Public concern raised over Joe Biden’s mental health

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 8:03 PM PT — Thursday, March 5, 2020

Joe Biden’s odds of securing the Democrat Party’s nomination have risen in recent days, but public concern is mounting over the candidate’s fitness for office. Several in the political spectrum have called Biden’s mental health into question amid the possibility of the 2020 hopeful having dementia.
Conservative radio talk show host Bob Lonsberry, who has called attention to the matter, claimed it is not about age, but about Biden’s alarming confusion over topics.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident,” said the former vice president. “All men and women created by the you know, you know the thing.”

He also called out the Democrat Party’s “closeted leadership to hand Biden the nomination.”
According to Lonsberry, it is appropriate to discuss Biden’s brain if it was fair to talk about Bernie Sanders’ recent heart attack or Mike Bloomberg’s stents.
His concerns came amid the laundry list of gaffes the former vice president has exhibited on the campaign trail. In one instance, the 2020 hopeful even publicly forgot what race he’s in.
“Where I come from, you don’t go very far unless you ask,” he said. “My name’s Joe Biden, I’m a Democratic candidate for the United States Senate.”
From the campaign trail to the debate stage, the faux pas continue to stack up.
 Just this week, the former vice president apparently forgot the name of his former boss, President Barack Obama.

Others in the political spectrum have also taken note of Biden’s mishaps, including conservative author Ann Coulter. She has claimed his senile dementia will only continue to be covered up by the media.
“The media will protect Biden in a way that no Republican with that level of senile dementia that Biden has could run for president,” stated Coulter. “But the media is a powerful force, they’ll cover it up, they won’t show us those.”
The list goes on, but only time will tell if the multiple mishaps and gaffes will be overlooked.

https://www.oann.com/public-concern-raised-over-joe-bidens-mental-health/

Citing Rising Political Violence, Hawley Moves to Censure Schumer Over Threats to Gorsuch, Kavanaugh

 
 Article by Tyler O'Neil in "PJMedia":

On Thursday, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) introduced a resolution to censure Senate Minority Leader Chuch Schumer (D-N.Y.) over his threat against Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Fourteen other senators cosponsored his resolution, which warns about the uptick in political violence and condemns Schumer "in the strongest possible terms."

On Wednesday, Schumer threatened Gorsuch and Kavanaugh by name in an apparent attempt to bully them into a pro-abortion ruling in a case currently before the Supreme Court.

"I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price," Schumer told a crowd of abortion activists in front of the Supreme Court. "You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions."

 Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts made a rare public statement condemning Schumer's remarks. "Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous," he wrote. "All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter."

Schumer spokesman Justin Goodman accused Roberts of misinterpreting the senator's remarks, insisting that the Democratic leader only intended to threaten Republicans, not Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

"Sen. Schumer’s comments were a reference to the political price Senate Republicans will pay for putting these justices on the court, and a warning that the justices will unleash a major grassroots movement on the issue of reproductive rights against the decision," Goodman claimed. "For Justice Roberts to follow the right wing’s deliberate misinterpretation of what Sen. Schumer said, while remaining silent when President Trump attacked Justices Sotomayor and Ginsberg last week, shows Justice Roberts does not just call balls and strikes."

Yet Roberts has condemned Trump's comments about judges as well, and Schumer warned Gorsuch and Kavanaugh by name, not Senate Republicans.

Hawley's resolution also addresses the remarks as a threat. The resolution condemns the statement as "an attempt to unduly influence the judicial decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and to undermine the vision of the founders of the United States of the 'complete independence of the courts of justice.'"

" [T]he statements of Senator Schumer could be read to suggest a threat or call for physical violence against 2 Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States," the resolution states. "[A]ccording to the Institute for Economics and Peace, political violence in the United States has increased over the last decade."

Hawley's resolution noted that the U.S. Marshals Service investigated "4,542 threats and inappropriate communications against the judiciary" in 2018 alone and that four federal judges have been targeted and murdered since 1979.

"Senator Schumer has acknowledged that threatening statements can increase the dangers of violence against government officials when he stated on June 15, 2017, following the attempted murder of several elected Members of Congress, 'We would all be wise to reflect on the importance of civility in our [N]ation’s politics' and that 'the level of nastiness, vitriol, and hate that has seeped into our politics must be excised.'"

Therefore, the Senate "(1) censures and condemns in the strongest possible terms the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, for his threatening statements against Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch and Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh; and (2) calls on all members of the Senate to respect the independence of the Federal judiciary."

In addition to Hawley, Sens. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Mike Braun (R-Ind.), Rick Scott (R-Fla.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), David Perdue (R-Ga.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), and Martha McSally (R-Ariz.) are all original cosponsors of the resolution.

In this time of political violence, where representatives have been shot at on the baseball field, it is important for both Republicans and Democrats to condemn threats like this.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/citing-rising-political-violence-hawley-moves-to-censure-schumer-over-threats-to-gorsuch-kavanaugh/ 

 THE RESOLUTION:


SIL20237 S.L.C. 41D 3R WWV 116THCONGRESS 2DSESSIONS. RES. ll Condemning and censuring the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES llllllllll Mr. HAWLEYsubmitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on llllllllll RESOLUTION Condemning and censuring the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer. Whereas the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, is the Leader of the Democratic Caucus and a former member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate;  

Whereas, at a protest at the Supreme Court of the United States on March 4, 2020, Senator Schumer inveighed against 2 Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States by saying, ‘‘I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have release the whirl-wind, and you will pay the price.’’;  

Whereas Senator Schumer went on to warn Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh, ‘‘You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.’’; 2 SIL20237 S.L.C. 41D 3R WWV  

Whereas the statements of Senator Schumer are an attempt to unduly influence the judicial decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and to undermine the vision of the founders of the United States of the ‘‘complete independence of the courts of justice’’, as Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 78;  

Whereas the statements of Senator Schumer could be read to suggest a threat or call for physical violence against 2 Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States; Whereas the Chief Justice of the United States immediately rebuked Senator Schumer, stating that ‘‘threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of govern-ment are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous’’;  

Whereas, according to the Institute for Economics and Peace, political violence in the United States has increased over the last decade;  

Whereas, in 2018, the United States Marshals Service inves-tigated 4,542 threats and inappropriate communications against the judiciary; Whereas 4 Federal judges have been targeted and murdered since 1979 and 2 family members of another Federal judge have been murdered; and  

Whereas Senator Schumer has acknowledged that threatening statements can increase the dangers of violence against government officials when he stated on June 15, 2017, following the attempted murder of several elected Members of Congress, ‘‘We would all be wise to reflect on the importance of civility in our [N]ation’s politics’’ and that ‘‘the level of nastiness, vitriol, and hate that has seeped into our politics must be excised’’: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate— 1(1) censures and condemns in the strongest 2possible terms the Senator from New York, Mr. 3Schumer, for his threatening statements against Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch and Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh; and (2) calls on all members of the Senate to respect the independence of the Federal judiciary

https://www.hawley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/FINAL%20Schumer%20Censure%20Resolution%20(SIL20237).pdf 

Schumer Tries to Backtrack and Spin his Threats Against Supreme Court Justices, McConnell Blasts Him on the Senate Floor

 
 Article by Nick Arama in "RedState":

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is catching a lot of justifiable backlash for his threats against Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

Schumer literally threatened them right outside the Supreme Court during a pro-abortion rally.

“I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price!” Schumer threatened. “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

His team tried to spin that Schumer was really attacking Senate Republicans despite Schumer clearly talking about the justices, even pointing at the Supreme Court as he says. “you wouldn’t know what hit you.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was having none of that, saying that there was “nothing to call this except a threat” and there was “no question as to who it was directed,” the justices.

Leader McConnell ✔ @senatemajldr

Contrary to what the Democratic Leader has tried to claim, he very clearly was not addressing Republican lawmakers. 

The minority leader of the United States Senate threatened two associate justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. Period.

With all the backlash and even calls for his censure on the Senate floor, Schumer had to respond. 

From Fox News: 

After McConnell’s remarks, Schumer took to the floor and began by claiming that McConnell made a “glaring omission” by not mentioning that Schumer was speaking regarding a Supreme Court case that could impact women’s ability to get an abortion. He then admitted that he chose the wrong words to convey his message.
“Now I should not have used the words I used,” Schumer said. “They didn’t come out the way I intended to.”
Schumer insisted he in no way meant to threaten Gorsuch or Kavanaugh, and that McConnell knows this. He claimed he was referring to the political consequences the case could have.
“I’m from Brooklyn. We speak in strong language,” he said.

It actually makes it worse that he was threatening them over their decisions, literally intimidating them for their votes. Astonishing that he doesn’t understand that. 

McConnell said Schumer was trying to “gaslight the entire country” by claiming he was not addressing the justices. 

“But if he cannot even admit to saying what he said, we certainly cannot know what he meant,” McConnell said. “At the very best his comments were astonishingly reckless and extremely irresponsible.”

RNC Research ✔ @RNCResearch

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Chuck Schumer’s comments: “astonishingly reckless and completely irresponsible”


McConnell noted how Schumer tried to justify his comments, first, falsely claiming they were against Republican senators, “as though that would be much better,” and then, after being criticized by Chief Justice Roberts who called the threats dangerous, Schumer then attacked Roberts was biased for daring to defend the Court.

McConnell pointed out how this attack from Schumer was “not some isolated incident,” but part of a pattern of Democratic attacks on norms in general, when they didn’t get what they wanted, that even as they accused President Donald Trump of “violating norms,” it was they who were in fact doing it.
From Daily Caller: 

“We talk about attacks on the office of the presidency,” he said. “On the electoral college, on the First Amendment, on the Senate itself. But most striking of all have been the shameless efforts to bully our nation’s independent judiciary, and yesterday those efforts took a dangerous and disturbing turn.” [….]
“The left-wing campaign against the federal judiciary did not begin yesterday, not yesterday,” he said, reminding his colleagues that during the impeachment trial of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Warren and others attacked Chief Justice Roberts for “staying neutral instead of delivering the outcomes that they wanted.”
“These same groups came to Senator Schumer’s defense yesterday with attacks against the Chief Justice for condemning the threats against his colleagues,” McConnell added. “And last summer, a number of Senate Democrats sent a brief to the Supreme Court threatening to inflict institutional change on the Court if it did not rule the way the Democrats wanted.”
“In other words, give us the ruling we want, or we’ll change the numbers of the court,” McConnell explained.

McConnel is right to call him out on the Senate floor. But this nonsense is only going to stop when you formally hold people to account.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) is going to have a censure motion. 

Censure Schumer because he still is spinning and doesn’t really regret what he said. Make it stick

https://www.redstate.com/nick-arama/2020/03/05/schumer-tries-to-backtrack-and-spin-his-threats-against-supreme-court-justices-mcconnell-blasts-him-on-the-senate-floor/

Bill Clinton Finally Explains Why He Had an Affair with Monica Lewinsky—and It's as Lame as You'd Expect

 
Article written by Matt Margolis in "PJMedia":

If you ever wanted to know exactly why Bill Clinton had an affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, he's got an explanation for you now.

The 42nd president reveals in the forthcoming Hulu documentary "Hillary" that he had the affair because it helped to "manage my anxieties," resulting from the pressures of the presidency. His affair, he claims, was a distraction from those pressures.

"You feel like you're staggering around, you've been in a 15-round prize fight that was extended to 30 rounds and here's something that will take your mind off it for a while, that's what happens," he said. "Because there, whatever life — not just me. Everybody's life has pressures and disappointments, terrors, fears of whatever. Things I did to manage my anxieties for years. I'm a different, totally different person than I was, a lot of that stuff 20 years ago," he said.

"What I did was bad but it wasn't like: how can I think about the most stupid thing I could and do it," he added. "It's not a defense, it's an explanation. I feel awful."

The former president also expressed regret for how the scandal impacted Monica Lewinsky.

"I feel terrible about the fact that Monica Lewinsky's life was defined by it, unfairly, I think," he said. "Over the years I've watched her trying to get a normal life back again, but you've got to decide how to define normal."

 The documentary will premier on Friday, March 6, 2020. It will feature campaign footage from 2016, as well as exclusive interviews with Bill Clinton, Chelsea Clinton, friends and journalists, and the twice-failed presidential candidate herself.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/bill-clinton-i-had-affair-with-monica-lewinsky-to-manage-my-anxieties/ 

Bloomberg News Will Now Cover...

Bronson Stocking reporting for Townhall

Bloomberg News Will Now Cover Democratic Candidates 

After Founder Quits Race

Media mogul Michael Bloomberg quit the Democratic presidential race after a poor showing on Super Tuesday. Now, three months and $500 million later, Bloomberg News plans to return to regular coverage of the Democratic candidates.  

When the billionaire former mayor of New York City announced his candidacy for the White House in November, Bloomberg News Editor-in-Chief John Micklethwait sent a note to staff members informing employees that Bloomberg News would continue its tradition of not investigating Michael Bloomberg at all and would be extending that policy to all the Democratic candidates seeking the party's nomination. Only President Trump could be investigated by reporters at Bloomberg News. 

"We will continue our tradition of not investigating Mike (and his family and foundation) and we will extend the same policy to his rivals in the Democratic primaries. We cannot treat Mike's Democratic competitors differently from him," Micklethwait wrote at the time. 

Bloomberg's short campaign was marked by a poor debate performance and the spending of hundreds of millions of dollars on campaign ads. On Super Tuesday, the candidate only managed to win the territory of American Samoa, where he won a paltry four delegates.

With Bloomberg out of the race, Editor-in-Chief John Micklethwait sent out a new memo to employees, informing the staff that the news agency would be returning to normal coverage of the election. 

"Now that Mike has said he is leaving the race for President, we will return to our normal coverage of the election; we will follow exactly the same coverage rules for the Democratic presidential candidates and President Donald Trump," Micklethwait wrote in a memo shared with The Hill.

Bloomberg News was sharply criticized for its decision to abandon journalistic practices when Michael Bloomberg entered the race. A CNN panel eviscerated the decision by Bloomberg News, calling the outlet an "oppo shop" and questioning how Michael Bloomberg could stand up to criticism as the Democratic nominee when he couldn't even tolerate it from his own newsroom. 

Of course, CNN President Jeff Zucker was caught by Project Veritas directing his employees to focus on the impeachment of President Trump, so it's a lot like the pot calling the kettle black here. All these mainstream news outlets unfairly attack the president. Bloomberg News was just dumb enough to put thier political biases in writing.  

Voters Rejected Every Candidate that...

Larry O'Connor writing for Townhall

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own 

and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall

Voters Rejected Every Candidate the Media Championed; 

Isn't it Great?

Source: AP Photo/David J. Phillip

Your Super Tuesday hangover is starting to slowly wear off and as you rub your blood-shot eyes you read the headlines and face the realization that the Democrats' presidential contest is now a two-person race between an elderly, establishment figure who has been part of the Washington political swamp for decades and a fervent, Bolshevik-loving socialist. One of those two figures will face-off against Donald Trump.

You'd be forgiven if you rushed to your shower expecting to see Bobby Ewing toweling himself off.

After four years of hyperbolic cheerleading for all the "rising stars" of the Democratic Party representing every possible interest group that had to satisfy the political experts on every cable news panel, the voters have now had their say and they've brought us right back to where we were in 2016.

Think of all the glowing profiles and magazine covers extolling the virtues of "President Kamala" and "President Beto." How many times did we hear about Cory Booker or Julian Castro "checking a box" on the diversity scorecard as a pre-requisite to win the Democratic nomination?

Reflect on the "Town Hall Specials" with softball questions directed at the mainstream media's flavor of the month and the endless analysis by countless pundits assuring us that the Democrats had the deepest, strongest field of candidates in American history. The hype was so intense the media even inundated us with countdown clocks for each of these staged, made-for-TV reality shows. Who can forget the countdown for Julian Castro's town hall? "Only 12 more hours? I can't stand the suspense! I think I'll re-watch Beto's town hall on DVR to take the edge off," said nobody, ever.

This is not an indictment of the media for covering the race. This is an indictment of how they covered the race.

Every possible superlative was employed for Kamala Harris when she launched her candidacy. And then again when she re-launched her candidacy... both times she re-launched her candidacy. She represented our future, we were assured. She is the rising superstar of the party, we were promised. "She checks all the boxes," we were insultingly instructed.

She didn't make it to Iowa.

How many magazine covers were dominated by Beto O'Rourke's focus-group-tested visage? How many slobbered over Elizabeth Warren's "plan for everything" and how her mere presence in the race struck fear into the hearts of Trump and the Democratic establishment? How many cable news features were produced with an in-depth analysis of Mike Bloomberg's groundbreaking, history-making "new way" of electioneering that ended up winning him American Samoa and a lot of huge fans at advertising agencies and local TV sales offices and nothing else?

In the end, no matter how hard they tried and how loud they relentlessly lectured, the voters decided they'd go with the two guys whose names were most recognizable and who best represented the two major factions in the modern, Democratic Party. All the noise and analysis and "expertise" were ignored.

Ask yourself, of all the high-paid experts you've been watching for the past several years, which one ever said: "In the end, I think this will come down to a choice between Biden and Bernie"? Did any of them?

Nope. And why not? Because a race between Biden and Bernie is the last thing anyone in cable news ever wanted. That tells you everything. So much of the political "analysis" we get on these shows is really political wishful thinking. They tell us what they want to be true and, by extension, what they want you to do at the ballot box. But, that's not analysis or punditry, it's politicking.

This is the same trap the media found themselves in during the 2016 election. They had such a vested interest in opposing Trump and bolstering Hillary that they lost sight of what was developing right before their eyes. They were telling us to reject Trump and embrace Hillary and when we had our chance, we simply said "no."

Three years into a Trump presidency with the distractions of Comey and Russia and Mueller and the Steele Dossier and Ukraine and impeachment and well, all of it... and here we are right back where we were.

The media still gets it wrong. The voters still pretty much ignore them. The Democrats still have to reckon with their ongoing flirtation with full-blown socialism without ever granting Bernie a seat at the table while enjoying the energy and activism of his followers. Funny how the media hasn't really analyzed that political reality. 

The media still has no idea why Trump has the support he has, and they have no real interest in finding out. They still don't get it. And they refuse to even try.

Go check the shower.

President Trump, Macron agree to join efforts in ‘scientific, economic, health’ response to COVID-19

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 8:22 AM PT — Thursday, March 5, 2020

President Trump and his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron have agreed to join efforts in fighting the coronavirus outbreak.
The two presidents spoke on the phone Wednesday to discuss the latest challenges to public health in the U.S. and France. President Trump and President Macron said they will coordinate scientific, economic and health responses.
Earlier this week, Macron issued restrictions on mass gatherings in his country and advised people to avoid close personal contacts in public. The French president said transparency is key to defeating the virus.
“During the period we are going through and that we will go through, because we have entered a phase that will last weeks even possibly months, it is paramount to show clarity, resilience, nerves and determination to slow the epidemic,” stated the French leader. “Which is what we are doing and then fight it.”
 According to the White House, President Trump likes Macron’s proposals and noted the two will work together ahead of the upcoming G7 summit in June.

https://www.oann.com/president-trump-macron-agree-to-join-efforts-in-scientific-economic-health-response-to-covid-19/

Elizabeth Warren drops out of presidential race

 
 Article by Megan Henney in "Fox Business":

Elizabeth Warren, facing mounting pressure from the progressive flank of the Democratic Party, ended her presidential campaign on Thursday, after a dismal Super Tuesday performance in which she placed no higher than third in 14 nomination contests, including in her home state, Massachusetts.

The decision comes as the primary field, which once featured two dozen candidates, has winnowed down to a two-man race between Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, 78, and former Vice President Joe Biden, 77. It's unclear whether Warren intends to endorse either candidate, both of whom have spoken with Warren since Super Tuesday ended.

"I may not be in the race for President in 2020, but this fight—our fight—is not over. And our place in this fight has not ended," Warren wrote in an email to staffers. She continued: "And sure, the fight may take a new form, but I will be in that fight, and I want you in this fight with me. We will persist."

It also follows similar moves by Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar and Mike Bloomberg, who exited the race earlier this week and rallied behind Biden, creating a formidable moderate opponent who can compete against Sanders and his grassroots juggernaut.

Critics have openly worried that Warren's presence in the race has cannibalized support for Sanders and have pushed her to drop out before a new round of contests over the next two Tuesdays, when 10 more states will vote and award an additional 900 delegates.

The announcement ends a year of campaigning for the Massachusetts senator, who branded herself as a progressive fighter with a slew of plans to fix a broken and corrupt system.

Although her polling numbers began to climb over the summer and into the fall -- at one point Warren emerged as a frontrunner amid a pack of two dozen contenders, despite shying away from direct attacks with rivals during debates -- she faced scrutiny from all sides over her vagueness on how she would pay for Medicare-for-all. She responded by outlining a detailed plan at the beginning of November outlining how she would fund the sprawling, $20.5 trillion proposal.

But when Warren began to fade in polls, she released a single-system transition-plan, sowing doubts about her dedication to universal health care among some progressives, who shifted their support to Sanders.

Although she continued to erode in the polls and ultimately never placed higher than third place in a nominating contest, including a stunning loss of her own home state, Massachusetts, to Biden, Warren effectively demolished Bloomberg's presidential hopes during the ninth debate in Las Vegas.

Warren delivered a scathing takedown of the 78-year-old billionaire, who spent more than $500 million on his nascent campaign, in his first debate appearance -- which many credited to effectively driving the centrist out of the election.

"I'd like to talk about who we're running against: a billionaire who calls women 'fat broads' and 'horse-faced lesbians,'" she said at the time. "And no, I'm not talking about Donald Trump, I'm talking about Mayor Bloomberg."

After disappointing finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire, which saw her place third and fourth, respectively, Warren also abandoned her non-aggression pact with Sanders, clashing with the self-avowed democratic socialist over the fraught question of whether a woman can be president.

As Sanders and Warren supporters traded fresh barbs on social media, a wide coalition of 18 grassroots progressive groups, some backing Sanders and some backing Warren, joined together to call for a truce between the two senators and their allies.

For days, the progressive senators feuded over what was said at a private meeting in Washington, D.C., a little over a year ago.

Warren contends that Sanders told her a woman could not win the presidency; Sanders has vehemently denied the account. Neither candidate spoke publicly about the dispute. But in an extraordinary exchange caught on a CNN microphone at the end of Tuesday’s debate, Sanders and Warren both accused each other of calling the other a “liar.”

During the Charleston debate, Warren went after Sanders again, positioning herself as the candidate most likely to get a progressive agenda passed.

But it was too late by then: Sanders, fresh off back-to-back victories in New Hampshire and Nevada, had secured a dominant position.

Lackluster results on Tuesday's primaries solidified Warren's decision to exit the race: Her campaign said on Wednesday that it was "assessing" a path forward.

"Last night, we fell well short of viability goals and projections, and we are disappointed in the results,” her campaign manager, Roger Lau, said in an email to staffers. “We’re still waiting for more results to come in to get a better sense of the final delegate math. And we also all know the race has been extremely volatile in recent weeks and days with front-runners changing at a pretty rapid pace.”

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-ends-presidential-campaign

Bring It, Chuck

Joe Long for American Greatness

If there’s a way the enemies of the Constitution can punish originalist judges, it stands to reason that justices who vandalize the Constitution to further the progressive agenda can also face reprisals from the Constitution’s friends.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) threats against conservative Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh are the talk of the nation.

Speaking at a Planned Parenthood rally on the Supreme Court’s steps on Wednesday, Schumer didn’t exactly threaten to sell the jurists’ body parts after vivisection. But he did say, “I want to tell you Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch: You have unleashed a whirlwind, and you will pay the price . . . you won’t know what hit you, if you go forward.”

Schumer may not be aware that “reap the whirlwind” is a Biblical allusion from Hosea, a book of dire warnings, which it wouldn’t hurt him to read. As for “pay the price” and “you won’t know what hit you,” if used against elected officials, those phrases might be excused as tough talk referring to the next election.

But justices are not elected.

Still, let’s presume those are not actual threats of violence—for two excellent reasons.

First, there are likely a thousand opinion columns and a million Facebook posts being composed which give more than adequate coverage to the scenario in which they are.

But second, Schumer operates in a blustering, disingenuous, ruthless world of political pressure. It’s logical that political pressure is what he intended his threats to convey. Yes, “tough talk” also energizes constituents, but only if they believe that Schumer has some practical option in mind.

What could that option be? What dirty tricks, what impassioned calumnies, what forms of character assassination could be employed against Gorsuch and Kavanaugh—I mean, which weren’t already employed, in the no-holds-barred confirmation fights? What more could be done to destroy those who’ve strode manfully through the gauntlet of the Democrat’s full fury?

We’ve discounted violence. (Read those other columns, for that possibility.) Partisan impeachment attempts? That weapon’s already been deployed, ineffectively, and it can only become weaker with further use. So, what’s he got? Mean words from celebrities at the next awards show?

Whatever the nonviolent option for punishing justices is, Schumer’s playing a risky game by threatening it. The judiciary deliberately was set up to be insulated from public whims and legislative agendas. If there’s a way around that, however,  if there’s a partisan reprisal option which can penetrate the defenses the Founders put in place . . . well, then, both sides can employ it.

If there’s a way the enemies of the Constitution can punish originalist judges, it stands to reason that justices who vandalize the Constitution to further the progressive agenda can also face reprisals from the Constitution’s friends.

So, what tactic do you have in mind, Schumer? Go ahead and unleash it—if you’re ready to see it used against you, too.  If you go forward, you know exactly what will hit you—because it was your idea in the first place.

These Are...

Veterans confront Biden for enabling Iraq War

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 7:20 AM PT — Thursday, March 5, 2020

Despite his performance on Super Tuesday, Democrat presidential front-runner Joe Biden has failed to appeal to some veterans. The former vice president was recently met with backlash over past support of the Iraq War.
During a stop Tuesday, Michael Thurman, a former member of the U.S. Air Force, confronted Biden alongside fellow veterans over his support for the invasion of Iraq back in 2002.
“You enabled a war and you also gave a medal to a man that enabled and caused that war,” he stated. “And they’re blood is on your hands no…my friends are dead because of your policies.”
The group grilled the 2020 hopeful, questioning why voters would back someone who would support a war that killed thousands of Iraqi civilians. However, Biden reportedly turned his back on the veteran immediately following the statement, which caused the confrontation to escalate.

This isn’t the first time that the former vice president has faced backlash for his role in the Iraq War. He’s also fielded criticism by other Democrats in the race, most notably, Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.).
“One of the differences that Joe and I have on our record is that Joe voted for that war,” Sanders pointed out on the debate stage. “I helped lead the opposition to that war, which is a total disaster.”
Biden has continuously attempted to apologize for the his role in the war and reportedly attempted to lessen military presence in the country during his time in the Obama administration.
The laundry list of scandals confronting Biden has only continued to grow, including claims by women who have accused the Democrat of inappropriately touching them as well as his son Hunter’s questionable overseas business dealings.

https://www.oann.com/veterans-confront-biden-for-enabling-iraq-war/

Media’s ‘Anything But Joe’ Panic Has Done Nothing But Make Them Look Stupid

Kylee Zempel reporting for The Federalist

If the media wants Trump to lose in 2020, they'll have to walk back their Biden criticisms and come to terms with the fact that nothing they do now can stop an old white man from occupying the Oval Office come January.

As Super Tuesday results rolled in, one thing became abundantly clear: The media completely blew it yet again. Clustered in their urban high-rises, coastal political commentators couldn’t pick a likable candidate nor discern an average American’s predispositions if they tried. And they certainly couldn’t persuade anyone to vote for their leftist of choice — anyone but crazy socialist Bernie Sanders, who they didn’t take seriously, or tired, white Joe Biden. Oh, how the tables turn.

Ever since an endless supply of Democrats began announcing their presidential ambitions last January, in what has been arguably the longest year of our lives, the media has bounced from candidate to candidate, fixing their lips to the keister of whatever fleeting progressive poster child they fancy at a particular moment, until the chosen woke contender inevitably picks up his ball and goes home. The funny thing about press attention is that it doesn’t actually translate to cash flow, and you can’t run a campaign without real supporters buying in — unless you’re Michael Bloomberg.

Hillary Clinton couldn’t lose to Donald Trump, until she did. Kamala Harris was the intersectional queen, until everybody found out she was a cop. Beto O’Rourke was so fresh, until it turned out he was a robot. The cycle is endless. When will legacy media learn?

We Watched the Media Pendulum Swing

The best part about political media advocacy is that its perpetrators are so unabashed in their support and condemnation. One never need wonder about the media’s presidential preference because the pendulum swings fast and hard.

When Harris was the momentary savior, the press worshipped the ground she walked on. Debate moderators gave her an uninterrupted lane — “Hey guys, you know what? America does not want to witness a food fight; they want to know how we’re going to put food on their table,” Harris lectured, crucifying Biden with the media’s help for his busing policies and 1994 crime bill.

The press would usher Harris all the way to the Oval Office, and bury Biden as a brutal racist, or so they thought. As it turned out, however, Harris was wildly unlikable in a manner that resembled Clinton, if Clinton had also put lots of people in jail. So the media pivoted.

Remember O’Rourke, media darling? He was Barack Obama reimagined in a cool blue button-down, the perfect blend of chill rockstar energy, “Hispandering,” and disdain for law-abiding gun owners. And he was so relatable — don’t you know Beto goes to the dentist and gets the flu shot?

Despite the media doing his bidding with wall-to-wall coverage, O’Rourke couldn’t even defeat Ted Cruz for a Senate seat, but as for a presidential run, he was “born to be in it” — that is if you ask him and Vanity Fair, which plastered the Texan on its magazine cover. Francis Wilkinson, in a Bloomberg opinion article titled “Beto O’Rourke Matters Even If He Loses,” praised O’Rourke’s “extraordinary political success” (huh?) and “defiant optimism.” Surely he would make a good president. Wrong again.

Oh, how the media adored Elizabeth Warren, who skyrocketed to the top of the polls in October before her decisive plummet. She had it all as the wokest of the woke. The mainstream press was enamored by her plans and “big ideas,” earning her a spot on the cover of Time magazine.

Worried about “reproductive rights”? She had a plan for that. Hate rich people? She had a plan for them too. What persistence. After all, who doesn’t love a beer-drinking, Instagram-living, selfie-line fake minority?

Let’s not forget the New York Times’ absurd dual endorsement of Warren and the other female in the race, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar. Given Warren’s elitist persona, D.C. journalists truly couldn’t help themselves from fawning. In an ode to both Warren and himself, David Byler, writing in the Washington Post, confirmed the Warren media hive mind:

Maybe most significantly, Warren also matches an upscale cultural image of who the president should be. Many in the media followed a specific academic and professional path: We did our homework, took tough classes, competed on the high school speech and debate team, maybe went to an elite college, got a white-collar job and earned institutional validation all along the way. Warren and Buttigieg are the real-life images of that version of success, in which ambitious, academically accomplished, culturally refined people work extremely hard within institutions to achieve ‘meritocratic’ recognition.

That leads to boy wonder Pete Buttigieg, another Obama remake the media embraced after the fall of Warren and the rise of Sanders. If the feminist elitist couldn’t quite cut it, the male version and Biden alternative would have to do, especially after Buttigieg’s surge in the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries.

“There’s no dirt on this guy. Like, nothing,” gushed Trevor Noah, host of “The Daily Show,” over the former mayor’s resume. Other media outlets fell over themselves to remark about Pete’s “historic” candidacy, noting his “raw political talent,” “vast potential,” and “political savvy.” When Buttigieg dropped out, which the media lauded as a noble sacrifice to thwart Sanders, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough likened him to George Washington and Frank Sinatra. Seriously.

The Media Pivots to the Man They Clobbered

So now what? Harris? Out. Pete? Gone. Beto? Adios. Warren? Fading fast.

Despite Bloomberg’s half-billion-dollar advertisement spending spree, his abysmal Super Tuesday showing is sure to lay his campaign to rest in the next day or two. Warren didn’t do too hot either, unable to seal the deal even in Massachusetts, the state she represents. That leaves Sanders and Biden, two rich, old, white, male boomers vying to be the nominee in a party moving farther left by the day.

It seems the media and Democratic establishment will do whatever it takes to stop Sanders. The press considers him disastrous for the party and unelectable. “No party nomination, with the possible exception of Barry Goldwater in 1964, has put forth a presidential nominee with the level of downside risk exposure as a Sanders-led ticket would bring,” wrote Jonathan Chait in New York Magazine in January. “To nominate Sanders would be insane.”

That leaves only one option in the media’s ongoing war to undo the 2016 election and unseat the bad orange man in 2020: hype up Biden. After a year of knocking him down in favor of anyone else, the media must face the music.

No amount of sucking up could secure their intersectional elitist candidate of choice. And if they want to defeat Trump in 2020, they’ll have to walk back their criticisms of the former vice president, trading them for praise, and come to terms with the fact that nothing they do now can stop an old white man from occupying the Oval Office come January.

Super Tuesday Primaries Put GOP Closer To Reclaiming House Majority

Tristan Justice reporting for The Federalist

House Republicans had a good night on Tuesday, where a powerful incumbent fended off a well-funded primary challenger, and the party picked up one African-American and several women candidates to challenge Democrats this fall.

In Texas, Congresswoman Kay Granger who leads the House Appropriations Committee came out on top in a primary challenge from local conservative activist Chris Putnam in the state’s 12th district. Putnam accused Granger of not being far enough aligned with President Donald Trump, despite having Trump’s endorsement.

The bitter race attracted a considerable amount of outside spending, with the conservative Club For Growth sweeping in to oust Granger while the House GOP leadership’s super PAC, the Congressional Leadership Fund spent more than $1.3 million to protect Granger.

The incumbent congresswoman ultimately defeated Putnam with 58 percent of the vote to Putnam’s 42.

Elsewhere, House Republicans secured nominations for key recruits in their efforts to elect more women and minorities.

In Houston-area 7th district, conservative African-American Army veteran Wesley Hunt captured the nomination to challenge incumbent freshman Democratic Rep. Lizzie Fletcher who flipped the seat just two years earlier. Both the Cook Political Report and Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball rank the seat as “leaning Democratic,” making for a competitive race this fall with Hunt’s nomination to reclaim the seat.

Over in the state’s Dallas-area 32nd district, Republican voters nominated local business executive Genevieve Collins to face another freshman Democratic incumbent, Rep. Colin Allred. Sabato’s Crystal Ball lists the seat as “likely Democratic,” but the Cook Political Report identifies it as merely leaning Democratic.

In Texas’ 24th district, also located in Dallas, Irving Mayor Beth Van Duyne became another woman to join the GOP candidate ranks capturing the nomination to compete for an open seat rated as a toss-up being vacated by Republican Congressman Kenny Marchant. Van Duyne won the contest with more than 64 percent of the vote.

Further east in North Carolina, real estate agent Lynda Bennet will move into a May runoff election to face small businessman Madison Cawthorn. The winner will proceed to the November general in a bid to replace retiring chairman of the House Freedom Caucus Mark Meadows who has endorsed Bennet in the state’s reliably Republican 11th district.

Tuesday’s results give Republicans reason to be optimistic about their lineup of candidates in position to take back the House in November.

Bloomberg Drops Out, Demonstrating...

Jacob Sullum for Reason Magazine

Bloomberg Drops Out, Demonstrating the Limits of Money and the Perils of Arrogance

The former New York City mayor has never been good at concealing his conviction that he is smarter and better than the rest of us.

3.4.2020

(Spencer Platt/TNS/Newscom) 

"Why don't they coalesce around me?" former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg asked yesterday before the wildly disappointing Super Tuesday performance that led him to drop out of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination today. Bloomberg won the caucuses in American Samoa but fell far short of victory everywhere else after spending half a billion dollars of his own money on a quixotic quest to replace former Vice President Joe Biden as the moderate alternative to an avowed democratic socialist, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.).

Today Bloomberg endorsed Biden in a gracious statement acknowledging that "a viable path to the nomination no longer exists," calling Biden "the candidate with the best shot" at defeating Donald Trump, and praising "his decency, his honesty, and his commitment to the issues that are so important to our country." But Bloomberg never would have entered the race last November if he thought Biden was up to the task, and the chutzpah embodied in his strategy of skipping the early contests and debates, flooding the airwaves and internet with ads, and swooping in to rescue a party he joined less than two years ago goes a long way toward explaining why primary voters found him so unappealing.

Anyone who wants to be president almost certainly has an inflated sense of his own competence and wisdom. That is especially true for someone like Bloomberg, a remarkably successful entrepreneur who became the world's ninth-richest person by providing value to consumers and erroneously thought his skills as a businessman made him especially qualified to boss people around. But good politicians are skilled at concealing their arrogance, recognizing that voters may find it off-putting. Bloomberg has never been good at that.

This is a man who devoted much of his time as mayor to berating poor people for their unhealthy habits, a condescending paternalism epitomized by his extralegal attempt to ban the sale of large sugary beverages. He defended that crusade in embarrassingly grandiose terms: "We have a responsibility as human beings to do something, to save each other, to save the lives of ourselves, our families, our friends, and all of the rest of the people that live on God's planet." Bloomberg, who called protecting people from their own bad habits "government's highest duty," sincerely thought he was saving the world, one slightly smaller soda at a time.

This is a man so convinced that he was uniquely qualified to run New York's government that he pushed through a legal change allowing him to serve a third term, then backed legislation reimposing the two-term limit. "Bloomberg thinks that being able to serve three terms in office is a good idea—just not for anyone else," The New York Times noted at the time.

This is a man who in 2001 cheerily admitted that he had smoked marijuana and enjoyed it, then presided over a dramatic surge in arrests of cannabis consumers. Last year Bloomberg called legalizing cannabis "perhaps the stupidest thing we've ever done." Once he decided to run for president, he wanted Democratic voters, three-quarters of whom support legalization, to forget about his record on this issue. "Putting people in jail for marijuana," he declared, is "really dumb."

This is a man who either did not know or did not care that the "stop, question, and frisk" program he championed as a way of deterring young black men from carrying guns, which at its peak subjected overwhelmingly innocent people to 685,000 humiliating police encounters in a single year, was blatantly unconstitutional. That program, like Bloomberg's panoply of paternalistic "public health" prescriptions, reflected his unshakable confidence that he knows what's best, even when the supposed beneficiaries of his policies vehemently disagree. Bloomberg doggedly defended stop and frisk for years after leaving office, then abruptly reversed his position the week before he officially launched his 2020 presidential campaign, recognizing that the policy was unpopular with today's Democratic primary voters.

Bloomberg thus began his presidential campaign on a false note, an awkward position for a politician vying to replace a president who can barely open his mouth without prevaricating. He compounded the dishonest tone of his campaign with a Super Bowl ad that was built around a lie about "children" killed by "gun violence." The ad, which presented Bloomberg as a brave champion of public safety who is not afraid to take on "the gun lobby," was also misleading in a subtler way. As David Harsanyi noted at National Review, the resources Bloomberg has devoted to promoting new firearm restrictions dwarf what the National Rifle Association spends to resist those policies.

Truth aside, the Super Bowl spot was compelling. But the same could not be said of many other ads that Bloomberg bombarded us with, which Democratic strategist Elizabeth Spiers described as "mediocre messaging at massive scale." Whenever Bloomberg himself spoke, he came across as wooden and decidedly uncharismatic. While viewers might very well have agreed with his critique of Trump, that did not mean they saw Bloomberg the way he saw himself: as the guy with the best chance of defeating the president. Doubts on that score surely were not assuaged by Bloomberg's surprisingly inept performance during the first debate in which he participated.

Only yesterday, The New York Times was marveling at Bloomberg's campaign organization, which hired more than 2,400 people, "opened more than 200 offices from Maine to California," "blanketed the airwaves with half a billion dollars in ads and paid social media influencers to spread his message," "deployed new artificial intelligence technology" to "adjust his message in real time as issues like the coronavirus outbreak erupted," and "tapped into the political networks of mayors in major cities like Houston and Memphis, who helped Mr. Bloomberg fill his rallies with prominent local politicians and pastors." This sophisticated operation was all the more impressive because it had been set up so quickly: "What other campaigns took more than a year to build, with visits to fish frys in Iowa and cable news studios, the Bloomberg campaign did over the three months from Thanksgiving to Presidents' Day."

But the Times also conceded that "there are those who find [Bloomberg] unappealing," which turned out to be an obstacle that no amount of money could overcome. The most salutary aspect of Bloomberg's campaign is that it refuted once again the main premise of attempts to protect democracy by restricting speech. Even for a candidate who can far outstrip his competitors' spending by shelling out less than 1 percent of his personal fortune, money can't buy you love.