“Let’s Get Ready to Rumble!”

The two went toe to toe Thursday night in Nashville. Donald and Joe laced up the gloves and went after each other. It was argumentative, allegation driven, angry, partisan, and personal. There were gut shots, jabs, a couple of roundhouses, and several misses. At the end of the night, there could only be one conclusion. We’ll get to that in a few moments. Let’s take a brief “around-the-ring” and highlight a few of the biggest punches of the evening. We’ll do it in bullet points:

  • President Trump, during the debate, asked former Vice President Joe Biden to explain the recent emails revealing details about his family’s purported foreign business dealings. Biden invoked the topic by mentioning Rudy Giuliani, the president’s attorney. “His national security advisor told him that what is happening with his buddy — well I shouldn’t — well I will — his buddy Rudy Giuliani. He’s being used as a Russia pawn. He’s being fed information that is Russian, that is not true,” Biden said.
  • The Democratic presidential nominee was apparently referring to Giuliani supplying The New York Post with a trove of files from a laptop purportedly abandoned by Hunter Biden at a computer repair shop. The Post’s reports about the files suggest that the younger Biden benefited from business dealings in China and Ukraine due to his father’s position at the White House.
  • “Joe got $3.5 million from Russia,” Trump said, referring to a payment wired to Hunter Biden from the ex-wife of the former mayor of Moscow. “And it came through Putin because he was very friendly with the former mayor of Moscow and it was the mayor of Moscow’s wife. You got $3.5 million. Your family got $3.5 million. They were paying you a lot of money, and they probably still are,” Trump continued. “But now, with what came out today, it’s even worse. All of the emails, the horrible emails of the kind of money you were raking in, you and your family. And Joe, you were vice president when some of this was happening, and it should have never happened. I think you owe an explanation to the American people.”
    The president was likely referring to a new batch of emails sourced from former Hunter Biden associate Tony Bobulinski, who was Trump’s guest at the debate. Bobulinski spoke to the press before attending the event and said that he plans to hand over three of his phones to the FBI. Bobulinski also said that he personally spoke to Biden in May 2017 about the family’s plans for a business partnership with a Chinese energy conglomerate.

    “I think you clear that up and talk to the American people. Maybe you can do it right now,” Trump said. “I have not taken a penny from any foreign source ever in my life,” Biden said.

  • Joe Biden said that he would “transition from the oil industry … over time.” When asked, “Would you close down the oil industry?” by President Trump, Biden said, “I would transition from the oil industry, yes.” “Oh, that’s a big statement,” Trump responded, visibly surprised. Debate moderator NBC’s Kristen Welker quickly asked Biden why he would do that. “Because the oil industry pollutes significantly,” Biden said.
  • Biden, in late August, said that he would not ban fracking. Previously, Biden said at a March democratic primary debate, “No more—no new fracking.” Biden’s campaign then said he meant he would not allow new federal land-drilling leases. The Trump campaign said that the Biden campaign was “attempting to walk back his previous statements after realizing voters aren’t happy about his proposal to kill thousands of jobs.” President Trump has openly said that he is “all for fracking” and has frequently touted his administration’s push for U.S. energy independence.
  • Biden, during the final presidential debate, reaffirmed his support for increasing the minimum wage nationwide to $15 per hour. At the same time, President Donald Trump said he would “consider it to an extent” but likely to keep it a state option. Asked whether he believes it is the right time to ask struggling small business owners to raise the minimum wage, Biden replied that he would like to see federal dollars used to ease their hardships. Trump then challenged Biden. “He said we have to help our small businesses by raising the minimum wage?” Trump asked. “That’s not helping. I think it should be a state option,” Trump said of setting minimum wage laws. “Alabama is different than New York; New York is different from Vermont; every state is different. It’s very important. We have to help our small business; how are you helping small businesses when you’re forcing wages? What’s going to happen and what’s been proven to happen is when you do that, these small businesses fire many of their employees.”
  • President Trump said that he does not want to shut down the country over the CCP virus pandemic, arguing, “You can’t close up our nation, or you won’t have a nation. We have to open our country. We’re not going to have a country,” Trump said during the second and final presidential debate in Nashville, saying that the United States is a “massive country” with rising rates of depression, suicide, drugs, alcohol, and tremendous drug abuse. “The cure cannot be worse than the problem himself,” he said. “He’ll close down our country.”Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden attempted to say that Trump is focused too much on the economy. “People aren’t learning to live with it; they’re learning to die with it,” Biden said. “I don’t look at coronavirus in terms of red states and blue states. They’re all the United States,” he said, adding: “All the states where we see spikes are red states.”

Summary

NOTE: Trump invited as his guest Tony Bobulinski, a former business associate of Biden’s son, Hunter, who claims he has evidence of business ties between the Biden family and a Chinese Communist Party (CCP)-owned enterprise. Bobulinski said shortly before the debate that he will soon hand over his evidence to the FBI and cooperate with an investigation by the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee.

The pair sparred for an hour-and-a-half about the above topics. It was no surprise that each approached each question differently and responded with opposite philosophies about discussing the issues. The two deeply despise each other and have profound differences in governing that, quite frankly, played out during Biden’s four years as VP under Obama and Trump’s four years as President.

We’ll close with just a few summary thoughts:

  1. Joe Biden spoke angrily almost in total when answering each debate question. It appeared that his doing so was purposeful as if to exhibit to voters how tough he is while, at the same time, trying to identify as the only person vying for the job who understands what Americans need and expect from a president during the next four years. It appeared to be unnatural and projected rather than Joe’s genuine process of speaking.
  2. President Trump was dramatically different in this debate than from the first debate. It’s true that Chris Wallace, who moderated the first debate, lost total control in keeping the candidates on point almost in total. Still, Kristin Welker of NBC News did a remarkably better job in doing so than did Wallace. It not only showed she had control of the flow of the debate, but it also showed she knew her debate questions well and was confident as she guided both men through the debate process. However, it DID appear that the flow of her questions tilted toward Joe Biden by giving him several softball questions, especially in the light of those asked the President.
  3. Sadly, the Debate Commission refused to make foreign policy one of the night’s topics. With the stark differences in actual foreign policy during both the Obama/Biden and Trump administrations, Americans would be much better informed this weekend on the positions of each candidate if Welker had questioned both regarding their policies in dealing with other countries.

So Who Won?

On content, demeanor, and the ease of answering questions in a concise and unrehearsed fashion, Donald Trump unquestionably raised his hand in the air at the debate conclusion. However, Joe Biden showed just why he spent this week in the Biden “Basement Bunker” and shunned any public appearances: he was in intense debate preparation. And it worked.

All of that is fluff when it comes to debates. All that matters in debates, and especially in this one, is which of the two struck a chord in the hearts of Americans looking-in sufficient for them to elect him as President. There’s no doubt that Donald Trump overwhelmingly won that process.

This morning (Friday), we will launch into further details about the debate on TNN Live that airs from 9-11 AM Central streaming live. We will be talking to several Americans to get their opinions about the debate. Feel free to listen and join in. How do you do that? Simply click on the following link on your smartphone or computer and join the show:

When Did Debate Moderators Become More Important Than Those Debating?

I think the nation is past the need for Presidential election debates. And I KNOW the country is past the need for the partisan moderators we have seen grill candidates in at least the past three presidential elections. Chris Wallace, who is supposedly and middle-of-the-road, hosts a Sunday morning talk show at FOX News. He reportedly is a Moderate. But in his turn on the Moderator microphone, Wallace became a debater instead, joining Joe Biden to pile-on Donald Trump.

As everyone knows, the Debate Commission at the last moment changed the scheduled second debate format from in-person to virtual. Their stated reason for the change was for the personal safety of the workers, media pundits, and the debaters themselves since President Trump was just completing a personal tangle with COVID-19. The Trump Campaign went bonkers, and the President immediately determined to NOT participate in a virtual debate. It was canceled.

All eyes turn to NBC News White House correspondent Kristen Welker as she prepares to host the third and final presidential debate tonight.

President Trump and Joe Biden will square off at Belmont University in Nashville, TN, in a 90-minute debate starting at 9 p.m Eastern. Welker, 44, has been the White House correspondent at NBC News since 2011, after working as a news reporter in Rhode Island. But Trump supporters who took issue with stern questioning by previous moderators like Chris Wallace and Savannah Guthrie may find themselves wishing for those combative hosts after Welker is done with the president.

Welker comes from an established Democratic family — who have poured cash into party coffers, and to Trump opponents, for years. Her mother, Julie Welker, a prominent real estate broker in Philadelphia, and father, Harvey Welker, a consulting engineer, have donated tens of thousands of dollars to Democratic candidates and close to $20,000 to Barack Obama alone. There was also $3,300 for Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign and $2,100 for Hillary Clinton’s doomed 2016 presidential effort against Trump. Another $7,300 was contributed to the Democratic National Committee between 2004 and 2020.

Though Kristen Welker’s party registration is not listed today, she was a registered Democrat in Washington, DC, in 2012 and Rhode Island in 2004.

Throughout Welker’s tenure as a White House correspondent, she has earned a reputation for a scathing style of questioning. “Mr. President, yes or no: Have you ever worked for Russia. Yes or no?” she demanded during a confrontation in January 2019. The treatment stands in stark contrast to her handling of Democratic politicos. In March 2016, Welker was busted on live television tipping off Hillary Clinton’s Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri about at least one question she planned to ask her during a post-debate interview in Michigan. At the time, Clinton was locked in a fierce fight for the Democratic nomination against Sen. Bernie Sanders. “I’m going to ask you about Flint,” Welker said of the Michigan city’s infamous water crisis.

Welker deleted her Twitter account last week, heading off a complete look at her past statements and views. It was later restored. “Anyone who’s ever dealt with Welker knows she’s an activist, not a reporter. The White House press team views her the same way they would AOC or Pelosi if they walked in the office,” a senior White House official said.

Tonight’s Debate: All-In

“She’s always been terrible & unfair, just like most of the Fake News reporters, but I’ll still play the game,” President Trump tweeted about the Moderator. “The people know!”

Tonight’s debate is crucial for the President, who refused to participate in an Oct. 15 showdown with Biden because organizers wanted a virtual debate in light of the president’s COVID-19 diagnosis. He enters the debate trailing Biden in preelection polls nationally, and in key states though the Biden lead has almost vanished. This will likely be the last chance for both candidates to reach a vast audience before Election Day on Nov. 3.

Welker hasn’t commented, but plenty of colleagues and competitors testified to her fairness and professionalism. They said she would do great when moderating Thursday’s showdown between Trump and Democrat Joe Biden. “Kristen is one of the toughest, fairest reporters you’ll ever meet,” tweeted Kathryn Watson, a White House reporter for CBS News.

Despite his recent attacks, many people have praised Welker’s reporting during the Trump administration – including Trump himself. After the second debate was canceled this month, Trump campaign adviser Jason Miller told Fox News Welker would do an “excellent job” hosting the third one. “I have a very high opinion of Kristen Welker,” Miller said. “I think she’s going to do an excellent job as the moderator for the third debate. I think she’s a journalist who’s very fair in her approach, and I think that she’ll be an excellent choice for this third debate.”

Calling on Welker during a news conference in Switzerland in January, Trump complimented her for landing a weekend anchor gig on NBC’s “Today” show. “They made a very wise decision,” Trump told Welker.

Summary

The daily IBD/TIPP polls have each day this week indicated the Biden lead that was once in double-digits has not just slipped but plummeted to its lowest numbers. Why is that? In part because of the feeling many Americans have after the revelation of the alleged wrongdoing by BOTH the Vice President’s son, Hunter Biden, and by the former VP himself. That Hunter MacBook Pro left at a Delaware computer shop for repairs contains tens of thousands of damning texts, emails, and even pictures. The pictures are said to contain those of Hunter doing illegal drugs while having sex. The pictures include at least one underage girl.

How does this impact Joe Biden? The emails and texts contain details of meetings, emails to and between Hunter and corporate leaders at companies in Ukraine, China, and even Khazakstan that detail massive financial transactions between those foreign corporations and several American entities with which Hunter Biden is an official. Several of the emails and texts implicate Joe Biden for receiving large sums of money as part of these transactions.

Debate Prediction:

If President Trump refuses to fall into the personal trap in which he found himself in the first debate, if he addresses specific Joe Biden political actions from his past, many of which were controversial and very damaging for U.S. minorities along with Biden/Harris suspect plans in a Biden/Harris Administration, he should do well. However, he MUST keep from going-off on Biden in personal ways and stick to policies.

But there’s one sure thing that will just give him a three-count at the ending bell: he MUST bring the Hunter Biden/Biden Family Corruption case into the debate conversation using just the facts and get Joe — without badgering him — to respond on the merits of the case. Remember: no one from the Biden Campaign or any Biden family member or even Joe himself has claimed that the emails, texts, or pictures are not real or labeling them as “fake.”

Being calm, civil, and appearing not to be angry will be a tall order for the President. Though I am confident those around him have given such advice ahead of the showdown tonight, it remains to be seen if President Trump will set aside his disgust for all of the one-sided attacks on him and his administration and just address specifics during the debate. If he can do those things and refuses to hit below the belt, I think Joe will hit the mat at the end of the show!

The Biden 900-Pound Gorilla Just Will NOT Go Away

The corporate media has refused to cover the substance of the New York Post’s bombshell reporting on Hunter Biden’s recovered laptop and emails, not because there’s nothing to the story or because the emails are fake, but because the story itself is, on its face, harmful to Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.

That’s not to say news outlets haven’t been writing about the Post’s reporting. They’ve decided to cover the meta-narrative—the story about the story—while studiously ignoring what Hunter Biden’s emails reveal about his family’s overseas business dealings and influence-peddling.

Here’s how it works. Instead of aggressive follow-up reporting on the content of Hunter Biden’s emails, which is what you’d expect from news organizations, we’ve got a wave of process stories about the “anatomy” of the Post’s “dubious” reporting, censorship stories about Twitter and Facebook, and wild conspiracy theory stories about a rumored Russian disinformation plot.

Last week when all this broke, the focus quickly shifted from Hunter Biden’s emails to a decision by Facebook and Twitter to censor the Post’s reporting, and, in Twitter’s case, lock the Post’s official account for posting “hacked” materials (there’s no evidence the emails were hacked). When Twitter tried to walk back but also justify its draconian policies, the media reported on that, and when a handful of Republican senators announced they’d be subpoenaing Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey over the imbroglio, the media reported on that, too.

What they didn’t report on is the obvious thing the emails reveal: Hunter Biden was trading on his family name overseas, and Joe Biden, despite his many denials, seems to have been aware of this and might have even been a part of it.

Understand what’s going on here: The media will report almost any aspect of this story, no matter how tangential or relatively insignificant, rather than grapple with the story itself.

Almost nothing is too trivial on this front. Over the weekend, we got stories in The New York Times and New York Magazine about behind-the-scenes dissent from a handful of anonymous Post employees who thought the Biden story shouldn’t have run. The Times article goes into great detail about whose bylines were attached to the Post’s reporting, how long each reporter had been at the paper, where he or she had worked previously, and the process top Post editors went through before publication.

Same for the New York Magazine article, which also dismissed the substance of the Post’s reporting—“supposed” scoop, “purported” emails—while quoting anonymous Post reporters pontificating about how they’ve been “bracing” for the Post to “go pro-Trump before the election.”

What meager follow-up reporting on the substance of the emails we have seen has almost all been to undermine the Post. The Washington Post, for one, was quick to “fact-check” the Post by casting vague allegations on its reporting while failing to offer any new information or insights into the trove of emails detailing Hunter Biden’s foreign business deals.

Even more embarrassing have been outlets like CNN and USA Today, which, citing unnamed sources, breathlessly speculated that the FBI was investigating whether the emails were a possible “disinformation campaign” originating from—where else?—Moscow. (Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe on Monday laid these rumors to rest, saying the recovered laptop and emails are “not part of some Russian disinformation campaign.”)

The Media Can’t Handle The Truth

The media’s preoccupation with the chain-of-possession of the laptop and the emails—are they “hacked materials” or are they part of a shadowy plot hatched by the Kremlin?—is meant to distract the broader public about what the laptop and emails actually contain.

After all, the last thing a media establishment in cahoots with the Democratic Party wants to do is ask substantive questions about any of this. Why did a Ukrainian oligarch thank Hunter Biden for an introduction to his father in 2015 when the elder Biden was the Obama administration’s point-man on Ukraine? What did Hunter Biden mean when he told a Chinese energy firm that a lucrative deal would be “interesting for me and my family?”

The press isn’t interested, just like they weren’t interested in a recent U.S. Senate committee report on the Bidens’ complex financial transactions in Ukraine and elsewhere. I mean, if you’re not curious why the wife of the former mayor of Moscow would pay Hunter Biden $3.5 million, then you’re not going to be curious about any of this other stuff.

To be clear, it doesn’t matter what the Post or any other news outlet actually reports or how airtight their reporting is. It doesn’t matter that no one, not even the Biden campaign, has denied the authenticity of the emails in question. It doesn’t matter that Fox News has independently corroborated one of the emails that indirectly references Joe Biden as one of six recipients of “remuneration packages” from the aforementioned Chinese energy firm. It doesn’t matter that the laptop came from a Delaware computer store and not, you know, Russia.

The mainstream media will not, under any circumstances, treat this as a serious story. The same media establishment that was willing to perpetuate a years-long Russia collusion hoax, for which it relied on an outlandish dossier paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign, will not countenance the Hunter Biden laptop story—no matter what.

They won’t do it for the simple reason that it will almost certainly hurt Biden’s White House bid, and they can’t have that.

Then There Is “Social” Media

It’s the election equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting, “Na-na-na-boo-boo!” Joe Biden keeps ignoring questions about his possible role in the business dealings of his shady son. He keeps losing his temper with reporters who dare to insist that he has an obligation to answer legitimate public concerns. Most of the Biden-supporting media insist that the New York Post’s big Hunter story is a dud, and so publish endless malicious snark about how shabby the paper’s standards are. Twitter and Facebook keep saying that they were obliged, according to their own codes of practice, to stop the story circulating online, even though we all know those codes are applied with ridiculous inconsistency.

But stories don’t just disappear because one political side can’t stomach them. The truth has a nasty habit of coming out, and the uproar around the Biden campaign won’t disappear just because the Biden campaign wants it to or because Mainstream Media just ignores it. No intelligent observer is all that surprised to learn that the sources for the New York Post story were Trump allies Rudy Giuliani and Steve Bannon. It is perhaps depressing that investigative journalism often relies on scoops delivered on a plate by political operatives with an agenda, but that’s the world we live in. Sources have motives, often malign ones. Who knew?

The problem for the Biden campaign is that most people probably don’t care too much about whether the story is ethically sourced. They care about whether it is true. Is the email allegedly found on Hunter Biden’s laptop suggesting that Joe Biden met with a board member of Burisma, the corrupt Ukrainian mining company which was paying his son $50,000 a month, true? Or is it fake? What about the email suggesting the “big guy” would get 10 percent of equity from a deal with a Chinese company? Is that invented? If not, who is Mr Big? Is it, as has been alleged, dear old Joe? That seems like a story of public interest worth looking into, given that Biden is close to being elected the leader of the free world. To get to the bottom of it all, just check Twitter and Facebook. Wait: they’re out of this controversy!

It’s funny that the New York Times, Vanity Fair, CNN and others seem to have spent considerable resources attacking the New York Post over its reporting, which only heightens the sense of a cover up. They seem to have little appetite for disproving the story, which would actually make it go away. What Team Biden and all their media boosters can’t seem to grasp is that this information isn’t going to evaporate, no matter how many “intelligence officials” claim that it was released as part of a Russian disinformation campaign. We’ve all learned the hard way not to believe everything intelligence officials tell us when it comes to Russia and U.S. presidential elections — especially those who signed that letter sent to the DNI claiming it originated in Moscow.

Besides, there is still another side in the media war, Team Trump, and they aren’t shutting up. The hope in the Biden campaign is that most Democratic voters are so partisan these days that they just won’t be interested in a story that originated in TrumpWorld. But there’s probably more on that laptop and the clamor to answer questions about its contests will not be silenced. The Hunter Biden story is not going away. It could end up giving Donald Trump four more years in the Oval Office.

That’s all going to happen regardless of what the Social Media Giants and the Mainstream Media outlets decide to do: ignore or allow it to go live. It’s out there! Tens of millions of American voters are plugged in and waiting for answers — you know, the “truth.” It’s now almost a one hundred percent certainty that the emails and the laptop ARE Hunter’s and ARE real. Why? We’re in the home stretch of a presidential election. There’s no way a candidate would face confrontation of this without declaring in a demonstrative fashion that the exposed emails and pictures are a farce and are not Hunter’s.

Do they think this story will just fade away or that Americans have short memories? I really do not think they are that blind and certainly are not stupid. Because Joe Biden made himself invisible this week, it is apparent that they are beside themselves and are struggling to find a way to tackle this war with this blight on the Biden Campaign. “If” Biden really decides to debate tomorrow evening, you can bet they’ll have some way to continue to deflect from addressing this head-on.

Why would they do that? Simple: someone would have to tell the truth. And Democrats are not known for that being fundamental in their politicking.

How Far Left in Socialism Are You Willing to Go?

There are two things NOT in question regarding this election: Joe Biden as President would quickly begin a move of this nation to Socialism. There surely are several deals already agreed to for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her fellow leftists in the House of Representatives to throw their weight behind a Biden campaign. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have long been Socialists at heart and are, along with AOC, pushing Biden that way as quickly as possible. The second certainty with Biden as POTUS is Democrat Party leadership will as quickly as possible push Joe out of the way to install their parrot, Sen. Kamala Harris, as their voicebox. Pelosi will invoke the 25th Amendment with claims that Joe is incapacitated mentally and physically and incapable of fulfilling the role. Harris would be Vice President, so the hat-trick would be there to open our nation to Pandora’s Box of leftist power with her assuming the role of President. And this trick would be just the first one in a series of far more egregious ones to come.

The question for all Americans today is, “Just how much of your liberties are you willing to concede to Socialist leaders in a Biden presidency?” We will begin this puzzle-and-resolution chapter by reminding you just what in your current life will automatically be taken away in this “new” form of democracy. What things are certain when it comes? Let’s begin at the top:

1. Socialism creates a significantly higher tax burden for individuals.
They have made no secret about the alleged unfairness in our current income tax structure. The wealthy are evil and consume far too much of the nation’s wealth. They are looking hungrily at a 70% income tax rate to begin. This is to “level the playing field,” and spread control of our companies and organizations to those who really own it anyway: the workers. But what will happen?

When an economy has a high rate of taxation, then there are more disincentives than benefits to consider when working or creating a business opportunity. Under the proposed Green New Deal as an example, the idea of a 70% tax rate on the highest incomes could generate extra revenues of $12 billion. The only problem is that this figure would reflect just a 0.3% share of the overall tax hike that would be necessary to complete the plan.

It is easier for people who have excessive wealth to live abroad where tax havens exist. They can take a free ride on the others who don’t have the opportunity to pay the tax. That’s why making a rate that’s too high will almost always be a self-defeating effort when trying to establish a socialist society.

2. Entrepreneurs have no motivation to operate since they aren’t true owners.
This system is the bedrock of our economy and always has been. I’m an entrepreneur. I started a company 28 years ago that has been successful — but not always. No one stepped up to pitch-in when I struggled to make payroll and did so by not paying myself. I couldn’t borrow money for exansion early on, so we did without just to increase our opportunities. We fought to find new ways to make our services better and to achieve better results for our clients. We were rewarded for this, but shouldn’t we have been? And in Socialism, someone else will be making all these decisions and there will be few if any entrepreneurs.

Socialism can create ownership opportunities, but it is rarely for the individual. That means entrepreneurs are instantly disincentivized from putting in the effort and capital to build a business from scratch. Even if the government doesn’t demand 100% ownership of the venture, these leaders can feel like their governing officials are taking an unnecessarily high percentage of their profits. That means their work might go overseas somewhere since there could be fewer risks associated with their venture.

3. The creation of a welfare state can lead to industrial disincentives.
Under President Trump, 13 million people have left the welfare rolls in the U.S. Why is that? Job creation that exploded quickly opened employment doors many of those welfare recipients had never seen. Wages grew. Along with that came new opportunities in education for learning and implementing new job skills. In Socialism, the welfare rolls immediately climb, wages fall, and government controls it all. You may say, “Government will control it all. Why won’t they just pay workers more money?”

When the welfare state of a socialist government is too generous, then there is a disincentive to find a job. That means the society may see a reduction in its labor force as people decide to stay home instead of pursuing a career. That’s why poverty eventually develops. Welfare is supposed to give people just enough to scrape by so that the desire to have more money leads someone to a job.

That’s why governments often counter the results of this disadvantage with mandatory work. This outcome further disincentivizes individuals to be productive, so their individual efforts reduce. That leads to the implementation of specific quotas, so there is always a back-and-forth between society and its leadership over how much production is possible.

4. Governments can fail when trying to regulate industries or own businesses.
Just for a moment, think through all of the commercial and industrial entities with which you interface during a 30-day period: utilities, food, energy in the form of automobile fuel, healthcare, school, local and state government, durable goods, and the list goes on and on. Just imagine if, in your life today, the federal government ran all of those industries. Can you imagine the disarray there would be? What businesses does our federal government operate as good or better than in the private sector? I cannot think of even one.

If we were living in an ideal world, each government would have success in their business regulation activities. Labor markets and public industries would work like clockwork every day. A disadvantage exists because of the fallible nature of humanity. Government interventions are prone to failure. Even if they are successful, then the structure is prone to a higher risk of failure over time because of inefficiencies that exist in resource allocation.

If there are labor market regulations that call for a low-hour maximum for the working week or a high minimum wage, then there can be a spike in unemployment claims. There would also be a lack of flexibility for agencies if there are sudden increases or decreases in demand. High levels of regulation often discourage investment, which eventually leads to lower levels of economic growth when compared to capitalism. And where does ANY investment come from in a Socialist society? FROM GOVERNMENT.

5. Excessive labor market regulations can lead to fewer employment opportunities.
Socialist governments always institute severe regulations on industries to the extent that doing so restricts the number of available jobs. Requiring workers to be available for a specific shift or to work for a particular wage can limit the number of open positions a business can support. Higher levels of market regulations — and we KNOW with AOC and “The Gang” that will certainly occur — can support a better environment or lead to cheaper goods or services. Still, it is a disadvantage that can also discourage investments if they are severe enough.

6. Socialist regulations can cause problems with structural employment.
Structural unemployment is a form of involuntary unemployment. That simply means somebody gets laid-off or simply fired! It occurs because there is a mismatch between the workers’ skills in the economy with what an employer demands. This gap in ability happens primarily because of technology changes that tend to make repetitive skills obsolete. If a large company is the only employer for an industry, then workers have no competition that can use their experience to their advantage. The local educational system encounters a burden as well since massive levels of career retraining become necessary.

Under some forms of Socialism, the government is the only employer for the economy. If leaders decide that certain industries are no longer necessary, then there may not be any options for work for some individuals.

7. Unions can exist in Socialist countries to create divides between workers and owners.
Socialism’s overall goal is to create a society that offers more equality and “harmony” to the average worker. If the policies implemented by the government are geared toward the strengthening of trade unions or perfect equality, then it can lead to an antagonistic relationship between owners and workers. An attitude of “us vs. them” develops that can lead to significant levels of lost time. Just remember: “The Boss is always right.” And in Socialism, the Boss, though maybe not the Boss in the building, is the Government.

During the 1970s, the UK labor market experienced severe shortages because of the high levels of distrust between the unions and company owners. Public ownership can’t stop this disadvantage in its entirety because no one at the management level really cares if everyone gets a bad deal.

8.  Socialism creates higher levels of bureaucracy to navigate.
All governments have high levels of bureaucracy that cause everyone to waste time and money. The difference between Socialism and Capitalism is that the latter offers an economic benefit that can supply other industries’ revenues.

The government will want to determine who is eligible to receive specific benefits when Socialism is society’s primary emphasis. Have you recently gone to a doctor for the first time? If so, you completed a ream of documents with your personal medical history. Why: to comply with federal regulations, like HIPPA.

In Socialism, the process for job applicants is even more involved. Applicants must fill out paperwork to prove their eligibility. Continuous renewals must go through processing. The goal of Socialism may be to streamline the culture and equalize access to services, but more bureaucracy is created in doing so. That means it could take much more time to make services available to those who need them. It also means that the government needs more people to handle paperwork and layer upon layer of bureaucratic nonsense that does nothing but devour time, reduce job efficiency for everyone involved, and limit workers’ opportunity.

9. It forces the government to do all of the spending.
If an economy is going to have an opportunity to grow, then there must be a balance in trade between foreign and internal sources. When innovation takes a hit, then manufacturing grows stagnant in every industry. That means there are fewer purchasing opportunities for everyone except the government. This disadvantage means that more imports may become necessary to maintain the status quo. If this issue continues for some time, then trade deficits can lead to high levels of debt. We know about that. And the government incentives as we’ve seen under this Trump presidency to attract foreign companies to move operations to the U.S. do not exist in Socialism. Why? The costs of operating almost any type of company here will be the same or similar to the costs they operate today. Why move?

This issue causes the socialist government to spend more than it would over the long-term than if it had allowed capitalistic innovation to have some investments.

Summary

I’m certain there must be some good in Socialism. But I so far in exhaustive research have failed to find any process currently functioning in the United States that would work better if we were a Socialist nation. In fact, the opposite is true: across the board, our economy would struggle because of all of the above.

There’s something else to consider: what would be necessary to delete from the U.S. Constitution to move to Socialism? Certainly, few, if any of the first ten amendments could survive Socialism. There would be immediate demands for more control and less individual liberties and freedoms. Americans would become totally reliant on the government for all of our heretofore personal resources and total control over every segment of our lives.

With the government cloak of secrecy we have watched during the last four years, how could Americans expect the transparency we demand today from government officials under a Socialist government? Can you imagine the likelihood of getting the truth about Russian collusion hoaxes, graft and corruption by government leaders, government spying on citizens and monitoring phone calls, emails, and business transactions? The type of life we live today and have lived for generations would be replaced by a true top-down structure in which we answer to “Big Brother,” whoever that will be. And, by the way, we would have little to say about who “Big Brother” is!

How much of all this are you willing to give to the government? I promise you one thing: under a Biden/Harris Administration, that decision will certainly be required for us all. However, in contrast to the current system, in THAT system, someone else will be making that decision for us!

Will Political Divisiveness Lead to Armageddon?

I hear it daily: “Donald Trump lies all the time! He has split this country right down the middle. We have lost our respect in the World. No other countries trust us. How can anyone vote for a man running for office that is as evil as is he?”

OR —

Joe Biden is as corrupt a politician as I have ever seen! He’s a pervert, a serial liar, and plagiarist, and embellishes everything accomplished while he was Vice President while taking responsibility for everything good achieved from 2009-2016!”

This story is not a defense of Donald Trump or anyone else, nor is it an attack on Joe Biden or any other politician. This is an analysis of what I feel is the greatest threat and most potent weapon used today to push our nation to the brink of Armageddon: Divisiveness.

“Divisiveness”

Great, and sometimes unfriendly, division between different groups of people.

Doesn’t that describe what we are watching in the U.S.? Whether it’s on the floor of Congress, at a public or private school, in our neighborhoods, playgrounds, churches, sporting events, divisiveness appears to be consuming our national institutions while it devours all of us. We see church membership dropping, church attendance trickles, educational institutions achieving less and less good results in teaching our kids, massive racial divide that is now militarized, urban and rural America have never before seemed so vastly opposite. Just three years ago, no one heard even a whisper about rioting in America or attacks of free speech rally attenders, angst against the National Anthem, and even Old Glory. Our law enforcement officers were still heroes, as were our first responders.

There was still a sense of hunger among Americans to first search for commonalities when meeting new people. Today, it seems that we all, when leaving our “safe-haven” of acquaintances, gravitate to clones of ourselves rather than to integrate into groups of people with no regard to who they are, what they do, skin color, or religion.

We have made differences far more critical than ignoring our differences to instead concentrate on common traits: like being Americans.

No doubt, Politics has led the way.

Political Divide

Make no mistake: this nation has always been politically divided. In fact, it was founded to give all of us the right to have different political views. Our founders fled a continent to establish a nation that was free from the mandate of “One Thought” — the philosophy that only one perspective was the right perspective in government. For centuries in Europe, all political might was held closely by a small  partisan group of people. No, there was not one European continental political philosophy. But in each country, there WAS only one such perspective allowed.

Europe had no patent on this theory of governing. It has existed for thousands of years. Its foundation is “Meism” — the thought that one person’s opinions are sacred, righteous, and are the only ones allowed in governing. Those are the ones that seemed to always rise to the top, allowed and perpetuated by sometimes duels, fights to the death, and even numerous military battles between internal factions and even nations that resulted in the deaths of millions.

America was to be “the” place on Earth which recognized that all men are created equal. There was a unified justice system that guaranteed equal justice for all, and that within that structure, all persons would be guaranteed the unfettered life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That was not intended to (and didn’t) eradicate individualism or diversity of thought. There were plenty of those to go around. But what DID happen was people of all races, creeds, colors, religions, and political perspectives were treated equally under the law. Even within that scenario, things didn’t always go smoothly.

Let’s start with that last thought and race forward a few centuries. Even though we remain governed by the same Constitution and share all with a diversity of people, we do not nearly as did our forefathers fight to unite ourselves. Instead of using our commonalities to craft and perpetuate unity, we use the identities of those among us — both real and perceived — to push each other away.  Our justification for doing so is that one is right, and all others are wrong.  It’s as if in 2020, we have come full-circle in our social and political thinking and are where the American settlers were in Europe before fleeing.

This, on its own, was not bad enough to stoke the fires that today burn in our largest cities. Our “Meism” started this all of this chaos and terror. But Americans for 260 years have kept such selfishness at bay. Things changed when the century-meter ticked to “21” — The 21st Century.

Who lit the fuse? Politicians, media, and political parties, all became willing pawns in the evilest of processes that any 16th-century American could have ever imagined. That evil has a name: Divisiveness.

Remember that supposed instruction from Alexander the Great, “Divide and Conquer?” He worked that formula to perfection. What has evolved here reaches nowhere near the atrocities of Alexander in Europe and Asia. But we today are just getting started!

Strange Bedfellows: Political Party and Media

Hitler mastered the use of the German media to sell Naziism. Naziism and Media paired together almost devoured the entire world. The forces of good that were born in the New World and grew into the United States of America delivered the death nail to Fascism. (regardless of what ANTIFA claims) It remained pretty firm until 21st-century American media discovered just how powerful it is. They joined forces with politicians and, ultimately, chose a political party with which to unite.

We will not spend time trying to coerce anyone into believing this — it speaks for itself. We awakened one day to discover that “truth” is not a stand-alone, but a “state of existence” subject to what the media portray it to be. That means the press determines all things applicable to itself and their political party.

For eight years, this unholy union worked pretty well. The marriage of the Democrat Party and the Mainstream Media was initially tenuous, but after eight years, perfecting the weaponization of divisiveness cemented their partnership. Subsequently, they have honed their skills to divide Americans using every tool in the book.

Understand this: divisiveness certainly exists outside of this union. Anyplace there are humans, there are those who market division. Identity Politics is easy to create and easier to perpetuate. Human nature sadly kicks-in when people feel the rush of power that accompanies taking control of others.

Summary

Where are we headed? Honestly, the choice is, thankfully, not up to this conglomerate that controls Washington D.C. and far too many other large U.S. cities. It’s up to 320 million Americans who control who leads.

What we are all watching today is the peeling of the corruption onion that this partnership has put in the American vegetable drawer. What’s been seen so far is ugly and is working well in achieving the divisiveness necessary to continue to grow and spread.

The recently peeled onion layers exposed egregious alleged wrongdoing on the part of Joe Biden. On its surface, it appears it might be some type of syndicate that has quietly spread its tentacles across the nation infecting as many people as possible. If nothing else, it is symbiotic of the central piece of this partnership: the evil of divisiveness to gain total control.

Just look back at the unified war by Democrats and the Media against Donald Trump that, more than any other in my lifetime, divided America. At first, they felt that they could use the Mueller Investigation to find dirt sufficient to eliminate their opponent using negative information. Any news of Trump accomplishments Americans could not be seen by Americans.

When nothing came from it, they panicked and launched a Hail Mary impeachment plan. With its defeat, full-fledged panic set in. Then came COVID-19, a perfect tool for their plot. And the duo of the Media and Democrat Party have scrambled ever since. Yet they can coast because their steady and consistent misrepresentation of cherry-picked news stories keep a terrible light shining on Trump. Their objective? Keep Americans divided and expand the gulf between truth and fiction. Boy, are they ever good at it!

Where are we headed?  Regardless of what Democrats and the Media think, where we go is NOT up to them. It is totally in the hands of the American people. Divisiveness is a choice that people choose to make part of their psyche. Nobody can force another to swallow it.

Sadly, voting on its on will NOT change any of this. It is feared there are multiple things in place to thwart the voting process IF the union’s hoped-for election results fail. Their assurance in success lies solely in the hope that they have successfully seeded their lies in sufficient numbers of Americans to tip this election their way.

To their chagrin, this Biden corruption story has reared its ugly head with enough time to reveal some of its evils. And if that happens before November 3rd, it will awaken some who joined the Democrat/Media Mob. But will it be enough?

Here’s what MUST happen for this union of evil to be stopped: Americans MUST unify in a stand against divisiveness. Americans MUST unite to reject the appearance of evil, seek and find the Truth in all this, and join with each other to regain control of our government.

Can it be done? Certainly! All it will take is for Americans to awaken, examine all told by leaders in both parties and the Media, and find the truth of all! 

That might be a tall order, but it’s necessary to push through this wall of evil rejecting what seems to be an eventuality: the destruction of the Rule of Law and American Justice.

By the way: the Bible weighed-in with some good advice for all who will enter the fray:  “Don’t let evil defeat you, but defeat evil with good.” (Romans‬ ‭12:21)

We’re all guilty of entering the battle and to remaining on defense. NO war has ever been won using just defensive measures. Attacking evil across a battle-line is necessary. ‬

Our battle-lines are drawn, and our foes clearly identified. The question is: do we Americans have the desire and fortitude to reject the talking-points and evils weaponized to divide the nation further. At stake are all the principles and ideals on which this country is based. Are we merely going to allow this unholy union of a political party with today’s media to create false realities — if there even is such a thing — to destroy our nation?

If not, be assured, Armageddon is not too far away.

Saturday Bullet Points October 17, 2020

After a politically bloviated week, you can bet you missed something that happened that because of the deafening noises of Supreme Court Justice confirmation hearings, two presidential town halls, the uproar over 40,000 Hunter Biden emails that allege possible Biden Family corruption, you just didn’t see or hear. We have the top ten such important stories you may have missed.

Take a look at the first several sentences of each bullet point. They give you a synopsis of one such story. If you want more details, click on the link at the end of the point that takes you to such a story. If you’ve already familiarized yourself with the story just move to the next bullet point.

Enjoy your weekend! Thanks for being part of the TruthNewsNetwork family.

Bullet Points

  • Most of us are familiar with the practice of euthanasia and its commonality in some European countries. But this was unexpected: authorities in the Netherlands are pushing to allow euthanasia by medical experts for children under the age of 12! Their justification: some children that young in their country are critically ill, suffering horribly, and are certain to die in a short time anyway. For complete details, click on this link:
  • Everyone knows that Florida has become not just an election swing-state, but, based on population, is the largest such state. It is critical for any presidential candidate to win an election MUST carry Florida. This time around, Joe Biden has remained in a “safe” lead in the state, primarily because of the large Latino voter base. But, believe it or not, as of Friday, Biden and Trump are tied. For complete details, click on this link:
  • This latest negative information about the younger son of Joe Biden, Hunter, is not a huge surprise to many longtime Joe Biden staffers and close associates. In fact, getting jobs for Hunter after he finished college was known to be a requirement “if” you were a supporter of then-Senator Joe Biden. And though we hear very little about any government investigations into Hunter’s alleged wrongdoing, several Congressional committees have been investigated the younger Biden. For complete details, click on this link:
  • Because of the confirmation hearing for Jude Amy Coney Barrett, Obamacare has been discussed non-stop this past week. Senators are horrified that her vote might be the one to terminate the ACA. A lawyer who is handling the case at the SCOTUS in a few weeks advises Congress to not wait for the Court’s results, but get busy with a replacement healthcare plan for Americans. For complete details, click on this link:
  • Most Americans are miffed at social media giant Twitter’s refusal to slap a “manipulated video” warning sign on a Biden Campaign video that is obviously heavily edited. The resulting video was released to misquote the President by pulling bits of multiple speeches together to create a false ad to make him look bad. For complete details, click on this link: 
  • Have you heard of “The People’s Charter?” It’s a manifesto that George Soros says will be implemented in the U.S. in a Biden presidency. It includes extending $600 weekly unemployment insurance, a national minimum wage of $15 per hour, free and universal health care, defunding the police, and canceling all student debt. But there’s more! For complete details, click on this link: 
  • “The Biden Family Corruption” scandal that was revealed to the nation on October 14th has sucked much of the news coverage away from normal stories — UNLESS you’re talking about Mainstream Media outlets. It’s creepy that NONE of the social media giants are even the big newspapers nor Leftist television news networks are covering it at all. Journalists of all ilks are crying against the obvious partisanship being flaunted by these organizations with no regard for journalistic integrity or honesty. One left-leaning writer is literally aghast at the hypocrisy. For complete details, click on this link:
  • Think we have violence in our city streets today? Imagine being a school teacher in France and having a young man come after you with a gun just because you showed cartoon pictures of the Prophet Mohammed. It happened, and this teacher lost his head for doing so! For complete details, click on this link:
  • Being a policeman on the streets in many of the largest American cities is beyond just dangerous: it has become life-threatening. No cop has assurance when donning that uniform and leaving for work every day he or she will come home after that shift. In Baltimore, it was a security guard protecting a ballot box that cost him his life. For complete details, click on this link:  
  • Are you petrified each year to complete your tax returns that there may be something included that will initiate an IRS audit? If you are, you are one of the millions who feel the same way — not because you’ve done something wrong but just made a mistake. That’s NOT the case for one Texas billionaire who, the IRS says, committed the greatest tax fraud that cost $2 billion. For complete details, click on this link: 

“Cognitive Joe” May Be “President Joe” January 20, 2021

Is it even possible that the Joe Biden we see hiding in his basement, “cheating” in interviews by having questions in advance with answers on a teleprompter in front of him, misquoting people consistently, spouting facts that are not factual everytime he’s before a crowd, and forgetting what city or state he’s in, and even that he’s running for President and not the Senate would ever be able to govern the nation as President?

The short answer is “NO!”

So what happens if Biden IS elected and he becomes the Commander in Chief and the most powerful man on Earth?

I shudder to think that might be a real eventuality, but it is. And smart people should think through what “that” United States would look like and what things would occur if there is a President Joe Biden. So let’s do that today.

“Faux Pas” Joe

Joe Biden started spouting nonsense about his background again this week. Trying to sound like a man of the people, he told a rally in Ohio that he would be the first president “in 80 or 90 years” who did not attend one of those fancy Ivy League schools. Joe must have forgotten that Reagan didn’t go to an Ivy League school, nor did Carter, Nixon, Johnson, Eisenhower, Truman or Hoover.  Joe also likes to claim that he is “the first in his family to go to college.” It’s a line he famously stole in 1987 from a Neil Kinnock speech. Neil was a political leader in the U.K. It also happens to be untrue.

Three decades ago, people cared when Biden lied. Now nobody cares. It’s hard to oppose, let alone respond, to a man who no longer seems to have any idea of what he is saying. Biden lost contact with reality years ago. On Monday, he forgot the name of Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential nominee in 2012 — “the senator who was a Mormon, the governor, OK?” Later he declared, for the second time this year, that he was a “proud Democrat running for the Senate.” Joe, it’s the presidency you’re after — the Senate was in 1973. Biden makes similar or worse gaffes almost every day on the campaign trail. Never mind — there is a good probability he is going to be the 46th President of the United States, unless those polls are wrong again.

Americans will vote for Biden, we’re told, because they crave a “return to normalcy” after four mad years under President Donald J. Trump. But what’s normal or sane about giving a somewhat demented 77-year-old the most powerful job on the planet? Leading the free world shouldn’t be a retirement activity, yet nobody who has been paying attention can expect Biden to serve even one full term. It’s more likely that he will end up delegating his more difficult tasks to his vice president Kamala Harris.

Republicans like to make out that the “Kamala and the radical left” will retire their fragile leader as soon as possible. In July, former New Hampshire senator Judd Gregg wrote that “within a few months of assuming the presidency, Biden will find himself being the next statue toppled as the socialist/progressive movement moves closer to power.” The “AOC Gang” would oust Biden by triggering the 25th Amendment, through which an incapacitated president can be removed. “It will be a coup,” he said.

That may be hysterical. Yet it’s easy to imagine Harris gradually taking over a Biden White House, as the ailing Commander-in-Chief wanders around the East Wing in his slippers telling anyone who’ll listen that he used to be Barack Obama’s vice president back in the day. Almost nobody expects Biden, who will be 82 by inauguration day in 2025, to attempt a second term. What’s shocking is how many Americans seem to be happy to elect such a figure so long as it means four fewer years of Donald Trump.

But Biden isn’t just ahead in the polls because people despise Trump. He’s double-digit points ahead because he isn’t all that left-wing and he’s more likable than Hillary Clinton. Lots of Americans were willing to believe that Mrs Clinton had a secret plan to turn their great country into a socialist Hades. They just don’t think Biden will do that — at least not on purpose. Again, his age helps here: when he uses radical tidbits about transforming America or dismantling white privilege, he sounds like a priest talking about grunge music. People think he can’t really mean it.

Biden’s moderate instincts which he perfected over four decades in D.C. usually prevent him from sounding too dangerously liberal/progressive. He took too long to condemn the violent riots that began as Black Lives Matter protests, but he didn’t go along with the suicidal “Defund the Police” slogan that many in his party took as gospel over the summer. He sounds very open-minded about transgendered people, but he’s skeptical about weed legalization. He’s a moderate and a granddad.

Biden plans to spend an additional seven trillion dollars to address the COVID crisis. At the same time, he promises he won’t raise taxes on anyone earning less than $400,000 a year. Nobody quite believes these dollar totals add up, and polls suggest Americans believe Trump would handle the economy better. Still, more than 50 percent of Americans now seem to want Biden in charge.

The idea that, under Biden, America might revert to “normalcy” is not based on any faith in his leadership. It’s more an assumption that Biden’s America would default to its pre-Trump settings and everything might calm down. “It will be back to business as usual — for better and worse.”

Biden 2020 is in many ways the Obama restoration project. Obama-era figures are likely to dominate his future cabinet: Susan Rice, the former ambassador to the United Nations, is probably going to be his Secretary of State. That political dinosaur John Kerry, who served as Obama’s Secretary of State after Hillary, is expected to be given some big advisory role. Michèle Flournoy, formerly the under Secretary of Defense, could be promoted to Secretary of Defense.

As soon as Trump became Commander-in-Chief, he began undoing Barack Obama’s proudest international achievements. Obama must now be salivating at the prospect of his pending revenge with a Biden victory. Expect the Iran Deal, which Trump tore up, to be put back together. A Biden-Harris administration would also reenter the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, and shove America back into the Trans-Pacific Partnership, now renamed the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. Trump’s “America First” policies will be taken out back and burned.

It won’t just be cocktail hour in Davos, though. Unlike most machine Democrats, Team Biden has been crafty enough to accept some of Trump’s political victories and to understand that a winning presidential candidate must speak to families in rust-belt states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. That’s why Biden’s “Build Back Better” manifesto — which seems to eerily be a revised “Make America Great Again” — includes a “buy American” pledge to expand federal commitments to purchase goods made only in the USA. It’s also why Biden has conceded that Trump’s United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement is better than Bill Clinton’s North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which he supported in 1993. Trump’s replacement deal includes more provisions to protect American workers and unions. Maybe old Joe isn’t as dotty as he looks.

“Beijing Biden” — as Trumpists call him — will probably take a softer approach towards China than Trump, who felt the wrath of Wall Street by demanding a more equitable trading relationship between America and the world’s number two superpower. After the pandemic, however, mistrust of China has spread far and wide. Future U.S. administrations will have to stand up to Beijing far more than vice president Biden did in the first half of the 2010s. There will be no going back to the global order before Trump.

On the domestic front, if the Democrats keep the House and win the Senate on November 3, Biden could be pulled hard left by the activist wing of his party. But that seems unlikely. The Democratic establishment still has enough clout and financial backing to keep the AOC Gang at arms’ distance.

Without the force of  Trump hatred, however, a Biden-Harris administration might very quickly start to resemble the tail end of the Obama-Biden years. This week DonaldTrump summed up the election nicely on Twitter, as he often does. “Remember,” he tweeted, “I wouldn’t be president now had Obama and Biden properly done their job. The fact is, they were TERRIBLE!!!”

Presidential elections aren’t meant to be referendums on the resident in the White House. The successful challenger ought to have his or her own vision for America. The last three one-term presidents were replaced by politicians with bold agendas; Hoover lost to Franklin D. Roosevelt; Carter to Reagan; and George H.W. Bush to Bill Clinton. Biden offers little beyond a geriatric rerun of the Obama administration with memory lapses instead of pretty speeches. You don’t need an Ivy League degree to see that’s a recipe for failure.

Political “Deja Vu” is Upon Us Today

Blockbuster! Overnight new information revealed that Hunter Biden negotiated through emails a HUGE financial package for Hunter and “members of his family.” We have details to open our show “TNN Live” today. Join us at 9:00 AM Central for complete details. Click on this link to join the show: https://www.elasticplayer.xyz/truthnews/

Now Today’s Story:

I don’t know who is going to win the election. This is the fourth anniversary of the Billy Bush Access Hollywood tape. At the time, House Speaker Paul Ryan set the tone for the GOP leadership’s response by condemning Trump’s comments: “I am sickened by what I heard today. Women are to be championed and revered, not objectified. I hope Mr. Trump treats this situation with the seriousness it deserves and works to demonstrate to the country that he has greater respect for women than this clip suggests.”

Ryan concluded his statement by withdrawing from an event the next day with Trump in Wisconsin. Mitch McConnell followed: “These comments are repugnant and unacceptable in any circumstance. As the father of three daughters, I strongly believe that Trump needs to apologize directly to women and girls everywhere, and take full responsibility for the utter lack of respect for women shown in his comments on that tape.”

Once again, Republican leaders found themselves confronting a hostile press over their nominee’s behavior: the tweets, the antics at rallies, the mocking of disabled reporters, and innuendos of violence against protesters. But come November 2016, it was Ryan, McConnell, and the GOP who found themselves on the other end of Republican voters’ anger.

In 2016, the voters wanted the GOP’s leadership to fight alongside Trump against what they felt were dishonest attacks by Hillary Clinton and her media allies. They felt bullied from the two previous election cycles in which they perceived, accurately or not, their party had chosen weak candidates in John McCain, who Trump regularly slandered, mercilessly, and Mitt Romney. But the GOP leadership and Republicans in Congress feared that Trump’s erratic behavior and inability to stay on message would cause a catastrophic general election loss.

Trump was trailing in national polling. It appeared the GOP was headed off the cliff and towards a reckoning. How could they explain such a loss? But Donald Trump defied the media on both the left and the right and the professional consultant class in his own party and won the election. He swept every battleground state, including Democratic strongholds in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Republicans who had come out against Trump during the campaign found themselves in the bullseye of their voters.

It wasn’t a fluke, and it wasn’t because of Russian conspiracies. Anti-Trump consultants and pundits in the GOP were now taboo. The shock-talk culture of AM radio was squarely in charge, and it had orange hair. Like it or not, Trump was now the face of the Republican party and, more importantly, the country. Now Ryan and McConnell had to find a delicate balancing act with a new president who wouldn’t hesitate to turn his Twitter army on them. In the end, kicking and screaming, they had no choice but to fall into line with him, and with the will of their voters.

The general feeling in the GOP was that Trump could be reined in. His crazier impulses would fall by the wayside in favor of traditional governance, and he would become a backstop, signing long-promised GOP legislation on tax reform, immigration, and healthcare. However, the last four years have been anything but stable — except, that is, from the courts. Now with an election only a month away, the GOP again find themselves again facing a dilemma.

Once again, the President is trailing in polls and in key demographics. Once again, he has delivered a questionable debate performance. And this time, his COVID-19 diagnosis turned the West Wing into COVID Ward. Though Trump surely could be reelected — as we learned four years ago, anything can happen — right now, it’s Joe Biden’s race.

Yet there seems to be an odd sense of calm on the right as we head into the election. Sure, the President’s base is fired up with its flag-waving MAGA armadas and monster truck parades. But the party as a whole doesn’t seem to be panicking. This is because of one simple reason: Amy Coney Barrett.

Make no mistake: Barrett will be confirmed and seated either shortly before the election or in the lame-duck session. No “Resistance” or media-driven delay tactics relating to the President’s COVID diagnosis will change this. It’s inevitable.

Barrett will certainly tilt the Supreme Court toward originalism in the mold of her mentor Antonin Scalia. In the event of a Biden administration, she could act as a buffer against questionable executive actions. If the Republican party can hold onto a slim majority in the Senate as well, Joe Biden’s first-term agenda is effectively dead. He could spend his days swiveling around in the Oval Office before retiring.

After the past four years of having to defend morning wild tweets and random sound bites, that may be exactly what Republicans and a large chunk of their voters want, though they would never admit it. If Republicans suffer heavy losses this election cycle — losing the White House and the Senate, with the risk of a Democratic majority moving to end the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court — the move to confirm Barrett would still have been worth it. You don’t suppress your granted majority power when given the opportunity because of something the opposing party says they might do down the road. Mitch McConnell knows this.

The Republican base believes that the Barack Obama/Joe Biden presidency trampled on the Constitution. Offered a deal — three Supreme Court Justices in exchange for one Donald Trump term — they would overwhelmingly take it. They might have to. The Barrett confirmation will soften a Trump defeat for him and them if it happens. Trump could walk out of the White House on January 20, a conquering hero to the party and the base, despite having been his own worst enemy.

The devil’s bargain that traditional Republicans struck with the Queens’ “in-your-face” president will have paid off in spades. Trump’s three conservative justices will tilt the Court for a generation. His concession speech, should he give one, would become another of his notorious rallies. He would leave office one of the most consequential one-term presidents in modern American history. The courts will be his legacy and the GOP’s reward for tolerating their non-traditional president and defending him through his impeachment.

Summary

It shouldn’t be like this, but it is. The fate of legislation and government should not come down to a seat or two on the nation’s highest court. But everything changed with the Obama presidency. Obama vowed to work around a Republican Congress when they acted as a just and constitutional check on his executive powers. Conservatives see the Supreme Court as the only thing stopping the unconstitutional exercise of executive power from the Oval Office, on everything from healthcare to conscience restrictions put on religious organizations, or even state lockdown orders from over-zealous Democratic governors such as Michigan’s Gretchen Whitmer or New York’s Andrew Cuomo.

If this were not the case, and Democrats were truly interested in fixing the legislative authority in Congress, they themselves would not be now threatening to pack the Supreme Court, should they get that chance.

As Justice Neil Gorsuch “chastised” members of the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearing, legislation is NOT constitutionally something judges or justices are to do. Justice Gorsuch pointed to the weak crafting of laws in their constitution. He reminded members of the committee that almost all members of Congress are attorneys and, therefore, are familiar with the construct of laws. Conventional wisdom dictates that every issue legislators wish to be included in laws should be included. Likewise, things that do NOT wish to be included in laws should not be included. He opined that today legislators are not thorough in the context of laws, including exactly the intentions for each law and explicit provision details. The vagueness of laws unnecessarily forces judges and justices to act instead of as members of the judiciary to become legislators. This actually forces judges to be activists.

Then Judge Gorsuch actually revealed the reason so many cases that reach courts are so controversial: “who knows what the legislators intended when writing the laws!”

Yes, it is true our process of government has become dramatically controversial. In no other branch of government is this more visible than in our court system. Congressional members MUST initiate a process of assuring judges AND other Americans that in taking care of the needs of Americans, legislators must be specific in their legislation. Short of that, the contentious political system we watch daily will only grow more intense, more contentious, and will achieve fewer and fewer accurate court decisions.

I doubt any American feels that is too much to expect from members of Congress. In fact, I’m certain that most Americans if told by legislators doing so is too tough, Americans would simply send them packing. “If the job’s too tough, go find somewhere else to work!”

Biden Corruption Exposed

The American political news cycle has been dominated by the Supreme Court confirmation hearings with Judge Amy Coney Barrett, and justifiably so. Her confirmation will not only be historical, but it will also close a political loop that, based on timing, will resolve multiple paramount national and internationally important questions.

Even with our concentration centered on the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings with Barrett, the world continues to rotate, and life continues to deal its wins and losses in the lives of every American, and politics in Washington continues to have twists and turns on multiple fronts with multiple folks.

We have a presidential election just 20-days away!

Yes, a probable Supreme Court Justice nomination is part of that, but just part. Another critical part of American political life today are the qualifications, personal political issues, and even personal circumstances within the lives of each candidate running for office. It’s safe to say that both former Vice President Joe Biden and President Donald Trump fall into these considerations.

One can comfortably maintain that Donald Trump has lived in a fishbowl for the past few years. Every detail of his life in politics (and in his personal life) have been transparent for all to observe if interested. Joe Biden, on the other hand, has been living in something of a vacuum — until his bid for the presidency. He has since lived in a similar fishbowl. Both men’s lives have been and are today being scrutinized regarding circumstances that will impact a possible presidency.

Biden’s life circumstances, especially those of his eight years as the Vice President during the Obama Administration, have been viewed differently. Many events tied directly into the Russian Collusion probe of the Trump Campaign at the end of the Obama Administration have exposed significant allegations of financial wrongdoing by Joe Biden’s son Hunter.

Though Joe Biden has repeatedly and adamantly denied any involvement in his son’s business in any way, Hunter himself, and now declassified intelligence agency documents, are showing the former Vice President’s declarations of “no-knowledge” are not accurate. It appears at this point that Joe Biden could well have been involved in corruption.

Let’s take a look at what is now in the open regarding this alleged Biden corruption.

Biden v. Trump: The First Debate

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden flatly denied in his first debate with Donald Trump that his lawyer son took huge sums of money from corrupt oligarchs and Chinese communists during his vice presidency, but Treasury Department reports show that Hunter Biden did receive the money.

President Trump chose to make an issue of Hunter Biden’s cash haul from Russia, Ukraine, and China with the implication that unsavory figures were trying to buy Vice President Biden and the Obama administration.

“When somebody gets 3½ million dollars from the mayor of Moscow,” Mr. Trump said.

“That’s is not true. That report is false,” Mr. Biden said.

A Senate Republican report by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee says Mr. Trump is right. However, it was not Moscow’s mayor, but his wife, whom the U.S. suspects of corruption in attaining billionaire status.

Hunter Biden received a single wire transfer of $3.5 million from Elena Baturina. The Senate report said she became a billionaire through illegal construction contracts awarded by her husband, since deceased.

This is based on Treasury Department reports received by committee Chairman Ron Johnson, Wisconsin Republican, and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican.

The Senate narrative is not specific, but the types of transaction records match the description of confidential suspicious activity reports that the Treasury issues when it suspects illegal activity.

The Senate report says, “On Feb. 14, 2014, Baturina wired $3.5 million to a Rosemont Seneca Thornton LLC (Rosemont Seneca Thornton) bank account for a ‘Consultancy Agreement.’ Rosemont Seneca Thornton is an investment firm co-founded by Hunter Biden that was incorporated on May 28, 2013 in Wilmington, Del.”

Russia invaded Crimea in Ukraine the month Ms. Baturina sent the money.

“Why did he get it?” Mr. Trump asked.

“That report was written for political reasons,” Mr. Biden said.

Mr. Trump asserted, “Once you became vice president, he made a fortune in Ukraine, in China, in Moscow and various other places.”

Mr. Biden responded, “That is not true.”

According to the senators’ Treasury records, it is true.

In April 2014, President Obama made Mr. Biden the point man in Ukraine, after the Russian invasion, to persuade leaders to rid the country of rampant corruption.

The next month, Hunter Biden showed up on the board of directors of the energy company Burisma Holdings, which the State Department considers corrupt, as it does its oligarch owner, Mykola Zlochevsky. Hunter Biden’s business partner, Devon Archer, already had secured a spot.

Over the years, Burisma paid the two more than $4 million. Treasury records show that 48 wire transfers from May 2014 to February 2016 totaled $3.4 million. The money went to Rosemont Seneca Bohai, a shell company run by Mr. Archer in partnership with a Chinese investment fund.

In 2014 and 2015, Burisma sent $700,000 directly to Hunter Biden. After Mr. Archer was arrested on fraud charges, Burisma sent Hunter Biden another $752,000.

On China, Vice President Biden promoted closer ties to the communist regime on many fronts. He traveled to China in 2013 on Air Force Two and took along Hunter, who met with Chinese businessmen.

“China ate your lunch, Joe,” Mr. Trump said Tuesday night. “And no wonder your son goes in and he takes out billions of dollars. He takes out billions of dollars to manage. He makes millions of dollars.”

Mr. Biden said, “None of that is true.”

The Bidens have adamantly denied reports that Hunter Biden’s investment firm received a $1 billion infusion.

But the Senate report documents extensive ties between Hunter Biden and various Chinese entities that produced millions of dollars in wire transfers.

In one example, China’s CEFC Infrastructure Investment wired $5 million to HudsonWest LLC, a New York company jointly owned by Hunter Biden and Chinese interests. HudsonWest then sent $4.7 million to Hunter Biden’s law firm. The next year, another $1 million was delivered.

Hunter Biden sent 20 wire transfers totaling $1.3 million to Vice President Biden’s brother James for consulting services. Treasury flagged the transfers as potentially criminal, the Senate report said.

When the bank contacted James Biden’s wife, Sara, to learn details, she refused to cooperate, the Senate report said.

“Hunter Biden has extensive connections to Chinese businesses and Chinese foreign nationals that are linked to the Communist government,” the Senate report said. “Those contacts bore financial fruit when his father was vice president and after he left office.”

The Senate report also said Hunter Biden sent money to Ukrainian and Russian women. The Treasury reports said the transactions are linked to “what appears to be an Eastern European prostitution or human trafficking ring.”

Mr. Johnson, the Senate homeland security panel chairman, wrote in a FoxNews.com column Tuesday that liberal news media have ignored his report showing disturbing ties between the Biden family and corrupt people.

The Republican Senate report summarized its Hunter Biden findings based on Treasury reports:

“The Treasury records acquired by the Chairmen show potential criminal activity relating to transactions among and between Hunter Biden, his family, and his associates with Ukrainian, Russian, Kazakh and Chinese nationals. In particular, these documents show that Hunter Biden received millions of dollars from foreign sources as a result of business relationships that he built during the period when his father was vice president of the United States and after.”

The report added:

“In addition to providing new and descriptive details about the nature, origin and extent of payments from Burisma Holdings to Hunter Biden, the documents acquired by the Committees also shed light on a much broader array of questionable financial transactions involving Hunter Biden, other members of the Biden family, and their associations with foreign nationals. These foreign nationals have questionable backgrounds that have been identified as being consistent with a range of criminal activities, including but not limited to organized prostitution and/or human trafficking, money laundering, fraud, and embezzlement.”

Summary

Intelligent people can disagree at this point regarding any direct ties between the unethical, if not illegal, Hunter Biden financial transactions with Russians and Ukrainians and his father. But it is impossible for one to believe Joe had no knowledge at all about these business deals in Europe and China. How can we say that? It is uncontroverted that Hunter Biden would have ever obtained access to the people necessary for any of these financial events to occur were he NOT the son of a sitting U.S. Vice President. In fact, when asked in an interview if Hunter felt he would have ever had access to those responsible for these deals if he was NOT the son of Joe Biden, Hunter replied, “Probably not.”

What does that mean?

At best, it means that Joe Biden certainly opened doors to his son with foreign dignitaries and that those opened doors resulted in tens of millions of dollars in income for Hunter Biden and others. At worst, Joe Biden was personally involved in making or allowing these transactions to take place on his watch, and personally benefitted in some way from these associations.

That coupled with Joe Biden’s past “sketchy” involvement in other areas that while not on the face been illegal, seem today to have been bordering on “political impropriety.”

Does that in any way disqualify Joe to serve as President? That is a decision that must be made by voters in this election. It is doubtful more information will surface before November 3rd, so voters have all the information on this issue with which to determine their votes.

Remember this: once a cat is out of the bag, it’s really tough to get that cat BACK into the bag. What has been released by the Intelligence Community that has been declassified looks to be just the tip of a pile of more bad acts.

How will this impact this election? Who can say. It is certain that this will weigh heavy on the minds of millions of voters. Has Joe’s involvement in this story disqualified him to become President? That remains to be seen.

Between your reading this and your voting for President, we encourage you to dig as deep as necessary to find facts on this matter sufficient to give you comfort no matter for whom you vote to live in the White House for the next four years.

Both candidates should understand the need for that and both should support each voter doing so.

Find the truth! Remember: “Facts Matter.”

A Look at SCOTUS Nominee Amy Coney Barrett’s Notable Cases and Rulings

Americans deserve to hear the REAL things about Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett and NOT just the prognostication of Democrats that she will destroy the World by throwing out Obamacare and Roe v. Wade. How about a look into her work as a federal judge? Wouldn’t that shed some light on how she things regarding judicial matters and cases? Instead of sitting in a Senate hearing and pontificating about Obamacare’s certain demise if she is confirmed and womens’ healthcare being hijacked because she’ll destroy the god of Abortion, why not look into her case history. They won’t, so we will. What follows are the summaries of multiple cases heard by Judge Amy Coney Barrett and her actions in deciding these cases.

Facts Matter!

A Look at Judge Amy Coney Barrett

Judge Amy Coney Barrett is expected to face a tense confirmation hearing later this month. Her experience as a judge and her opinions and votes during her short tenure on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is likely to be placed under a microscope and questioned as part of the confirmation fight.

If Barrett is confirmed, she would be considered as one with the least courtroom experience—with only three years experience as a federal judge—but one whose record and personal qualities endear her to conservatives and some libertarians.

“I think she’s an epitome of what a jurist should be,” Thomas Brejcha, president and founder of the conservative pro-Life law firm Thomas More Society, said. “She is not a person who simply goes along with her political inclinations.”

“She is a person who believes that in her judicial role, she must follow the law as she interprets it. … There is a sense of judicial self-restraint and discipline that I think speaks very well of her conservative nature,” he added.

Liberals, on the other hand, are likely to continue to oppose her confirmation  to the bench while strongly expressing concern over the future of abortion and the Affordable Care Act.

“Amy Coney Barrett is a threat to our reproductive rights and health care. Nominating Barrett is an insult to [Ruth Bader Ginsburg]’s legacy and everything she spent her life fighting for. This is the people’s court, the people’s seat,” the Planned Parenthood Action Fund said in a statement on Twitter.

While on the bench of the 7th Circuit Court, Barrett participated in some noteworthy and possibly controversial cases ranging in due process and abortion. Here is a look at some of her notable opinions and votes.

Abortion

Barrett has grappled with some abortion regulation cases while on the 7th Circuit bench and cast votes that signaled opposition to rulings that struck down abortion-related restrictions.

In 2018, Barrett voted to rehear a case “en banc” — to have the three-judge panel decision reviewed by the full court — involving an Indiana law that required fetal remains to be buried or cremated after an abortion. The trial and appeals court judges found that the law violated the Constitution. Ultimately, Barrett was outnumbered and the 7th Circuit ruled to deny the rehearing and reinstated an original opinion that blocked the law from being enforced.

At the time, she joined in a dissenting opinion authored by Judge Frank Easterbrook. The dissent addressed another portion of the law that had been struck down but was not at issue in the rehearing proceedings, which Easterbrook described as the “the eugenics statute.” That portion of the law bans abortions for sex, race, and disability reasons.

Easterbrook argued that the Supreme Court had never ruled on such a law and would be the only authority to rule on the issue.

“Using abortion to promote eugenic goals is morally and prudentially debatable on grounds different from those that underlay the statutes [Planned Parenthood v.] Casey considered,” the dissent reads. “None of the Court’s abortion decisions holds that states are powerless to prevent abortions designed to choose the sex, race, and other attributes of children.”

The Supreme Court later reinstated the Indiana law on the disposal of fetal remains.

In 2019, Barrett voted to rehear a ruling by a three-judge 7th Circuit panel that upheld a challenge to another Indiana abortion law. That state measure would require the parents of a girl under 18 seeking an abortion be notified, even in situations when she had already asked a court to give consent instead of her parents.

The 7th circuit eventually denied the hearing. Barrett joined a dissent for denying the rehearing authored by Judge Michael Kanne, who said, “Preventing a state statute from taking effect is a judicial act of extraordinary gravity in our federal structure.”

Also in 2019, Barrett joined an opinion on a First Amendment case involving a Chicago ordinance that barred pro-life sidewalk counselors from approaching and talking to women who entered an abortion clinic, also known as the “bubble zone” law. That ordinance was modeled after a Colorado law that was upheld by the Supreme Court in a case, Hill v. Colorado, in 2000. Judge Diane Sykes wrote in the opinion that the appeals court had no choice but to follow the top court’s precedent.

“The road the plaintiffs urge is not open to us in our hierarchical system. Chicago’s bubble-zone ordinance is materially identical to — indeed, is narrower than — the law upheld in Hill v. Colorado,” she wrote. “While the Supreme Court has deeply unsettled Hill v. Colorado, it has not overruled the decision. So it remains binding on us. The plaintiffs must seek relief in the High Court.”

Thomas More Society was one of the law firms that represented the challengers in the Chicago case. Brejcha noted that although Skyes, who was joined by Barrett, found that subsequent cases had shaken the foundations of Hill v. Colorado, as a circuit court they did not have the authority to overrule the Supreme Court precedent.

He said this demonstrates Barrett’s judicial discipline and self-restraint as a jurist. “Her methodology is very limited and disciplined,” Brejcha said.

Ilya Shapiro, the director of the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, said that Barrett’s votes and opinions in the abortion regulation cases show that she might not necessarily vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Instead, what they show is that she would take each regulation as it comes and best apply the government standards, he added.

supreme court scotus

Due Process

Barrett authored the majority opinion in a due process case brought by a male Purdue University student who had been accused of sexual improprieties. As a result of the accusation, the male student, who was referred to as John Doe, was suspended from the school which then led to his expulsion from the Navy ROTC program and loss of his scholarship. He had maintained his innocence during the allegations.

John sued school officials claiming that the school’s discipline process was deficient. He argued that the school had violated his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Title IX by imposing a punishment based on gender bias. Title IX is a federal law that protects people from discrimination based on sex in education programs.

The university, in a report, allegedly “falsely claimed that [John] had confessed to Jane’s allegations” and had left out information about Jane’s emotional state from John’s testimony, according to Barrett’s opinion. The female student was referred to Jane Doe in the case.

John was also not given an opportunity to present witnesses, the panel members had not read the report — indicating that they based their judgment on accusations rather than evidence — and John was unable to address evidence because he had not seen it during the school’s discipline program. The school also did not receive a written statement from Jane about the accusations.

He was later found guilty “by a preponderance of the evidence of sexual violence.”

The district court dismissed the male student’s due process claims, but the appeals court panel disagreed with the ruling and reinstated the lawsuit. The court said John should have been allowed to pursue his claims.

“Purdue’s process fell short of what even a high school must provide to a student facing a days-long suspension,” Barrett wrote in the case cited as Doe. v. Purdue.

The court also found John’s Title IX claims plausible but added that he “may face problems of proof, and the factfinder might not buy the inferences that he’s selling.”

Shapiro, who is also the publisher of “Cato Supreme Court Review,” said this case is important because it shows Barrett places importance on individual rights and due process protections under the Constitution.

Supreme Court Barrett

Gun Rights

Barrett indicated her support for gun rights in her dissent in Kanter v. Barr, a 2019 case that challenged a federal law that took gun rights away from nonviolent felons. A businessman who had pleaded guilty to mail fraud argued that the law violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The 2–1 majority, both judges who were appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan, said the federal law and a similar Wisconsin one were constitutional.

In her dissent, Barrett said that since the country’s founding, legislatures have taken gun rights away from people who were considered dangerous.

“History is consistent with common sense: it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns,” she wrote. “But that power extends only to people who are dangerous.”

She added that while the federal and state governments have a strong interest in protecting the public from gun violence, they had failed to show that the business owner owning a gun would pose a risk.

“The Second Amendment confers an individual right, intimately connected with the natural right of self-defense, and not limited to civic participation,” she said.

Shapiro said the Kanter case is important because “it shows that she takes the text structure and history of the Second Amendment seriously as well as looking at understandings of the bar on felons possessing firearms and looked at what that meant historically.”

“Her dissent was longer than the majority opinion. It’s a very well reasoned scholarly piece of writing,” he said.

Immigration

Barrett ruled on several immigration cases and sided with the Trump administration for the most part. She dissented from a majority decision that upheld a lower court’s block on the administration “public charge” immigration rule in Illinois. The rule restricted the eligibility of new immigrants who are deemed likely to rely on public assistance.

She did not agree with the challengers characterizing their arguments as a “disagreement with” a “policy choice.” She added, “litigation is not the vehicle for resolving policy disputes.”

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court lifted the injunction upheld by the 7th Circuit Court.

Barrett also authored the majority opinion in another case, cited as Yafai v. Pompeo, where she agreed with a State Department decision to deny a visa to the wife of an American citizen on the ground that she attempted to smuggle two children into the United States, even though the parents said the children had died in an accident. Her application was reconsidered but was denied.

The majority upheld a lower court’s decision to dismiss the case relying on a doctrine known as consular nonreviewability, which prevents courts from reviewing visa decisions made by consular officials abroad.

Barrett also found that the plaintiff did not show that the consular officer acted in bad faith, saying that decision to deny the visa application was facially legitimate and bona fide. She said the officer had asked for additional documents, which “suggests a desire to get it right,” and that the embassy had sent an email to the plaintiff’s lawyer, which “reveals good-faith reasons for rejecting the plaintiffs’ response to the smuggling charge.”

Criminal

Shapiro said Barrett has shown that she is “not reflexively pro-law enforcement, nor pro-criminal defendants” in the way that she has ruled in criminal-related cases.

She has denied qualified immunity to law enforcement officers who have abused their powers and violated constitutional rights, while in other cases she has ruled for the government against criminal defendants.

“She’s very methodical about how she approaches things,” Shapiro said.

In the case, Rainsberger v. Benner, she wrote the majority opinion to deny qualified immunity, legal protection that shields public officers from civil liability to a detective who had submitted falsified information for a probable cause affidavit.

“The unlawfulness of using deliberately falsified allegations to establish probable cause could not be clearer,” she wrote in the opinion.

In 2019, she vacated a conviction that was obtained in part after Drug Enforcement Agency agents searched a suspect’s apartment. The agents obtained consent to search the apartment from a woman who did not live there.

“Is it reasonable for officers to assume that a woman who answers the door in a bathrobe has authority to consent to a search of a male suspect’s residence?” Barrett wrote for the majority.

“The officers could reasonably assume that the woman had spent the night at the apartment, but that’s about as far as a bathrobe could take them. Without more, it was unreasonable for them to conclude that she and the suspect shared access to or control over the property,” she added.

In another 2019 decision, she dissented in a case granting habeas corpus to a criminal defendant who argued that his due process rights were violated because the state withheld evidence favorable to his case.

Barrett said she dissented because the majority opinion “fails to give the Indiana Court of Appeals the deference” required under federal law. She said even though she believes the withholding of evidence constitutes a violation of due process under a 1963 Supreme Court decision, “it was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law for the Indiana Court of Appeals to conclude otherwise.”

Other Cases

In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Autozone, the commission asked the court to review a decision en banc that had ruled for a store, AutoZone, that was using race as a defining characteristic for transferring employees into separate facilities. The federal government had argued that the store violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which makes it unlawful for employers from segregating or classifying employees based on race.

Barrett, who had just taken the bench, joined four of her colleagues to deny a rehearing of the case en banc. Barrett was not on the three-judge panel that ruled in the appeals case.

Summary

Sadly, the above case history will probably not be referenced Tuesday and through the week as Senators question Judge Barrett. Isn’t it ironic that in this confirmation hearing, personal feelings and emotional haranguing should be checked at the door of the Senate Chamber. The only things that should guide Judiciary Committee members and their questions is Judge Barrett’s judicial history, her written opinions, and matters of jurisprudence. Her personal feelings about anything should be irrelevant.

Instead of working to maintain the Rule of Law by verifying this nominee meets the qualifications for a Supreme Court Justice, Judiciary Committee Democrats showed in Monday’s hearing they care little for any of the case history detailed above. They care only about how they appear on television when they drill the nominee, making her look as bad as possible. Yet this nominee is probably more qualified than several serving Justices.

Americans deserve better: not better than Judge Amy Coney Barrett — better than the Democrat Senators on that committee who are showing the world they are little more than political hats that are in the tank to impress voters and donors sufficient to keep their jobs.

To hell with the American people! What matters to the government balance of power doesn’t matter. All that matters is keeping Republicans from getting a leg up on the Democrats. They sadly show that all they care about is political might.

Amy Coney Barrett deserves better than that, and so do the American People.