IA), Thom Tillis (NC), Cory Gardner (CO), Joni Ernst (IA), Martha McSally (AZ). Nominate and confirm the 6th Justice, immediately! It’s not about fairness. It’s about SAVING OUR COUNTRY!
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 19, 2020 19:46:07 GMT -6
www.nationalreview.com/2020/09/trump-foreign-policy-accomplishments-middle-east-accords-calling-out-china-threat/How Trump Changed U.S. Foreign Policy By MATTHEW CONTINETTI September 19, 2020 6:30 AM He brokered agreements between Israel and Gulf states, removed corrupt Palestinian authorities from the process, and called out China as a threat.On September 16 the editorial board of the New York Times did the impossible. It said something nice about President Trump. “The normalization of relations between Israel and two Arab states, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, is, on the face of it, a good and beneficial development,” the editors wrote. They even went so far as to say that the “Trump administration deserves credit for brokering it.” I had to read that sentence twice to make sure I wasn’t dreaming. Perhaps the world really is ending. Or perhaps the Times cannot avoid the reality that the “Abraham Accords” between Israel, the UAE, and Bahrain are a historic achievement. It is the first advance toward peace in the Middle East since Israel signed a treaty with Jordan in 1994. By exposing the intransigence and corruption of the Palestinian authorities, and thereby removing them from the diplomatic equation, the Trump administration reestablished the “peace process” as a negotiation between states. And because the states in the region face a common foe — Iran — they have every incentive to band together. This is textbook realpolitik. The world is better off for it. Just as remarkable as the deal itself is the bipartisan applause that greeted it in the United States. No one needs reminding that domestic politics is polarized and paranoid. Each party is convinced that the other one will extinguish democracy at the first opportunity. The past three presidencies have been jarringly discontinuous in style, temperament, and policy. But the same Democrats who sometimes appear eager to remove Donald Trump from office by any means necessary treated this foreign-policy accomplishment with equanimity and acquiescence. “It is good to see others in the Middle East recognizing Israel and even welcoming it as a partner,” Joe Biden said in a statement, adding that “a Biden-Harris administration will build on these steps.” Senator Chris Coons of Delaware told Jewish Insider that the agreement is “a very positive thing.” The irony is that Trump’s opponents are ready to accept this “very positive thing” despite warning against and objecting to the policies that contributed to it. Through his personal relationship with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump reaffirmed that there is “no daylight” between the United States and Israel after an eight-year caesura. He defied conventional wisdom when he moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, when he withdrew the United States from the Iran nuclear deal, when he cut off aid to the Palestinians, when he recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and when he ordered the lethal strike against Qassem Soleimani. But the catastrophes that the foreign-policy establishment predicted would follow each of these measures never materialized. What emerged instead were the Abraham Accords and a growing alliance against Iran. MORE IN FOREIGN POLICY U.S. Bans Cotton, Other Products from Xinjiang, Citing Forced Uyghur Labor Trump’s Reactive Engagement The Amorphous Biden Doctrine It is in the realm of foreign policy that Trump’s deviations from political norms have had the most positive and irreversible consequences. If he becomes president, Joe Biden may mistakenly try to revive the chances for Palestinian statehood by getting tough on the Israelis. He may attempt to resuscitate the moribund Iran deal. But it is highly doubtful that he will rescind the Abraham Accords, or withdraw recognition of Israel’s Golan sovereignty, or return the U.S. embassy to Tel Aviv. He won’t have the support for such decisions. And he won’t have any good reason to make them. Anyone who has read the news lately understands that a strong and engaged Israel is good for security. Her enemies are our enemies. By establishing inescapable facts on the ground over the ceaseless objections of critics, President Trump overrides the often meaningless verbiage that constitutes international diplomacy and ends up changing the very terms of the foreign policy conversation. Nowhere has this dynamic been clearer than in U.S. relations with China. THE MORNING JOLT Get Jim Geraghty’s tour of the political news of the day. Email Address NOW WATCH: 'Can Trump Create 10 Million Jobs in 10 Months?' WATCH: 0:48 Can Trump Create 10 Million Jobs in 10 Months? Beginning with his surprise call to Taiwanese president Tsai Ing-wen in December 2016 and continuing through his resumption of U.S. Navy freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea the following year, his tariffs on Chinese goods in 2018, his and his administration’s rhetorical barrage against China beginning in earnest in 2019, and culminating in his multiple actions against China this year, from limiting travel to canceling visas to forcing the sale of TikTok to tightening the vise on Huawei to selling an additional $7 billion in arms to Taiwan, Trump has reoriented America’s approach to the People’s Republic. No longer is China encouraged to be a “responsible stakeholder.” It is recognized as a great-power competitor. Resistance to this proper understanding of China’s position in the international system remains strong. But it is unquestionably the case that both Republicans and Democrats are starting to see China more as a threat than a partner. And it is Donald Trump who is behind this clarification of vision. (Xi Jinping and the pandemic helped too.) Whatever a President Biden might do about China — and he seems far more interested in repairing our alliances in “Old Europe” than in tackling this paramount challenge of the 21st century — he would operate within the constraints Trump established and on the intellectual terrain Trump landscaped. ALSO FROM MATTHEW CONTINETTI The Dialectic of Woke A Trump in Full The Sleight-of-Hand Convention There is no greater measure of presidential significance than a chief executive’s ability to transform not just his own but also the opposing party. When it comes to the Middle East and China, the Democrats are closer to Donald Trump today than they were at the outset of his term. That they find themselves in accordance with someone whom they despise is evidence of Trump’s ability to realign politics at home and abroad. This is no small feat. 8 Some might say it’s worthy of a prize.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 19, 2020 22:23:09 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/09/19/turning-point-for-the-nation-pro-life-leaders-urge-trump-to-move-quickly-to-fill-supreme-court-vacancy/Both pro-life leaders and abortion rights advocates are keenly aware the vacancy on the Supreme Court following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg could mark a crucial moment in the history of the nation and how America views the right to life. While some pro-life leaders are acknowledging Ginsburg’s role in advancing the position of women in the legal profession, they are eager to have another Supreme Court justice who is a Constitutionalist, and one who views the right to life, including for unborn children, as the most fundamental right protected by the Constitution. Catherine Glenn Foster, president of Americans United for Life, is urging President Donald Trump to “move quickly to nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett,” who currently sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, to fill the High Court’s vacancy. Foster said: At this crucial time in the history of our great nation, it is imperative that a respected nominee is selected who will understand that the role of the High Court is to fairly interpret America’s Constitution and laws according to the meaning and intention of Congress and the Framers, and not seek to write their own value judgments into law. She added Barrett “values upholding the original understanding and blessings of liberty inherent in our cherished Constitution,” and observed it is likely the Court “will be asked to rule on questions fundamental to the functioning of our Republic, including the most important human rights question of our time: the human right to life.” “We are confident that if appointed to the Supreme Court, Judge Barrett would prove herself a trusted caretaker of the Constitutional protections extended to every human person in America, including human lives in the womb,” Foster said. The abortion industry, however, does not support the right to life of unborn children. The rights of women to control their bodies and end pregnancies when they choose are paramount to this lobby, which profits from abortion. “Without the right to Life, no other rights matter,” said Troy Newman, president of abortion industry watchdog group Operation Rescue: The right to be born and live life in freedom is the most precious and foundational of all rights … The death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has given President Donald J. Trump the unique opportunity to shape the direction of the U.S. Supreme Court with a nominee that will respect the Constitution and the founding tenets in the Declaration of Independence. Newman explained how crucial this moment in time is to Americans dedicated to the right to life. He said: This is a moment we have been waiting for since the first state decriminalized abortion in 1968. This is the moment that President Trump’s decision can shift the Court away from its current pro-abortion bent. With this nominee, he can literally save millions of innocent lives throughout future generations and restore a respect for human life that has been deteriorating in our culture. “It is likely the most important decision he will make as president,” Newman suggested. National Institute of Family and Life Advocates President Thomas Glessner said the High Court’s vacancy “transforms the upcoming election into a referendum on the Supreme Court.” “President Trump’s appointment to fill this vacancy may mean the end of Roe v. Wade,” he added. “Clearly, the future direction of our nation will be determined by this presidential election. For such a time as this, pro-life believers must unite and lead our nation down a path which confirms the value of all human life.” Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, called the Supreme Court vacancy “a turning point for the nation in the fight to protect its most vulnerable, the unborn.” “The pro-life grassroots have full confidence that President Trump, Leader McConnell, Chairman Graham, and every pro-life senator will move swiftly to fill this vacancy,” she added. Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, is also asking Trump to move quickly with a nominee to fill the vacancy. “[T]he vacancy shows the importance of this pivotal election,” she said. “The pro-life movement has been waiting since 1973 to reverse the callous and intellectually bankrupt decisions found in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton,” Hawkins added. “Those two infamous cases have made the deaths of more than 60 million baby boys and baby girls possible and allowed a predatory abortion industry to end life through all nine months of pregnancy.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 19, 2020 22:24:56 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/09/19/donald-trump-gives-blessing-to-tiktok-deal-with-wal-mart-and-oracle/President Donald Trump on Saturday confirmed that he had given his “blessing” to the deal forming between Oracle and Wal-Mart with TikTok to secure the app partially owned by China in the United States. “I have given the deal my blessing,” Trump told reporters as he left the White House for a rally in North Carolina. “If they get it done, that’s great. If they don’t, that’s ok too, but it’s a great deal for America.” The president said that the companies would build separate computing clouds for American data and provide “very, very powerful security.” “It will be continued to be named TikTok,” he said. The deal is not finalized yet, but Oracle is expected to become the app’s cloud provider for American data and receive a 12.5 percent stake in the company. Trump also announced that the newly formed company would make a $5 billion contribution toward the education of American youth. “The real history, not the fake history,” Trump said at a rally on Saturday night, hailing the deal. Trump said that the technology would be maintained in Texas and would provide 25,000 jobs. He admitted that the news media no longer cared about the possible ban on TikTok after Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on Friday. “Nobody cares about that anymore,” Trump continued. “All they care about is ‘Fill that seat,’ right?” he said, referring to his decision to fill the vacant Supreme Court seat.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 19, 2020 22:25:50 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/09/19/sen-thune-committee-should-move-as-soon-as-possible-to-confirm-trumps-fcc-nominee/A spokesman for Sen. John Thune (R-SD) said the Senator supports “moving forward as soon as possible” on confirming Nathan Simington, President Trump’s pick to replace Michael O’Rielly on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), a crucial appointment that could tip the balance in the battle against Big Tech censorship. The FCC has five members — two Democrats, two Republicans, and the chairmanship, currently held by Ajit Pai. The regulatory body is a crucial force on matters related to internet policy. It will play a critical role in implementing President Trump’s push to narrow the legal protections enjoyed by social media companies, that currently allow them to censor their users for virtually any reason. The FCC is currently short of one commissioner, after Obama-appointed Republican Michael O’Rielly failed to secure the President’s support for renomination. O’Rielly had expressed skepticism about Trump’s challenge to Big Tech’s legal privileges, conflating their legal protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (that applies exclusively to tech platforms) with the First Amendment (that applies to everyone). To replace O’Rielly, President Trump has nominated Nathan Simington, a senior adviser at the Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). Simington is said to be on board with the President’s agenda on social media censorship. Sen. Thune, who sits on the Senate Commerce Committee, will be one of the Senators who votes on Simington’s confirmation. The Senator’s spokesman confirmed that Thune will support Simington’s nomination. “If Chairman Wicker… schedules a hearing and Leader McConnell, who controls the floor schedule, puts him on the floor before the election, he would support the nomination, and he’s in no way ‘slow-walking’ it,” said Thune’s spokesman. It falls to Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), who chairs the Commerce Committee, to notice a hearing. This could have been done last week after President Trump announced Simington’s nomination, but it has not happened yet. Thune’s spokesman said the Committee needs paperwork from the White House before proceeding, although the Senate has no formal requirement that such paperwork be received before notice of a confirmation hearing is posted. Such notices can be posted without even naming the potential nominee. The growing likelihood of a Supreme Court nomination showdown means the Senate is likely to be in session longer than anticipated this fall, potentially allowing more time for Simington to be confirmed. It remains to be seen if Chairman Wicker will continue to allow paperwork hold up the process.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 20, 2020 17:52:49 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/national-security/2020/09/20/four-star-general-trump-ending-iran-appeasement-could-end-regime/Four-Star General: Trump Ending Iran Appeasement Could End Regime WASHINGTON, DC – Jack Keane, a retired four-star general and former vice chief of the U.S. Army, told Breitbart News in an interview this weekend that President Donald Trump ending 40 years of U.S. appeasement toward the Iranian dictatorship moved the world a step closer to the demise of the regime. Keane said that, in addition to enforcing sanctions and ending the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, Trump’s brokering the restoration of diplomatic ties between Israel and the United Arab Emirates is a game changer. “The momentum is truly shifting very dramatically against the mullahs,” Keane said. “This is not just a historical event. It’s a geopolitical paradigm shift.” “I think the steps the United States took this week – and that is, we are finally going to put together a political, economic and military alliance with the countries in the Middle East to confront Iran,” Keane told Breitbart News. “That I think is the most significant political event I have seen in years,” Keane said. “This president has ended the appeasement of the Iranian regime for 40 years.” “Democrat and Republican presidents, liberal and conservative, as part of that — have all appeased this regime,” Keane said. “This president is ending that.” Keane said he believes this is the start of pressures that could lead to the demise of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his decades-long grip on Iran. “There’s going to be many other countries that are going to fold themselves into the alliance,” Keane said. “It’s going to lead to more isolation and more pressure on the regime.” “And, to be frank about it, I have never seen the mullahs back on their heels as much as they are right now,” Keane said. “And it’s going to get worse for them.” Keane spoke with Breitbart News in Washington, DC, on Friday where he took part in an international summit of the Iranian diaspora that unfolded through livestreams emanating from 10,000 locations, including inside Iran and from Albania, where the People’s Mujahedin of Iran (MEK) – an affiliate of the nation’s most prominent dissident organization, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) – is headquartered. On a rooftop overlooking the U.S. Capitol, Iranian-Americans gathered to push for a free, democratic, and secular Iran. Near the podium was a memorial to Navid Afkari, an Iranian wrestler executed days ago for taking part in 2018 protests against the Iranian regime. Dozens of roses and red flowers, the symbol for the Iranian resistance, surrounded a huge portrait of Afkari. The free Iran summit included a memorial to Navid Afkari, an Iranian wrestler who was executed for protesting against the Iranian regime. (Penny Starr/Breitbart News) The free Iran summit included a memorial to Navid Afkari, an Iranian wrestler who was executed for protesting against the Iranian regime. (Penny Starr/Breitbart News) “Today, Navid Afkari lives on in the hearts and struggle of thousands of Resistance Units in Iran who will continue to resist and rise up for freedom and justice,” Maryam Rajavi, president-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, said in the keynote address. The free Iran event included live-streaming from 10,000 locations around the globe, including Iranian music. (Penny Starr/Breitbart News) The free Iran event included live-streaming from 10,000 locations around the globe, including Iranian music. (Penny Starr/Breitbart News) The event, timed to coincide with the opening of the U.N. General Assembly on Sunday, also featured members of Congress who spoke via video at the summit. “This battle, your battle, our battle, is not simply to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, not simply to keep Iran from continuing to sponsor terrorism, this is all very important,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said. “The real battle is to give Iran back to the Iranian people, so they can claim the greatness of the extraordinary civilization.” “I rise to be able to support the fighters in Iran for human rights, and to stand with those like Madam Rajavi, who want human rights and the fights against the abuses, the horrible abuses that people are facing in Iran who just simply want justice, equality and human rights,” Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) said. The summit, according to an announcement about it, calls “for justice of 30,000 political prisoners massacred in Iran, primarily activists of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK) murdered in 1988” and “an end to impunity of the regime’s leaders who oversaw the massacre” and to “urge the world to hold them accountable.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 20, 2020 17:56:22 GMT -6
Americans are on the President's side again.... www.dailywire.com/news/solid-majority-of-americans-including-democrats-want-supreme-court-hearings-during-election-year-poll-findsSolid Majority Of Americans, Including Democrats, Want Supreme Court Hearings During Election Year, Poll Finds A solid majority of Americans across the political spectrum support holding hearings for Supreme Court nominees during a presidential year, according to a poll conducted just a few days ago. A new Marquette Law School national survey found that solid majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents indicated that if a seat was vacated during an election year that hearings should take place. DailyWire DailyWire “In this poll, conducted in the days before Ginsburg’s death, a substantial majority of respondents of both parties say that if a vacancy occurred during the 2020 election year, the Senate should hold hearings on a nominee, with 67 percent saying hearings should be held and 32 percent saying they should not be held,” Marquette Law School said. “Views on holding hearings do not vary much by partisanship.” The poll found that 68 percent of Republicans, 71 percent of Independents, and 63 percent of Democrats indicated that there should be hearings held if a seat became vacated during a presidential election year. This is bad news for Democrats as they desperately try to stop President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) from filling the seat vacated by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died last week at 87 years old. Democrats and leftists in the media have responded to the vacancy by threatening acts of violence and even threatening to undermine the legitimacy of the nation’s highest court by packing the court with judges that suit their ideology. Ginsburg allegedly told her granddaughter that her dying wish was that she would “not be replaced until a new president is installed.” However, Ginsburg said in 2016 — when Democrats were trying to fill a seat during an election year — that only having eight justices on the court was “not a good number.” “That means no opinions and no precedential value; an equal division is essentially the same as a denial of review,” Ginsburg said on the issue of the Supreme Court only having eight justices. “Eight, as you know, is not a good number for a multi-member court.” Trump gave a classy statement upon learning about Ginsburg’s passing as he spoke to a group of reporters with Elton John’s “Tiny Dancer” playing in the background. “She just died? Wow,” Trump said. “I didn’t know that. You’re telling me now for the first time. She led an amazing life. What else can you say?” “She was an amazing woman. Whether you agreed or not, she was an amazing woman who led an amazing life,” Trump continued. “I’m saddened to hear that.” “Trump’s comments come after Democrat Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) completely skipped over honoring Ginsburg in his initial statement following her death, and instead jumped straight into politics,” The Daily Wire reported. “In his first tweet on Ginsburg’s passing, Schumer wrote: ‘The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.'”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 20, 2020 18:28:16 GMT -6
RNC Rapid Response Director Steve Guest said that Democrats should follow their previous statements and move to immediately fill the vacancy.
“‘The American people deserve a fully-staffed court of nine.’ Those are Joe Biden’s words, and we agree,” Guest said. “As precedent and Democrats’ own words dictate, President Trump has an obligation to fill the vacancy without delay.”
Democrats made the following remarks in 2016 following the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia:
Joe Biden: “The American people deserve a fully-staffed court of nine.”
Hillary Clinton: “The president nominates and then the Senate advises and consents, or not, but they go forward with the process.”
Nancy Pelosi: “What we’re seeing here, and I hope this is temporary, is a disrespect for the Constitution. … The American people expect the president’s nominee to be given a fair hearing and a timely vote in the Senate.”
Bernie Sanders: “The Constitution is 100% clear. The President of the United States has the right to nominate someone to be a justice of the Supreme Court. Senate’s function is to hold hearings and to vote.”
Tim Kaine: “The blockade on filling a naturally occurring vacancy, in my view, is harmful to the independence of the Article Three branch. Even in the three months since Justice Scalia’s death, the court rulings have shown the challenges of an eight member court. … Instead of just saying the blanket rule is no matter who you are, no matter what your qualifications, because you were sent by this president, we will create a unique rule for you and refuse to entertain you.”
Patrick Leahy: “You cannot keep a seat on the Supreme Court, which represents all of us, you cannot keep it vacant against the Constitution.”
Elizabeth Warren: “…do pretty much everything they can to avoid acknowledging the legitimacy of our democratically-elected president … I say to you, do your job, vote for a Supreme Court nominee. … If you want to stop extremism in your party, you can start by showing the American people that you respect the President of the United States and the Constitution.”
Chuck Schumer: “Every day that goes by without a ninth justice is another day the American people’s business is not getting done.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 20, 2020 18:32:12 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/here-are-the-two-women-said-to-be-at-the-top-of-trumps-scotus-listHere Are The Two Women Said To Be At The Top Of Trump’s SCOTUS List Two women have apparently floated to the top of President Trump’s list of potential justices to fill the Supreme Court seat left by Ruth Bader Ginsburg after she passed away on Friday. Judges Amy Coney Barrett in Chicago and Barbara Lagoa in Atlanta are top picks to fill the seat, according to multiple reports. Trump has pledged to fill the seat with a female jurist who, if confirmed, would become the fifth woman ever to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. “It will be a woman, a very talented, very brilliant woman,” Trump told a crowd of supporters in Fayetteville, N.C., on Saturday. “We have numerous women on the list. I built this incredible list of brilliant people.” Barrett, 48, has sat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit since October 2017. President Trump nominated her to the post from her job as a professor of law at the University of Notre Dame. Barrett is widely seen as a strong conservative with an originalist judicial philosophy, meaning the law should be interpreted through the original understanding of the authors. Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) grilled Barrett, a Catholic mother of seven children, over her religious views during her confirmation hearing. As The Daily Wire reported at the time: Feinstein said to Barrett, “When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you. And that’s of concern. When you come to big issues, that large numbers of people have fought for for years in this country.” That seemed to be a loud hint referencing Feinstein’s fanatical devotion to Roe v. Wade. During the hearings for Neil Gorsuch to be a Supreme Court justice, Feinstein said, “The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld Roe’s court finding, making it settled law for the last 44 years,” then cited 14 cases where the high court upheld the “core holding” of Roe and 39 decisions that “reaffirmed” Roe. She added, “If these judgments when combined do not constitute super precedent, I don’t know what does.” Feinstein’s comments came after Barrett had already stated, “It is never appropriate for a judge to apply their personal convictions whether it derives from faith or personal conviction.” Barrett was on Trump’s shortlist to replace former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy after he retired from the bench in June 2018. Ultimately, Trump chose Brett Kavanaugh to succeed Kennedy. Lagoa, 52, sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Prior to joining the federal bench in November 2019, Lagoa was the first Hispanic woman to sit on the Florida Supreme Court, according to Politico. Lagoa was confirmed to the Eleventh Circuit in a bipartisan 80-15 vote in the Senate, giving her a strong case as a nominee for President Trump to choose as a replacement for Ginsburg. Lagoa is a favorite of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who nominated her to the state Supreme Court. “She has been the essence of what a judge should be,” DeSantis said announcing her nomination.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 20, 2020 18:34:23 GMT -6
thefederalist.com/2020/09/20/cruz-decimates-democrats-demands-for-no-scotus-confirmation-in-an-election-year/Cruz Decimates Democrats’ Demands For No SCOTUS Confirmation In An Election Year SEPTEMBER 20, 2020 By Jordan Davidson While Democrats have demanded that President Trump and the Senate postpone confirming a new Supreme Court justice to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg after her passing, even calling for violence, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) says the action is historically justified. “Twenty-nine times there has been a vacancy in a presidential election year. Presidents have made nominations all 29 times,” Cruz told ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos in an interview on Sunday. “That’s what presidents do. If there’s a vacancy, they make a nomination.” Of those 29 nominations, Cruz explained that 19 were made at a time the Senate and the White House were of the same political party, and 17 of these 19 were confirmed. “There’s a big difference in the Senate, with whether the Senate is of the same party of the president or a different party than the president,” Cruz said. “If the parties are the same, the Senate confirms the nominee,” he added. Despite Democrats’ insistence that Ginsburg’s death puts Trump and the Senate in the same position that former President Barack Obama encountered in 2016 with Merrick Garland after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, Cruz noted that the Senate only confirmed two of the ten nominations in similar circumstances because the Senate and White House were of different parties. “It’s not just simply your party, my party. It’s a question of checks and balances. In order for a Supreme Court nomination to go forward, you have to have the president and the Senate,” Cruz said. According to Cruz, one of the main reasons Trump was elected is that Americans wanted more conservative justices instated in the court. “In this instance, the American people voted. They elected Donald Trump. A big part of the reason they elected Donald Trump is because of the Scalia vacancy, and they wanted a principled constitutionalist on the court,” Cruz explained. “And it’s a big part of the reason why we have a Republican majority elected in 2014, reelected in 2016, grown even larger in 2018. A major issue in each of those elections is the American people voted and said we want constitutionalist judges.” Three former SCOTUS justices, including Ginsburg, were formally nominated and confirmed within 45 days from their nominations. That’s the distance between now and the November elections. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell also confirmed that Trump’s nomination would receive a vote from the Senate despite demands the Senate stall.. Even though President Trump has yet to announce his official nomination, he assured Americans at a rally on Saturday that his nomination would be a woman. “It will be a woman — a very talented, very brilliant woman,” Trump said. “I think it should be a woman. I actually like women much more than I like men.” On his recently updated list of potential nominees, multiple women were named, including speculated favorites such as Amy Coney Barrett and Barbara Lagoa.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 22, 2020 6:08:19 GMT -6
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) went on with Tucker Carlson on Monday to discuss the crisis in the US Supreme Court with the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Republican Senators Susan Collins (R-MN) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AL) say they do not believe their should be a vote on the next SCOTUS nominee until after the election.
Matt Gaetz says the two senators are refusing to do their job and should be defunded by the party in their reelection campaigns.
Matt Gaetz: Here we have Murkowski and Collins rejecting the duties they have as senators and if they do that their voters should reject them. Trump supporters should not be taken for granted in Maine, Alaska or anywhere else. And if they are unwilling to do their job and take a vote on who the president nominates they should not have the privilege of continuing to serve in the senate… Mitch McConnell should put pressure on fellow senators. They should lose funding for their campaigns. They should lose committee assignments if they are unwilling to fulfill their duty… Susan Collins herself said the senate should take a vote on Merrick Garland. So the Susan Collins of 2020 should certainly agree with the Susan Collins of 2016.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 22, 2020 8:43:47 GMT -6
thefederalist.com/2020/09/22/theres-no-downside-to-trump-nominating-amy-coney-barrett/There’s No Downside To Trump Nominating Amy Coney Barrett This election was always going to be about culture. Treat the election as a referendum on cultural issues and lean in, Mr. President. Sumantra Maitra By Sumantra Maitra SEPTEMBER 22, 2020 It is said that when Napoleon was presented with the credentials of a general, he asked, “I know that he is good, but is he lucky?” The phrase might be apocryphal, but it is by no means wrong. One need not believe in the concept of fortune to be fortunate. On that note, President Donald Trump might be considered fortunate, presented with another opportunity to shape the future with his third nomination to the Supreme Court. With the new vacancy, Trump has also provided social scientists an opportunity to test several academic theories about future political alignments. For starters, there’s nothing Democrats can gain from this scenario. If a caustic confirmation ensues, it would be a rehash of the Brett Kavanaugh episode, which would galvanize Republicans. If there’s a nomination but no confirmation and then a lame-duck session, it would spur Republicans to vote for Trump for a future confirmation. If riots break out, they would most definitely stir Republicans to vote. The talks of a political crisis are just that — talks. They’re a fantasy narrative created by those who have a monopoly over media, similar to the line that Trump would not give up power even if Joe Biden wins the election. The constitutional process is clear: The president nominates, and the Senate proceeds to either confirm or deny. The party in power in the Senate decides whether a confirmation process goes forward. Democrats did that with Robert Bork, and Republicans paid back in kind during the nomination of Merrick Garland. Those in power decide the process. That is true for both parties. Any other narrative is balderdash. Draw the Battle Lines Another objection from the left is that an efficient confirmation process will break norms, which is ridiculous coming from the ideological side that understands nothing but how to use raw power for political gain. It was a power play when Kavanaugh was nominated, an episode that stiffened the spine and broke the starry-eyed spell of a lot of formerly centrist Republicans. It is a power play when ideological pseudo-history such as the 1619 Project wins a Pulitzer Prize and is taught in more than 3,000 schools. It is a power play when Democrats stop budget relief that would have aided thousands of working-class people. It is a power play when jobs and livelihoods are held hostage by protests and riots. Barricading a Supreme Court nominatio is most definitely a power play coming from a side that wants to give statehood to D.C. and Puerto Rico, pack the courts, and abolish the Electoral College. The talk of constitutional norms, therefore, is absurd, as those who win elections decide the norms, according to the established rules. This election was always going to be about culture. Trump, for good or for bad, understands that. Rhetoric aside, in the last week, his Department of Education called the bluff of Princeton University’s performative self-flagellating shtick, and fired a full broadside on the insidious and subversive critical race theory. That is more ammunition on the cultural front than any other Republican president fired off in the last couple of decades. It also has ensured the battle lines are clearly drawn. For decades, playing “fairly” resulted in conservatives losing every single frontier of culture due to their pretended neutrality. Neutrality historically cannot oppose a crusading ideology such as liberalism. Trump’s full-throttle, open-armed embrace of the cultural battle lines has for good or for bad clarified who’s on which side. It also surprisingly brought in support from those who were otherwise inclined to be neutral and at least theoretically liberal. Amy Coney Barrett Is a Clear Choice The nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett would advance those cultural battle lines. If one needs to be genuinely democratic, he or she should be clear about convictions and proudly put forward the alternative to the dilettante technocratic centrism that has been in practice. The public loves clear choices, and the public prefers leaders who act, instead of managers who hedge bets. The left always talks a big game about direct democracy, but they seem to forget that if every issue were treated as an individual referendum, the chances of them losing major positions are extremely high. Americans do not support Black Lives Matter anarchism. The majority are patriotic and oppose taxpayer-funded anti-American education. The majority of black Americans are far more religious on average than the public overall, and the majority of Americans oppose transgender activism. The majority of Americans oppose abortion after the first trimester and want fewer foreign wars. Ask yourself, which side stands for the majority? Coney Barrett is tough on crime, is against campus kangaroo courts, and is an originalist who would follow the letter of the law to the last word. According to her own words, she would not be deterred from making tough decisions. Her nomination should give the public a clear choice, even if the confirmation does not proceed prior to the election.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 22, 2020 12:57:44 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 23, 2020 4:30:26 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-trump-bans-u-s-from-doing-business-with-those-who-promote-harmful-far-left-critical-race-theoryTrump Bans U.S. From Doing Business With Those Who Promote ‘Harmful’ Far-Left Critical Race Theory President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday afternoon that he has banned the U.S. government from doing business with people and companies who promote far-left critical race theory, noting that the ideology is “divisive and harmful.” “A few weeks ago, I BANNED efforts to indoctrinate government employees with divisive and harmful sex and race-based ideologies,” Trump tweeted. “Today, I’ve expanded that ban to people and companies that do business with our Country, the United States Military, Government Contractors, and Grantees. Americans should be taught to take PRIDE in our Great Country, and if you don’t, there’s nothing in it for you!” Below is the full text of Trump’s Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping: By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, 40 U.S.C. 101 et seq., and in order to promote economy and efficiency in Federal contracting, to promote unity in the Federal workforce, and to combat offensive and anti-American race and sex stereotyping and scapegoating, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Purpose. From the battlefield of Gettysburg to the bus boycott in Montgomery and the Selma-to-Montgomery marches, heroic Americans have valiantly risked their lives to ensure that their children would grow up in a Nation living out its creed, expressed in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” It was this belief in the inherent equality of every individual that inspired the Founding generation to risk their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to establish a new Nation, unique among the countries of the world. President Abraham Lincoln understood that this belief is “the electric cord” that “links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving” people, no matter their race or country of origin. It is the belief that inspired the heroic black soldiers of the 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment to defend that same Union at great cost in the Civil War. And it is what inspired Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to dream that his children would one day “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Thanks to the courage and sacrifice of our forebears, America has made significant progress toward realization of our national creed, particularly in the 57 years since Dr. King shared his dream with the country. Today, however, many people are pushing a different vision of America that is grounded in hierarchies based on collective social and political identities rather than in the inherent and equal dignity of every person as an individual. This ideology is rooted in the pernicious and false belief that America is an irredeemably racist and sexist country; that some people, simply on account of their race or sex, are oppressors; and that racial and sexual identities are more important than our common status as human beings and Americans. This destructive ideology is grounded in misrepresentations of our country’s history and its role in the world. Although presented as new and revolutionary, they resurrect the discredited notions of the nineteenth century’s apologists for slavery who, like President Lincoln’s rival Stephen A. Douglas, maintained that our government “was made on the white basis” “by white men, for the benefit of white men.” Our Founding documents rejected these racialized views of America, which were soundly defeated on the blood-stained battlefields of the Civil War. Yet they are now being repackaged and sold as cutting-edge insights. They are designed to divide us and to prevent us from uniting as one people in pursuit of one common destiny for our great country. Unfortunately, this malign ideology is now migrating from the fringes of American society and threatens to infect core institutions of our country. Instructors and materials teaching that men and members of certain races, as well as our most venerable institutions, are inherently sexist and racist are appearing in workplace diversity trainings across the country, even in components of the Federal Government and among Federal contractors. For example, the Department of the Treasury recently held a seminar that promoted arguments that “virtually all White people, regardless of how ‘woke’ they are, contribute to racism,” and that instructed small group leaders to encourage employees to avoid “narratives” that Americans should “be more color-blind” or “let people’s skills and personalities be what differentiates them.” Training materials from Argonne National Laboratories, a Federal entity, stated that racism “is interwoven into every fabric of America” and described statements like “color blindness” and the “meritocracy” as “actions of bias.” Materials from Sandia National Laboratories, also a Federal entity, for non-minority males stated that an emphasis on “rationality over emotionality” was a characteristic of “white male ,” and asked those present to “acknowledge” their “privilege” to each other.
A Smithsonian Institution museum graphic recently claimed that concepts like “[o]bjective, rational linear thinking,” “[h]ard work” being “the key to success,” the “nuclear family,” and belief in a single god are not values that unite Americans of all races but are instead “aspects and assumptions of whiteness.” The museum also stated that “[f]acing your whiteness is hard and can result in feelings of guilt, sadness, confusion, defensiveness, or fear.”
All of this is contrary to the fundamental premises underpinning our Republic: that all individuals are created equal and should be allowed an equal opportunity under the law to pursue happiness and prosper based on individual merit.
Executive departments and agencies (agencies), our Uniformed Services, Federal contractors, and Federal grant recipients should, of course, continue to foster environments devoid of hostility grounded in race, sex, and other federally protected characteristics. Training employees to create an inclusive workplace is appropriate and beneficial. The Federal Government is, and must always be, committed to the fair and equal treatment of all individuals before the law.
But training like that discussed above perpetuates racial stereotypes and division and can use subtle coercive pressure to ensure conformity of viewpoint. Such ideas may be fashionable in the academy, but they have no place in programs and activities supported by Federal taxpayer dollars. Research also suggests that blame-focused diversity training reinforces biases and decreases opportunities for minorities.
Our Federal civil service system is based on merit principles. These principles, codified at 5 U.S.C. 2301, call for all employees to “receive fair and equitable treatment in all aspects of personnel management without regard to” race or sex “and with proper regard for their . . . constitutional rights.” Instructing Federal employees that treating individuals on the basis of individual merit is racist or sexist directly undermines our Merit System Principles and impairs the efficiency of the Federal service. Similarly, our Uniformed Services should not teach our heroic men and women in uniform the lie that the country for which they are willing to die is fundamentally racist. Such teachings could directly threaten the cohesion and effectiveness of our Uniformed Services.
Such activities also promote division and inefficiency when carried out by Federal contractors. The Federal Government has long prohibited Federal contractors from engaging in race or sex discrimination and required contractors to take affirmative action to ensure that such discrimination does not occur. The participation of contractors’ employees in training that promotes race or sex stereotyping or scapegoating similarly undermines efficiency in Federal contracting. Such requirements promote divisiveness in the workplace and distract from the pursuit of excellence and collaborative achievements in public administration.
Therefore, it shall be the policy of the United States not to promote race or sex stereotyping or scapegoating in the Federal workforce or in the Uniformed Services, and not to allow grant funds to be used for these purposes. In addition, Federal contractors will not be permitted to inculcate such views in their employees.
Sec. 2. Definitions. For the purposes of this order, the phrase:
(a) “Divisive concepts” means the concepts that (1) one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; (2) the United States is fundamentally racist or sexist; (3) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; (4) an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex; (5) members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex; (6) an individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex; (7) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex; (8) any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex; or (9) meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race. The term “divisive concepts” also includes any other form of race or sex stereotyping or any other form of race or sex scapegoating.
(b) “Race or sex stereotyping” means ascribing character traits, values, moral and ethical codes, privileges, status, or beliefs to a race or sex, or to an individual because of his or her race or sex.
(c) “Race or sex scapegoating” means assigning fault, blame, or bias to a race or sex, or to members of a race or sex because of their race or sex. It similarly encompasses any claim that, consciously or unconsciously, and by virtue of his or her race or sex, members of any race are inherently racist or are inherently inclined to oppress others, or that members of a sex are inherently sexist or inclined to oppress others.
(d) “Senior political appointee” means an individual appointed by the President, or a non-career member of the Senior Executive Service (or agency-equivalent system).
Sec. 3. Requirements for the United States Uniformed Services. The United States Uniformed Services, including the United States Armed Forces, shall not teach, instruct, or train any member of the United States Uniformed Services, whether serving on active duty, serving on reserve duty, attending a military service academy, or attending courses conducted by a military department pursuant to a Reserve Officer Corps Training program, to believe any of the divisive concepts set forth in section 2(a) of this order. No member of the United States Uniformed Services shall face any penalty or discrimination on account of his or her refusal to support, believe, endorse, embrace, confess, act upon, or otherwise assent to these concepts.
Sec. 4. Requirements for Government Contractors. (a) Except in contracts exempted in the manner provided by section 204 of Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965 (Equal Employment Opportunity), as amended, all Government contracting agencies shall include in every Government contract hereafter entered into the following provisions:
“During the performance of this contract, the contractor agrees as follows:
1. The contractor shall not use any workplace training that inculcates in its employees any form of race or sex stereotyping or any form of race or sex scapegoating, including the concepts that (a) one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; (b) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; (c) an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex; (d) members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex; (e) an individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex; (f) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex; (g) any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex; or (h) meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race. The term “race or sex stereotyping” means ascribing character traits, values, moral and ethical codes, privileges, status, or beliefs to a race or sex, or to an individual because of his or her race or sex, and the term “race or sex scapegoating” means assigning fault, blame, or bias to a race or sex, or to members of a race or sex because of their race or sex.
2. The contractor will send to each labor union or representative of workers with which he has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or understanding, a notice, to be provided by the agency contracting officer, advising the labor union or workers’ representative of the contractor’s commitments under the Executive Order of September 22, 2020, entitled Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping, and shall post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment.
3. In the event of the contractor’s noncompliance with the requirements of paragraphs (1), (2), and (4), or with any rules, regulations, or orders that may be promulgated in accordance with the Executive Order of September 22, 2020, this contract may be canceled, terminated, or suspended in whole or in part and the contractor may be declared ineligible for further Government contracts in accordance with procedures authorized in Executive Order 11246, and such other sanctions may be imposed and remedies invoked as provided by any rules, regulations, or orders the Secretary of Labor has issued or adopted pursuant to Executive Order 11246, including subpart D of that order.
4. The contractor will include the provisions of paragraphs (1) through (4) in every subcontract or purchase order unless exempted by rules, regulations, or orders of the Secretary of Labor, so that such provisions will be binding upon each subcontractor or vendor. The contractor will take such action with respect to any subcontract or purchase order as may be directed by the Secretary of Labor as a means of enforcing such provisions including sanctions for noncompliance: Provided, however, that in the event the contractor becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a subcontractor or vendor as a result of such direction, the contractor may request the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States.”
(b) The Department of Labor is directed, through the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), to establish a hotline and investigate complaints received under both this order as well as Executive Order 11246 alleging that a Federal contractor is utilizing such training programs in violation of the contractor’s obligations under those orders. The Department shall take appropriate enforcement action and provide remedial relief, as appropriate.
(c) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Director of OFCCP shall publish in the Federal Register a request for information seeking information from Federal contractors, Federal subcontractors, and employees of Federal contractors and subcontractors regarding the training, workshops, or similar programming provided to employees. The request for information should request copies of any training, workshop, or similar programing having to do with diversity and inclusion as well as information about the duration, frequency, and expense of such activities.
Sec. 5. Requirements for Federal Grants. The heads of all agencies shall review their respective grant programs and identify programs for which the agency may, as a condition of receiving such a grant, require the recipient to certify that it will not use Federal funds to promote the concepts that (a) one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; (b) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; (c) an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex; (d) members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex; (e) an individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex; (f) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex; (g) any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex; or (h) meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race. Within 60 days of the date of this order, the heads of agencies shall each submit a report to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that lists all grant programs so identified.
Sec. 6. Requirements for Agencies. (a) The fair and equal treatment of individuals is an inviolable principle that must be maintained in the Federal workplace. Agencies should continue all training that will foster a workplace that is respectful of all employees. Accordingly:
(i) The head of each agency shall use his or her authority under 5 U.S.C. 301, 302, and 4103 to ensure that the agency, agency employees while on duty status, and any contractors hired by the agency to provide training, workshops, forums, or similar programming (for purposes of this section, “training”) to agency employees do not teach, advocate, act upon, or promote in any training to agency employees any of the divisive concepts listed in section 2(a) of this order. Agencies may consult with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 4116, in carrying out this provision; and (ii) Agency diversity and inclusion efforts shall, first and foremost, encourage agency employees not to judge each other by their color, race, ethnicity, sex, or any other characteristic protected by Federal law.
(b) The Director of OPM shall propose regulations providing that agency officials with supervisory authority over a supervisor or an employee with responsibility for promoting diversity and inclusion, if such supervisor or employee either authorizes or approves training that promotes the divisive concepts set forth in section 2(a) of this order, shall take appropriate steps to pursue a performance-based adverse action proceeding against such supervisor or employee under chapter 43 or 75 of title 5, United States Code.
(c) Each agency head shall:
(i) issue an order incorporating the requirements of this order into agency operations, including by making compliance with this order a provision in all agency contracts for diversity training;
(ii) request that the agency inspector general thoroughly review and assess by the end of the calendar year, and not less than annually thereafter, agency compliance with the requirements of this order in the form of a report submitted to OMB; and
(iii) assign at least one senior political appointee responsibility for ensuring compliance with the requirements of this order.
Sec. 7. OMB and OPM Review of Agency Training. (a) Consistent with OPM’s authority under 5 U.S.C. 4115-4118, all training programs for agency employees relating to diversity or inclusion shall, before being used, be reviewed by OPM for compliance with the requirements of section 6 of this order.
(b) If a contractor provides a training for agency employees relating to diversity or inclusion that teaches, advocates, or promotes the divisive concepts set forth in section 2(a) of this order, and such action is in violation of the applicable contract, the agency that contracted for such training shall evaluate whether to pursue debarment of that contractor, consistent with applicable law and regulations, and in consultation with the Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee.
(c) Within 90 days of the date of this order, each agency shall report to OMB all spending in Fiscal Year 2020 on Federal employee training programs relating to diversity or inclusion, whether conducted internally or by contractors. Such report shall, in addition to providing aggregate totals, delineate awards to each individual contractor.
(d) The Directors of OMB and OPM may jointly issue guidance and directives pertaining to agency obligations under, and ensuring compliance with, this order.
Sec. 8. Title VII Guidance. The Attorney General should continue to assess the extent to which workplace training that teaches the divisive concepts set forth in section 2(a) of this order may contribute to a hostile work environment and give rise to potential liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. If appropriate, the Attorney General and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall issue publicly available guidance to assist employers in better promoting diversity and inclusive workplaces consistent with Title VII.
Sec. 9. Effective Date. This order is effective immediately, except that the requirements of section 4 of this order shall apply to contracts entered into 60 days after the date of this order.
Sec. 10. General Provisions. (a) This order does not prevent agencies, the United States Uniformed Services, or contractors from promoting racial, cultural, or ethnic diversity or inclusiveness, provided such efforts are consistent with the requirements of this order.
(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to prohibit discussing, as part of a larger course of academic instruction, the divisive concepts listed in section 2(a) of this order in an objective manner and without endorsement.
(c) If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of its provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
(d) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(e) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(f) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Earlier this month, the Trump administration announced that it was cracking down on the “divisive” and “anti-American propaganda” after learning that it had started to seep into federal agencies.
In a memo released by Russell Vought, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the administration noted that the far-left ideology falsely promoted the notion that “there is racism embedded in the belief that America is the land of opportunity or the belief that the most qualified person should receive a job.”
The memo stated:
These types of “trainings” not only run counter to the fundamental beliefs for which our Nation has stood since its inception, but they also engender division and resentment within the Federal workforce. We can be proud that as an employer, the Federal government has employees of all races, ethnicities, and religions. We can be proud that Americans from all over the country seek to join our workforce and dedicate themselves to public service. We can be proud of our continued efforts to welcome all individuals who seek to serve their fellow Americans as Federal employees. However, we cannot accept our employees receiving training that seeks to undercut our core values as Americans and drive division within our workforce.
“The President has directed me to ensure that Federal agencies cease and desist from using taxpayer dollars to fund these divisive, un-American propaganda training sessions,” Vought wrote. “Accordingly, to that end, the Office of Management and Budget will shortly issue more detailed guidance on implementing the President’s directive.”
In the meantime, all agencies are directed to begin to identify all contracts or other agency spending related to any training on ‘critical race theory,’ ‘white privilege,’ or any other training or propaganda effort that teaches or suggests either (1) that the United States is an inherently racist or evil country or (2) that any race or ethnicity is inherently racist or evil,” Vought added. “In addition, all agencies should begin to identify all available avenues within the law to cancel any such contracts and/or to divert Federal dollars away from these un-American propaganda training sessions.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 23, 2020 11:57:55 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/economy/2020/09/23/pmi-global/U.S. Economic Recovery Continues at Solid Pace While Japan and Europe Stumble The U.S. economy is expanding at a solid pace, defying predictions that the recovery would falter as reported infections rose and stimulus from the government waned. In Europe and Asia, however, economies are once again faltering as governments have once again imposed restrictions and lockdowns. Data firm IHS Markit said on Wednesday that its composite Purchasing Managers Index, which measures activity in the manufacturing and service sectors, dipped slightly to 54.4 in September from 54.6 in August. Readings above 50.0 on the index indicate that activity is increasing. Growth in the manufacturing sector accelerated, pushing the index up to 53.5 from 53.1. Growth in the services sector tapered a bit to 54.6 from August’s 55. Both were strong enough to signal solid growth as the third quarter begins. Eurozone business activity, on the other hand, has slowed markedly. The flash eurozone PMI composite index fell to 50.1 from 51.9 in August. The manufacturing sector picked up to 53.7 from 51.7 but the services sector fell to 47.6, indicating contraction and the lowest score since May. Economists expected a eurozone manufacturing PMI of 51.9 and a services PMI of 50.5. “A two-speed economy is evident, with factories reporting that production growth was buoyed by rising demand, notably from export markets and the reopening of retail in many countries, but the larger service sector has sunk back into decline as face to-face consumer businesses in particular have been hit by intensifying virus concerns,” Chris Williamson, business economist at IHS Markit, said. The U.K. composite PMI declined to a 3-month low of 55.7, much stronger than the Eurozone. Germany’s manufacturing PMI, heavily reliant on exports, jumped to 56.6 from 52.2. Its services sector, however, unexpectedly dropped into contraction territory, registering 49.1 from 52.5. Economists had forecast a rise for the services sector. The German composite index dropped to 53.7, down from 54.4. France’s PMI fell to 48.5 in September from 51.6 in August, falling short of expectations amid a sharp contraction in its services sector. Japan once again saw a contraction of factory output, data released on Wednesday showed. It’s manufacturing PMI was largely unchanged at 47.3 in September compared with a final 47.2 in the previous month. This measure has not been expansion territory for 17 months.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 23, 2020 12:00:29 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2020/09/23/trump-at-un-more-great-peace-deals-with-israel-shortly/President Donald Trump told the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday that more peace deals with Israel, like the U.S.-brokered normalization agreements signed with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, were “coming fast.” “They are coming fast, and they know it’s great for them and great for the world,” he said during his address at the first ever virtual General Assembly. Trump described the so-called Abraham Accords, signed last week, as a “landmark breakthrough … in the Middle East after decades of no progress.” “Israel, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain all signed a historic peace agreement in the White House with many other Middle Eastern countries to come,” he said. “We intend to deliver more peace agreements shortly, and I have never been more optimistic for the future of the region. There is no blood in the sand. Those days are hopefully over,” said Trump. These groundbreaking peace deals are the dawn of a new Middle East,” he continued. “By taking a different approach, we have achieved different outcomes — far superior outcomes.” Borrowing from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s playbook, Trump said the accords represent “peace through strength.” “America is fulfilling our destiny as peacemaker,” he said. Touching on Iran, Trump noted the U.S. withdrawal from the “terrible Iran nuclear deal and imposed crippling sanctions on the world’s leading state sponsor of terror.” “We obliterated the ISIS Caliphate 100 percent, killed its founder and leader, al-Baghdadi, and eliminated the world’s top terrorist, Qassem Soleimani,” he said. Much of his address was focused on condemning China over its role in the pandemic. “The Chinese government and the World Health Organization, which is virtually controlled by China, falsely declared that there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission. Later they falsely said people without symptoms would not spread the disease. The United Nations must hold China accountable for their actions,” he said.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 24, 2020 8:19:53 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 24, 2020 16:42:03 GMT -6
www.gazetaexpress.com/this-is-lake-trump-and-it-is-in-kosovo/It all started as an idea to relax negotiations between Kosovo and Serbia delegations, but the idea to name the Gazivoda/Ujman Lake “Lake Trump” as seen in the photo seems more serious than initially thought.
An idea that started as a joke for the Ujman Lake, which Serbs refer to as Gazivoda, to find a compromise name seems to be taking shape. During the negotiations at the White House, the US Presidential envoy for the dialogue, Richard Grenell, gave the idea to name the lake after Trump.
Initially everybody laughed with the idea. But not today. Gazeta Express has learned that Kosovo Prime Minister Avdullah Hoti expressed his readiness to support Grenell’s idea at a meeting with him. The same idea was endorsed also by Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic at another meeting.
The debate, and later the Agreement, about Ujman Lake have triggered a wave of reactions in Kosovo. Kosovo has reached an agreement with the US for the State Department to carry out a feasibility study on how to share the lake’s resources.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 25, 2020 6:19:46 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/09/24/trump-america-first-health-care-plan-emphasizes-patient-choice-control/Trump ‘America First Health Care Plan’ Emphasizes Patient ‘Choice,’ ‘Control’ President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Thursday that puts forward his vision of a healthcare system that places Americans, and not the government, in charge of their healthcare needs. “My Administration has been committed to restoring choice and control to the American patient,” the president stated in his order as he outlined the steps he has already taken to help Americans take control of their health care, including: Repeal of Obamacare’s individual mandate Protecting patients with pre-existing conditions Increase in availability of renewable, less expensive, short-term healthcare plans Expansion of health reimbursement arrangements Rule to increase the availability of association health plans for small businesses Expansion of health savings accounts that can be paired with tax-advantaged accounts Dramatic increase in the availability of telehealth services Repeal of Obamacare’s Independent Payment Advisory Board, which would have been a group of unelected bureaucrats who could make decisions on how to cut healthcare spending Improvement in care for our nation’s veterans Additional health insurance flexibility to states that waive rigid Obamacare rules in order to expand coverage options and decrease the cost of premiums Promotion of innovation to allow patients to safely send their own medical records to providers of their choosing “Patients over Paperwork” initiative to reduce red tape for healthcare providers Lowered the cost of prescription drugs to the largest annual price decrease in nearly half a century Repeal of the medical device tax, the annual fee on health insurance providers, and the “Cadillac” tax on certain employer-sponsored health insurance More transparent healthcare prices for consumers Concrete steps to eliminate surprise medical bills Modernization of Medicare program Investments in scientific research to address most pressing medical challenges Crackdown on waste, fraud, and abuse The president said his administration remains committed to ensuring those with pre-existing medical conditions always get the health insurance coverage they need. He added regarding President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA), aka Obamacare: In an attempt to justify the ACA, the previous Administration claimed that, absent action by the Congress, up to 129 million (later updated to 133 million) non-elderly people with what it described as pre-existing conditions were in danger of being denied health-insurance coverage. According to the previous Administration, however, only 2.7 percent of such individuals actually gained access to health insurance through the ACA, given existing laws and programs already in place to cover them. For example, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 has long protected individuals with pre-existing conditions, including individuals covered by group health plans and individuals who had such coverage but lost it. “The ACA is neither the best nor the only way to ensure that Americans who suffer from pre-existing conditions have access to health-insurance coverage,” Trump said, adding Obamacare “was flawed from its inception and should be struck down.” Several physicians who are also partners of the Job Creators Network Foundation weighed in on Trump’s healthcare vision. In remarks to Breitbart News about the executive action, Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, said the president’s plan is “a proposal to support principles of patient choice and transparency.” “He voiced again his opposition to socialism, which involves a centrally planned, bureaucratic system that eliminates choice,” she added. “American patients need to be freed from stultifying regulations and one-size-fit-nobody plans that increase costs and limit quality and availability of care. The Trump Administration has made a good start in doing that.” Board-certified anesthesiologist Dr. Marilyn Singleton said in a statement, “A lot is at stake this election and healthcare reform is at the top of the list.” “Americans should be careful not to be hoodwinked by the allure of socialized medicine when we can see the effects unfold in real time in Canada and the U.K.,” she added. “It’s time to adopt a reform framework rooted in patient choice and affordability, not rigid programs that cost more and provide fewer services. President Trump understands that.” Tennessee-based physician Dr. Christine Hoffman noted the pandemic “has underscored the importance of a strong and high-functioning healthcare system, something President Trump clearly understands.” “Reforming the system to provide patients with more choice and flexibility, while utilizing transparency as a tool to control costs, will help the U.S. prepare for everything from the next broken arm to a future public health emergency,” she said.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 25, 2020 6:26:55 GMT -6
thefederalist.com/2020/09/25/how-a-pro-life-president-saves-tens-of-thousands-of-lives/How A Pro-Life President Saves Tens Of Thousands Of Lives Critics of President Trump have made several arguments against the importance of the presidential election for pro-life policy. Let’s investigate these one by one. Christos A. Makridis, Jonathan Jakubowski, and Peter Range By Christos A. Makridis, Jonathan Jakubowski, and Peter Range SEPTEMBER 25, 2020 The battle for America’s most powerful office just inherited a whole new layer of intensity. On Sept. 18, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg passed away, creating a new vacancy on the Supreme Court. Ginsberg had been a stalwart advocate and defender of abortion throughout her 27 years on the court. The vacant seat represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity for the pro-life movement to achieve the highly sought-after reversal of Roe v Wade. While only time will tell whether this vacancy will be filled before 2021, the contrast between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden has never been clearer than it is today on issues of life and liberty. Some of President Trump’s critics have sought to dilute the importance of the presidency to the pro-life cause, arguing that Trump does not deserve praise for his pro-life accomplishments. While such critics are right that abortion rates have declined over the past decade, these numbers reflect a wide array of confounding factors, ranging from a decline in fertility to an increased standard of living. A Biden-Harris Presidency Would Fuel AbortionBut even if the abortion rate were genuinely trending in the right direction, that still would not justify supporting the most radical pro-abortion ticket in American history—that of Biden and running mate Kamala Harris. While former Vice President Biden once supported certain restrictions on abortion, he has adopted a radical position alongside Harris. Their stance goes against even the most basic legislation, like the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would mandate providing care to an infant who has survived a gruesome abortion procedure and is born alive. The Biden/Harris ticket also supports abortion through all nine months of pregnancy and repealing the decades-long, bipartisan Hyde Amendment, which keeps federal tax dollars from funding abortions. A Biden/Harris victory would lead to billions of dollars in abortion funding internationally, the nomination of pro-abortion justices throughout the federal court system including on the Supreme Court, the repeal of the Hyde amendment, leading to millions of dollars of federal funding directly for abortions, which combined would lead to millions of increased abortions over the foreseeable future. It would also squash the pro-life movement’s momentum and advance pro-abortion forces like Planned Parenthood, a major Harris supporter. Yes, Presidents Matter to Pro-Life VictoriesCritics of President Trump, most notably David French, have made several arguments against the importance of the presidential election for pro-life policy. Let’s investigate these one-by-one. French claims presidents are irrelevant to the abortion rate. This is wrong at face value. For starters, President Trump signed an executive order in April 2017 that allows states to defund Planned Parenthood from federal Title X (family planning) funding, reversing an attempt by the Obama administration to exert federal authority over state policymakers. President Trump also signed the Protect Life Rule, which ensures compliance with the statutory prohibition on funding programs that use abortion as a method of family planning and no longer permits Title X-funded family planning services at the same location abortion is provided. Among many other examples, French and his ilk also overlook the fundamental role that the executive office, especially the president, plays in creating a platform on important issues. Consider, for instance, how President Trump completely shifted the dialogue about China over the past three years. The Obama administration focused on accommodation, hoping the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) would choose a more democratic path. But the Trump administration pointed out how China was taking advantage of the United States through unequal terms of trade, stealing intellectual property, and opening the country to systemic supply chain risk. President Trump has followed up with concrete policies, yet he also used the power of the presidency to create a platform for an argument that many pundits dismissed or overlooked. Why would pro-life issues be any different? If anything, the fact that life is in part a cultural issue makes the power of the presidency even more important for gaining a platform. For example, earlier this year, President Trump became the first American president to speak at the annual March for Life, bringing a surge in media attention to the chronically underreported event and expanding the pro-life issue to a broader base of Americans. Judges Absolutely Influence Changes in LawSecond, while French concedes that President Trump has appointed many pro-life judges, he argues judges are a force for stability, not change, in abortion law. This is a patently false claim. While judges uphold the law of the land, unless they are activist judges that subtly try to change the law, court rulings constantly create precedent that leads to changes in policy. In other words, policy does not emerge out of thin air—it is based in part on court rulings. Biden-appointed judges would be far more likely to strike down the most basic pro-life legislation and uphold the most aggressive pro-abortion legislation. Moreover, as we can see with Ginsberg’s passing, Trump has the opportunity to appoint yet another Supreme Court justice, which could lead to a substantial realignment in constitutional respect on the court. Planned Parenthood Doesn’t Support Biden for NothingConversely, pro-life state legislation would be more often reversed under Biden-appointed judges. Even Planned Parenthood is worried about four more years of a Trump presidency, specifically due to his appointment of federal judges. During the 2019 state legislative sessions, more than 290 bills restricting abortion have been filed in 45 states. Why would Planned Parenthood be worried if judges played such an insignificant role? Third, some including French say state legislatures have more influence on abortion outcomes than Congress does. While state legislatures are clearly important, this again overlooks the interconnected nature of federal and state policymaking. Indeed, President Trump’s removal of the Obama administration policy that forced states to fund abortion is perhaps the most obvious illustrative example of federal policy affecting state policy. That doesn’t even include the fact that a president can campaign for state policymakers running for Congress or for governor, thereby giving an extra spotlight to politicians with similar values. And, if President Trump does not win, Biden is on record saying he would abolish the filibuster, which under a Democrat Congress would lead to additional federal actions that direct billions of dollars of federal funding through states to radical leftist policies, including on abortion. Repealing Roe Would Absolutely Reduce AbortionsFourth, it’s often argued that overturning Roe v. Wade would not substantially affect the number of abortions. This is a speculative claim that contradicts much empirical evidence that shows law has the potential to influence culture towards what is good, beautiful, and true—and vice versa. For example, prior to Roe v. Wade, only a couple of states had abortion laws. States stood on the pro-life side of the pendulum. Although we are in a different country today, it is much easier to make the argument scientifically about the personhood of the unborn child than ever before. Furthermore, if most of pro-lifers’ recent success is in the states, then repealing Roe would allow states to move bills they haven’t passed due to the Supreme Court’s defense of abortion. Just look at former Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s vetoes of heartbeat bills. He justified them by stating that the Supreme Court would overrule him. State legislatures generally won’t act if there is federal protection for a given policy matter. That means overturning Roe v. Wade would lead to significant state action, which could come to at least a 12.8 percent reduction in abortions. While French argues this number is insignificant, over time it represents millions of lives. Law Influences CultureFifth is the argument most people don’t want an abortion. While it would be great if no one actually wanted to have an abortion, the Pew Center reports that 61 percent of adults report that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Regardless, we still don’t want to set laws that are morally, socially, or economically harmful. Culture and law are intimately linked. Legalizing abortion normalized it. Law creates boundaries to hold culture accountable. Although culture is usually the catalyst for law, there are plenty of cases in which the opposite has been true. Consider, for instance, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The CRA ended segregation in public places and banned employment discrimination. While some racism remains, Sen. Tim Scott can now confidently say that his family has moved from “cotton to Congress in one lifetime.” President Trump deserves credit for being the most active pro-life president in our country’s history. We don’t want to just “limit” abortion or delight in the fact that it is declining according to some estimates. If we believe that abortion constitutes a brutal murder, then we need to fight for its abolition, period, just like we don’t only seek lower numbers of human trafficking, but to abolish human trafficking altogether. A Trump administration will continue to advance life. A Biden administration will push us into the dark ages of abortion on demand, no questions asked, even if the baby is just about to be born or has been born alive and survived, as Democrat politicians have openly stated. Jonathan Jakubowski is the author of “Bellwether Blues, A Conservative Awakening of the Millennial Soul.” Christos A. Makridis is a research professor with Arizona State University’s W. P. Carey School of Business, a senior adviser at Gallup, and a non-resident fellow at Baylor University. Peter Range is the director of the Office for Life and Justice of Catholic Charities in the Diocese of Toledo, and radio host of “Say Yes to Life” on Annunciation Radio of Northwest Ohio. These views are those of the authors and not on behalf of any affiliated institutions.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 25, 2020 15:00:36 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2020/09/25/trump-black-america-plan-kkk-antifa/REPORT: Trump To Announce $500 Billion ‘Black America Plan,’ Designate KKK And Antifa As Terrorist Organizations President Donald Trump will announce a $500 billion plan for black America and designate both the Klu Klux Klan and antifa as terrorist organizations, Fox News reported Friday. Trump is expected to make the announcements Friday afternoon at his “Black Economic Empowerment” event in Georgia. His plan reportedly would also designate lynching as a national hate crime, according to Fox News. The report says Trump will pledge to “increase access to capital in black communities by nearly $500 billion.” “For decades, Democrat politicians like Joe Biden have taken Black voters for granted. They made you big promises before every election—and then the moment they got to Washington, they abandoned you and sold you out,” Trump’s planned remarks say, according to Fox. “The Democrats will always take Black voters for granted until large numbers of Black Americans vote Republican.” (RELATED: Trump Met With Loud Boos At Supreme Court While Paying Respects To Ruth Bader Ginsburg) President Donald Trump embraces a woman he invited on stage to pray as Vice President Mike Pence looks on during an event for the Young Black Leadership Summit in the East Room of the White House October 04, 2019 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) Trump’s plan lays out four areas in which Trump vows to help black Americans over the next four years if reelected, namely “opportunity,” “security,” “prosperity” and “fairness,” according to a multi-page document published by Fox News. (RELATED: Mark Meadows Attacks FBI Director Christopher Wray Over Mail-In Ballot Debate) The Trump administration says the the plan will create 3 million additional jobs for black Americans as well as 500,000 new black-owned businesses. The White House did not immediately respond to a request from the Daily Caller to confirm the plan. Trump’s Georgia event comes in the middle of a stacked day of campaigning, in which he first traveled to Florida to court Latino voters at a Latinos for Trump event. He highlighted Latino business owners at the event but did not announce a major plan. Trump is scheduled to give another speech at a campaign rally in Virginia this evening.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 25, 2020 16:36:43 GMT -6
President Trump will nominate Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ginsburg on the Supreme Court on Saturday. The Hill reported: thehill.com/homenews/administration/518319-trump-plans-to-pick-coney-barrett-to-replace-ginsburg-on-courtPresident Trump will nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court on Saturday barring any last second change, multiple people familiar with the process confirmed to The Hill.
Two sources with knowledge of the process said that Barrett is the pick, barring any change of Trump’s mind before Saturday evening’s announcement in the White House Rose Garden.
A Republican official said Trump began informing allies on Capitol Hill of his intention to nominate Barrett, a judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
“He’s made his decision and it’s Barrett,” said the official.The Associated Press also reported President Trump will nominate Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. www.fox8live.com/2020/09/25/sources-trump-nominate-judge-amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court/Republicans are expecting President Donald Trump to announce Saturday that he is nominating Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court as he aims to put a historic stamp on the high court just weeks before the election.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 26, 2020 8:08:01 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/09/25/donald-trump-announces-comprehensive-platinum-plan-for-black-americans/President Donald Trump announced Friday his “Platinum Plan” for black Americans at a campaign event in Atlanta, Georgia. The plan is a mixture of economic, education, and financial investments in black communities, detailed in a two-page document released on Friday. “Over the last 50 years black Americans have mostly voted democrat, but every day more black Americans are deciding that the old way is not working,” Trump said, noting that his opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden, was deploying the “same old tired empty slogans.” The plan announces a goal of creating 500,000 black-owned businesses, increase access to capital investments, and add three million jobs for the black community. The president’s plan for black Americans includes proposals he has already voiced support for, such as an annual $500 billion of infrastructure spending. The plan also promises to prosecute the KKK and Antifa as terrorist organizations and make lynching a national hate crime and make Juneteenth a National Holiday. The president also spoke about increasing opportunities for education and job training, including school choice. He also committed to working on additional criminal justice reform legislation, better healthcare, and advanced financial literacy. The president spoke freely at the event, calling out prominent black supporters by name and making jokes about Biden’s low energy. “By the way, he’s staying in again today,” Trump said, pointing to another campaign “lid” on the day’s events. Trump called out Biden for using his 47-year political career to ship jobs overseas, hollow out the middle class, allow foreign illegals into the country, and send men overseas to fight in foreign wars while the inner cities crumbled. “Joe Biden cares more about the citizens of foreign countries than he does about black Americans living in our own country,” Trump said. “I will always put Americans first, and that includes, very very importantly, black Americans.” The president also pointed to Biden’s 1994 crime bill, which instituted stiff drug penalties that affected the black community. “No one in Washington politics today has done more to hurt black Americans than Joe Biden,” he said. Trump also criticized Democrats for supporting the violent leftist Black Lives Matter anti-police protests that actually hurt black communities. “Today I’m urging all black Americans to walk away from the corrupt, hateful, divisive, and very extreme — and they are going crazy — Democrat party.” Trump referred to Biden’s infamous statement to a black interviewer that “you ain’t black” unless you vote for Biden, and another comment calling the black community “monolithic.” “Biden believes that all black Americans have to think the same way,” Trump said, noting that “He doesn’t know black Americans like I do.” He described Democrats as “out of touch liberal hypocrites who stereotype you, disrespect you, and sell you out.” “Joe Biden should not be asking for your support; he should be begging for your forgiveness,” he said.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 26, 2020 14:33:04 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 26, 2020 15:04:31 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 26, 2020 15:20:22 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2020/09/26/amy-coney-barrett-donald-trump-nominee-supreme-court/President Donald Trump nominated federal judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States, the White House announced Saturday. Barrett will replace former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died Sept. 18 at the age of 87 due to complications of metastatic pancreatic cancer. Barrett’s pro-life stances contrast sharply to Ginsburg’s fierce defense of abortion access in the United States. The Supreme Court nominee has been frank about prioritizing her Catholic faith. (RELATED: Here Are 7 Things You Need To Know About Amy Coney Barrett) “If you can keep in mind that your fundamental purpose in life is not to be a lawyer, but to know, love and serve God,” Barrett said during a 2006 commencement address to Notre Dame law students, “you truly will be a different kind of lawyer.” Trump considered nominating Barrett to replace former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy in 2018 but ultimately chose Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. “I’m saving her for Ginsburg,” Trump said of Barrett in 2019, Axios reported. (RELATED: ‘Disgusting Attacks On Her Faith’ — Sasse Condemns ‘Anti-Catholic Bigotry’ Against Amy Coney Barrett) “This confirmation process will be nasty,” Republican Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse told the Daily Caller News Foundation in a statement Saturday. “Why? Because too many on the left (and sadly some on the right as well) want judges who will substitute their own will for the law.” “Judge Barrett is not that kind of judge,” he added. “She believes her duty isn’t to arbitrarily slop applesauce on stone tablets and declare new laws — her duty is to cloak her personal views under a black robe and to faithfully uphold the Constitution. That makes her a problem to rabid partisans, and an ally to the rule of law.” The president appointed Barrett to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017, according to the New York Times. Her confirmation hearings gained national attention when Democratic lawmakers questioned her about her Catholic beliefs, suggesting that Barrett’s Catholicism made her unfit to serve as a judge. “The conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you,” Democratic California Sen. Dianne Feinstein told her. “And that’s of concern.” Feinstein is not the only critic to suggest that Barrett’s views make her unfit to serve on the Supreme Court. Ahead of Trump’s announcement, media outlets linked a Catholic group associated with Barrett to the fictional dystopian novel “The Handmaid’s Tale,” falsely reporting that the Catholic group People of Praise was the inspiration for the book. Filmmaker Arlen Parsa also called Barrett a “Catholic extremist with 7 children” in a since-deleted tweet, criticizing the nominee for her pro-life views. Parsa noted that he will vote for 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden, who is also Catholic. (RELATED: Media Calls Biden A ‘Devout Catholic.’ Where Does He Actually Stand With The Catholic Church?) “Her religious convictions are pro-life, and she lives those convictions,” Barrett’s longtime Catholic mentor, Judge Patrick J. Schiltz, told the Times. “The question of what we believe as a religious matter has nothing to do with what we believe a written document says.” Republican Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse said in statement Tuesday: “These ugly smears against Judge Barrett are a combination of anti-Catholic bigotry and QAnon-level stupidity. People of Praise is basically a Bible study — and just like billions of Christians around the world, Judge Barrett reads the Bible, prays, and tries to serve her community.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 26, 2020 15:25:37 GMT -6
www.zerohedge.com/markets/watch-live-president-trump-announces-his-supreme-court-nomineeAmy Coney Barrett Picked By Trump As U.S. Supreme Court Nominee President Trump is set to announce his nominee for the Supreme Court seat left vacant by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death last week. And, as previously reported, Trump has picked Amy Coney Barrett. Barrett was considered a finalist for the Supreme Court vacancy left by the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy in 2018, but Justice Brett Kavanaugh was tapped by the president instead. Due to her religious beliefs, Barrett is feared by liberals even though some concede that she has “a topnotch legal mind.”www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-09-24/amy-coney-barrett-donald-trump-supreme-courtBarrett, known to be a devout Catholic who considers abortion “always immoral,” would fill the seat vacated by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The loss of liberal icon Ginsburg and the confirmation of the conservative Barrett, 48, could cement the Supreme Court’s rightward shift for a generation. While Joe Biden has said the winner of the presidential contest should fill Ginsburg’s seat, there’s little Democrats can do to delay a vote on Barrett, a former clerk for the late Justice Antonin Scalia, the high court’s former conservative standard-bearer. Needless to say, her appointment will play a dominant role in the final weeks of the presidential election. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said after Ginsburg’s death on Sept. 18 that a vote will be held on the Senate floor for Trump’s nominee. McConnell has not said yet whether the vote will take place before or after the Nov. 3 election. In a statement moments after the nomination, McConnell said that "Judge Amy Coney Barrett is an exceptionally impressive jurist and an exceedingly well-qualified nominee to the Supreme Court. A brilliant scholar. An exemplary judge. President Trump could not have made a better decision."
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 26, 2020 15:28:38 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/09/26/donald-trump-nominates-amy-coney-barrett-to-the-supreme-court/President Donald Trump on Saturday selected Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the Supreme Court seat left empty by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg just one week ago. The president described the pick as “one of his highest and most important duties.” Barrett thanked the president for the honor of serving on the court, should she be confirmed by the Senate. “I love the United States and I love the United States Constitution,” she said. “I am truly humbled by the prospect of serving on the Supreme Court.” The president’s choice demonstrates he did not waver from the idea of choosing Barrett to replace Ginsburg with another woman on the Supreme Court. In 2018, Barrett was among the top four nominees that Trump met with to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy. He ultimately selected Justice Brett Kavanaugh for the job but reportedly viewed Barrett as an ideal choice for the replacement of Ginsburg in the future. The president ignored pressure from some forces within the White House and in Washington to consider Florida Federal Appeals Court Judge Barbara Lagoa to earn additional political points in the state. The president’s choice of Barrett marks a victory for conservative groups, especially pro-life and pro-Second Amendment groups who viewed her legal decisions and public comments as encouraging for future rulings. The left views Barrett as a dangerous radical who would tilt the court in a conservative direction and try to overturn Roe vs. Wade ,as well as Obamacare. Barrett, age 48, is a Roman Catholic and the mother of seven children, two of them adopted from Haiti. Her youngest child has special needs. Born and raised in New Orleans, Barrett attended and graduated from Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee, and studied literature before attending Notre Dame Law School on a full scholarship. At Notre Dame, she served as the executive editor of the Notre Dame Law Review, graduated first in her class in 1997, and earned the Hoynes Price, the Law School’s top honor. Barrett is a self-described Constitutional “originalist,” arguing that a judge should not depart from the meaning of the language used by the Founders in the Constitution. “We agreed to live by the Constitution until it’s lawfully changed,” she said at a Hillsdale College event in 2019. “And judges can’t change it. That’s not Democratic.” Barrett clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia from 1998 to 1999 after graduating top of her class from Notre Dame Law School. “I tend to agree with those who say that a justice’s duty is to the Constitution and that it is thus more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks clearly in conflict with it,” she wrote in the Texas Law Review in 2013. She also wrote about interpreting the Constitution in a 2017 legal article. “A faithful judge resists the temptation to conflate the meaning of the Constitution with the judge’s own political preference; judges who give in to that temptation exceed the limits of their power by holding a statute unconstitutional when it is not,” she wrote. Barrett was a professor at the Notre Dame Law School before she was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in November 2017. All 49 of her fellow faculty members at Notre Dame Law School praised Barrett for her professionalism and judicial mind in a letter to the Senate Judiciary. “We have a wide range of political views, as well as commitments to different approaches to judicial methodology and judicial craft. We are united, however, in our judgment about Amy,” they wrote in a letter submitted for her 2017 Senate hearings. Before clerking for Justice Scalia, Barret clerked for Judge Laurence Silberman on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. She then practiced law at Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin in D.C. and was a visiting associate professor at George Washington University Law School before returning to teach at Notre Dame in 2002. At Notre Dame, Barrett received the “Distinguished Professor of the Year” award three times, where she taught classes on constitutional law, civil procedure, evidence, federal courts, federal litigation, and statutory interpretation. Her scholarly work has appeared in numerous academic journals. Her 2017 confirmation hearing for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals rallied religious conservatives to her side after Sen. Dianne Feinstein lectured her for practicing her Catholic faith. “You have a long history of believing that your religious beliefs should prevail,” Feinstein told her. “The dogma lives loudly within you.” Barrett replied: “If you’re asking whether I take my faith seriously and I’m a faithful Catholic, I am, although I would stress that my personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear in the discharge of my duties as a judge.” The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops sharply criticized Feinstein’s attack as “contrary to the Constitution” and un-American. Here is a look at some of Barrett’s positions on legal issues: Second Amendment In her dissent on the 2019 case Kanter v. Barr, Barrett asserted that the Second Amendment “confers an individual right, intimately connected with the natural right of self-defense.” She argued that possessing a gun was an individual right, not simply a civic right, and a non-violent convicted felon should have the right to own a firearm. Barrett wrote: History is consistent with common sense: it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns. But that power extends only to people who are dangerous. Founding-era legislatures did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons. Nor have the parties introduced any evidence that founding-era legislatures imposed virtue-based restrictions on the right; such restrictions applied to civic rights like voting and jury service, not to individual rights like the right to possess a gun. Abortion: After judges found an Indiana law requiring the fetal remains to be buried or cremated after an abortion unconstitutional, Barrett voted in 2018 to rehear the case. She also voted to rehear a ruling on a law requiring parents to be notified when a girl under 18 was seeking an abortion. Barrett has not ruled on an abortion case. Immigration: In June 2020, she dissented in the decision of Cook County v. Wolf, defending President Trump’s public charge law denying permanent residence status to immigrants receiving public welfare benefits. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Trump’s authority despite the Circuit court ruling against the administration. Obamacare: In a 2017 law review article, she reviewed a book by Randy Barnett, who criticized Chief Justice John Robert’s ruling upholding President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act. She wrote: Barnett is surely right that deference to a democratic majority should not supersede a judge’s duty to apply clear text. That is true, incidentally, even if one subscribes to the collective view of popular sovereignty, for a judge who adopts an interpretation inconsistent with the text fails to enforce the statute that commanded majority support. In February of 2012, Barrett joined Catholic and religious professors publicly criticizing former President Barack Obama’s administration for requiring religious institutions to provide employee insurance for abortions, sterilization, and birth control. “This is a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand,” the letter read. Commitment to Due Process in Sexual Assault Cases on Campus: In 2019, Barrett led a reversal of a lower court’s decision to dismiss a case brought against Purdue University by a male student who was suspended and lost his ROTC scholarship after he was accused of sexual assault. The man was accused by his ex-girlfriend of groping her in her sleep and was suspended by the university without cross-examining the allegation. The Seventh Circuit panel voted unanimously to revisit the case.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 26, 2020 15:32:34 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/09/26/watch-live-pro-life-demonstrators-outside-scotus-to-support-amy-coney-barrett/Pro-life demonstrators are gathering outside of the Supreme Court as President Trump formally announces his Supreme Court nominee to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Judge Amy Coney Barrett. While conservatives back the nomination of Barrett, the backlash against her began yesterday, after reports surfaced identifying her as the frontrunner and likely choice. Leftists almost immediately began attacking her positions, faith, and family. “It’s going to be a big deal. We’re doing it at the White House, the Rose garden of the White House unless it’s raining. In which case, we’ll still do it there,” Trump told rally attendees in Jacksonville, Florida, on Thursday. “They don’t want us to do it. The Democrats say, ‘You shouldn’t do it.’ Why? We have a lot of time. Let me ask you the one simple question. If it was them, instead of us, do you think they do it?” he asked. “I think so. No, this will be a very talented person. It will be a woman,” Trump continued. The president added that Democrats now want to “pack the court.” “You know what that means? They want to put on a lot of justices. These are things that are just horrible,” he continued. “I guess we could do that too. Right? We could do that too. But remember, it was Harry Reid that made this all possible. “
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Sept 26, 2020 15:43:52 GMT -6
|
|