Sunday, September 20, 2020

Joe Biden spent decades warning of voter fraud — now called a myth by Dems

 

Jon Levine reporting for New York Post

The Democratic Party line treats voter fraud as little more than a GOP fever dream — yet the party’s presidential candidate Joe Biden spent decades of his career sounding the alarm about it.

Biden, the Democratic standard bearer, consistently shared GOP concerns about voter fraud during his 36 years as a United States senator from Delaware.

“Should Voters Be Allowed To Register On Election Day? No,” Biden wrote in an op-ed to a now-defunct Wilmington, Del. newspaper in 1977. He even chided President Carter for proposing it.

A “reservation I have and one that is apparently shared by some of the top officials within the Department of Justice is that the president’s proposal could lead to a serious increase in vote fraud,” Biden wrote.

He has since reversed course. In an internet conversation with 2020 running mate Sen. Kamala Harris this month, Biden said, “When you and I get elected, God willing, we’re going to push hard to make voting, Election Day, a national holiday so people don’t have to take off work. There should be same-day registration.”

Voter fraud has become an increasingly partisan issue in recent years. Republicans have warned that mail-in ballots, same-day registration and lack of voter ID laws create ripe opportunities for liberal mischief. Democrats counter that efforts to curb those things are part of a larger plot by the GOP to suppress voting from poor and minority communities, core Democratic constituencies.

“Voter fraud is, by and large, a myth,” said Georgia Democrat and one-time veep candidate Stacey Abrams in April. Sen. Bernie Sanders has called President Trump’s warnings of coming fraud “delusional.” DNC boss Tom Perez has mocked that “you have a better chance of getting struck by lightning” than finding it.

Biden has derided White House fears of mail-in ballot fraud as “unfounded,” despite evidence of how easily mailed votes can be tampered with.

“He’s already trying to undermine the election with false claims of voter fraud and threatening to block essential COVID assistance if any extra funds go to the U.S. Postal Service,” the former vice president claimed about Trump during an April online fundraiser. “What in God’s name was that about other than trying to … make it very hard for people to vote.”

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, Biden worked closely with now-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to stiffen penalties for voter fraud.

In 1988 — the same year his son’s drug record was being expunged — Biden introduced the “Anti-Corruption Act,” which McConnell co-sponsored. The bill would have enacted penalties for anyone who deprived anyone of “a fair and impartially conducted election process through the use of fraudulent ballots or voter registration forms or the filing of fraudulent campaign reports.”

Biden and McConnell tried again in 1989. Sen. Strom Thurmond was also a co-sponsor of the bill.

“Current law does not permit prosecution of election fraud … This bill makes it a federal offense to corrupt any state or local election process,” Biden argued on the Senate floor. McConnell noted in his own floor assessment that it would “raise the maximum penalty for both election fraud and public corruption to 10 years in federal prison and a $10,000 fine.”

The 1989 version also died as a standalone bill. Undeterred, Biden tried to shoehorn the voter fraud elements into the Federal Crime Control Act, in 1989 and the National Drug Control Strategy Act of 1990 — they went nowhere.

When Biden introduced the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1993, McConnell — his faithful partner on the effort — snuck in voter fraud provisions as an amendment. But the bill died. 

McConnell introduced the act on his own in 1995 without Biden’s participation — it died again.

By the time he served as vice president to Barack Obama, Biden had fully, and publicly, abandoned his former views.

“Why, without any proof of voter fraud, have 81 bills been introduced in state legislative bodies … to make it harder for people to vote,” Biden asked an audience at South Carolina’s Allen University in 2014.


The GOP Senate Damn Well Better Confirm Whoever POTUS Appoints

 

 Article by Kurt Schlichter in Townhall

The GOP Senate Damn Well Better Confirm Whoever POTUS Appoints


Perhaps it is glib to observe that, at the end of the day, Republicans should confirm a replacement for Justice Ginsburg because they can confirm a replacement for Justice Ginsburg, but there is a lot of truth to that observation. They can do it because the president has the power under the Constitution to appoint a nominee (I expect it to be Amy Coney Barrett, but Barbara Lagoa is a possibility and a great one), plus because the Senate has the power under the Constitution to confirm said nominee. And they better do it, because the Democrats intend to crush us if they can, and if the GOP wimps out, our voters will melt down.

The GOP can do this, so the GOP must.

There are lots of arguments floating around, often supported by old tweets and video clips, about how people said this and that about what should happen in similar situations (I note that many of these ignore important facts that distinguish the situations, like the president and Senate are held by the same party now but were not when Merrick Garland was rejected). There are appeals to unwritten rules that always seem to restrain Republicans, and one of the many amusing things about this whole situation is that the wailing Democrats have not even hinted that they would hesitate if the situation was reversed. There are rules and norms cited, and precedent asserted, and none of it matters. The GOP has the power to do it, and I expect it will attempt to do it since unilateral surrender because Democrats will get mad is simply not going to fly with the base. This is the Big Enchilada. This is why we have a GOP president and GOP Senate, to do this one crucial thing. And a GOP that won’t is a GOP the base has no more use for.

So, save the twisted pseudo-moral arguments for the saps. Look back to the Peloponnesian War. Athens and Sparta were at each other’s throats. Melos was a little island city-state that just wanted to be neutral. Athens came along and told Melos you have to join us or we will wipe you off the map. The reason was that allowing Melos to withstand Athens would make Athens look weak and encourage other city-states to resist. Melos was very upset, and in the Melian Dialogue recorded by Thucydides made a bunch of arguments about why Athens should not do as it saw fit. Athens essentially replied that it could do it, so it would do it, and too bad. Melos refused to yield and got wiped off the map.

It is not a perfect analogy, but let’s call the GOP Athens. However, we can’t quite call the Democrats Melos. Melos (at least as depicted by Thucydides) was not an enemy of Athens. The Democrats are. They already announced, while the Energizer Justice was still going and going, that they intend to nuke the filibuster, expand and pack the Supreme Court, create four new Democrat senators out of the new states of DC and Puerto Rico, wave the citizenship wand over 11 million illegal aliens, and make millions of Americans felons for having guns – and that’s just a start. They are committed to a comprehensive plan to lock-in power for themselves forever at the expense of the GOP.

That’s not just speculation. They have said it. That’s their plan. They are going to launch an unprecedented assault on us with the intention of forever utterly disenfranchising us.

So, why again is it immoral that the GOP use the power it won via elections to exercise the power given it during those terms of office, especially in an existential crisis? It’s as if Melos was preparing an invasion fleet but argued, “I can’t believe you are doing this to us, Athens – we aren’t going to invade you for another six months!”

Here comes the headline from lying liberal dummies for liberal dummies: “SCHLICHTER SIDES WITH ATHENS IN MELIAN DIALOGUES.” Luckily, ancient Greek classics are racist, sexist, cisgender exercises in racism, so no libs will know what the hell that lie even means.

We keep hearing how important it is for us to be bound by the norms and rules the Democrats are not only trashing but that they have already told us that they intend to further trash. Let’s assume we’re good little submissives like the Bulwark types and David Brooks and the rest of the establishment toadies demand we be. What then?

Do we gingerly walk into the post-election lawfare ambush that the Democrats have promised with SCOTUS at 4-4 (I also note how absolutely everyone assumes that Justice John Roberts will totally side with the liberal pro-Democrat bloc)? Since Biden’s puppetmasters have already announced that he can never concede ever, there’s no time when the Demos would say “Okay, you’re legit. You get to appoint someone.” They never have so far. Remember how, before Party Hearty Brett’s alleged sex gang affiliation became the big issue, the narrative was Trump couldn’t legitimately nominate a justice because he was under the deep, dark cloud of (manufactured) suspicion about RUSSIA! RUSSIA! RUSSIA!?

And if he loses in November (Until Ginsberg died, I thought Trump was on a glidepath to victory, but it’s not clear how this wild card will affect the correlation of forces), do we just waive the last six months of Trump’s term, which is compounded by how the Mueller baloney made us already give up about two years of his term to that nonsense?

There’s no situation where they will ever agree that Trump is a legitimate president, and therefore that you and I can legitimately have a say in our own governance. We never get their thumbs-up to pick a replacement for RBG no matter what

In a paradigm of norms and rules, Amy Coney Barrett or Barbara Lagoa would sail through a quick confirmation process (they both just passed one a couple years ago to get on the Circuit Court of Appeals). Instead, we’ll be subjected to a long line of lies about how the nominee is a religious nut and a secret Nazi and loves Q and how she groped a bunch of timid liberal males who were totally shattered by her vicious assaults in 1981 near the water fountain at George Washington Junior High.

Athens cut to the chase when dealing with Melos – it could and it was going to. And the GOP should do the same and cut to the chase. It can and it must because it’s dealing with people who have already promised an all-out assault on our rights and sovereignty. 

We either win, or they go down the path of trying to ensure that our interests and rights never again interfere with their unrestrained exercise of power again. And that leads to a dark place.

Appoint and confirm, GOP. Do it, because you can, and because you must.

 

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2020/09/20/the-gop-senate-damn-well-better-confirm-whoever-potus-appoints-n2576521 


Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


Efforts to rebuild the Notre Dame Cathedral resume

 

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 11:15 AM PT – Sunday, September 20, 2020

As efforts to rebuild the Notre Dame resume, cathedral workers are turning to medieval methods in an effort to restore the building to what it once was. Carpenters and masons went back to work this week following months of little progress on the charred cathedral.

One issue that slowed the building process was a debate over the materials that were going to be used. Builders were divided on whether to use more fire safe materials or rebuild with the original supplies.

“I think this shows that it was the right thing to choose to reconstruct the framework of the cathedral identically in French oak,” stated restoration leader Jean-Louis Georgelin. “Secondly, it also shows us the method that we will use to rebuild the framework, truss after truss.”

 

 

COVID-19 also slowed up the process, delaying repairs even later.

A fire broke out last year in the cathedral, creating damages worth an estimated $1 billion euros.

 

 Carpenters put the skills of their Medieval colleagues on show on the plaza in front of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, France, Saturday, Sept. 19, 2020

 


 

 


 

 

https://www.oann.com/efforts-to-rebuild-the-notre-dame-cathedral-resume/ 

Cycling-Pogacar becomes first Slovenian to win the Tour de France

 

September 20, 2020

By Julien Pretot

PARIS (Reuters) – Tadej Pogacar became the first Slovenian to win the Tour de France after he retained the overall leader’s yellow jersey in the 21st stage won by Sam Bennett on Sunday.

The Team UAE Emirates rider, who will celebrate his 22nd birthday on Monday, is the youngest man to win the race since Henri Cornet in 1904.

 


Pogacar, who pulled off a major upset when he claimed the yellow jersey from Primoz Roglic with a monumental performance in Saturday’s time trial, also won the white jersey for the best Under-25 rider and the polka dot jersey for the mountains classification.

Roglic ended up second, with Australian Richie Porte taking third place.

Pogacar also won three stages in one of the most brilliant individual performances in recent Tour history, leaving Roglic’s dominant Jumbo-Visma team stunned.

Bennett became the first Irishman since Sean Kelly in 1989 to win the green jersey for the points classification.

It was an anti-climatic finale on the Champs Elysees as only 5,000 fans were allowed on the famous avenue as a precaution against the coronavirus.

France reported 13,498 new confirmed COVID-19 cases over the previous 24 hours on Saturday, setting another record in daily additional infections since the start of the epidemic.

 

 

https://www.oann.com/cycling-pogacar-becomes-first-slovenian-to-win-the-tour-de-france/ 

 

 


 

Berlin protesters say EU must let in migrants before bloc outlines plans

 

September 20, 2020

BERLIN (Reuters) – Protesters called on European Union states to allow in migrants stuck in Greek camps at a demonstration in Berlin on Sunday before the EU sets out proposals this week on how to help after a fire in one of the camps left 12,000 people without shelter.

The emergency has highlighted Europe’s patchy response to a multi-year crisis that has seen more than a million migrants reach its shores, often on board flimsy vessels, after fleeing wars and poverty in the Middle East and beyond.

After the fire in the Moria camp on the island of Lesbos on Sept. 9, Germany agreed to take in 1,553 migrants stranded on Greek islands.

But the protesters in central Berlin wanted more action.

 

 

Wearing face masks in line with coronavirus regulations, around 5,000 people held up banners with slogans such as ‘We have space! What else has to happen? Evacuate Moria Now!’, ‘Shame on you EU’ and ‘Shelters not Prisons’.

“I find it unacceptable that we live in one of the richest parts of the world and are somehow scared of 15,000 people and there is an eternal discussion about who will help these people,” said demonstrator Oliver Bock.

Despite deep divisions among members, the European Commission is due this week to put forward new proposals on migration. The bloc has failed to agree a common asylum policy five years after Merkel allowed 1.2 million people seeking protection into Germany.

German Interior Minister Horst Seehofer told Bild am Sonntag weekly that he had high hopes.

“I expect the EU Commission to come up with a solid proposal that pulls out all the stops so we have a political agreement on European asylum policy by the end of the year,” Seehofer told the paper. He added that he expected no more than 100,000 migrants to arrive in Germany this year.

 


https://www.oann.com/berlin-protesters-say-eu-must-let-in-migrants-before-bloc-outlines-plans/ 

Confirm a Justice Now

This is no time for Senate Republicans to go wobbly.

 Michael Anton for American Greatness

he instant Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s passing was announced, the battle lines were drawn. Or, more accurately, one side girded for battle, while Republicans clucked with confusion about what to do next.

Which should be no surprise. If Republicans are good at anything, it’s finding “principled” reasons to betray their constituents and contradict their much vaunted philosophy. President Trump, naturally, has sounded strong, as, to his credit, has Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). But the majority leader has to manage a fractious caucus and a thin margin. Many of his members either will be looking for excuses not to vote, or for a reason to vote no, or (worse) will be persuadable by sophistical arguments as to why stabbing their president, their voters, and their country in the back is “the right thing to do.”

Herewith, if any of them are listening, are some reasons not to take those paths.


The Alleged 2016 Precedent


All Democrats and a few Republicans are already saying that McConnell’s refusal to advance the nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016 set an inviolable precedent that the GOP would be hypocrites to overturn. But there are differences between 2016 and 2020.

First, Barack Obama was at the end of his constitutionally limited two terms. The 2016 contest, therefore, was an “open-seat” election. Voters are much more likely to hand the presidency to the other party in an open-seat election; they have done so in the last three straight, whereas no incumbent has lost since 1992. A president at the end of his second term is a lame duck; it makes some sense in that circumstance to give a new president, with a new mandate, the chance to shape the court rather than let the outgoing has-been, who’s already had eight years to do as he will, one last shot at a legacy.

President Trump was almost a shoo-in for reelection before the lockdowns crushed the economy, and he remains a strong bet. He’s still immensely popular with his base and his approval ratings are the highest of his presidency—and higher than many of his predecessors’ at the same point in his term. He is anything but a lame duck. He deserves a chance to exercise his constitutionally enumerated powers and deliver for his voters.

Second, in 2016, the Senate was controlled by Republicans. That remains the case today. But four years ago, the president was a Democrat. The so-called Biden Rule, which McConnell invoked in 2016, and named after a 1992 floor speech by current Democratic nominee but then-Senator Joe Biden, holds that a justice should not be confirmed in a presidential election year when, in Biden’s words, “divided government” reflects a lack of a “nationwide consensus” on which party’s judicial philosophy should carry the day. That circumstance obviously does not prevail today. 

Of course, for all the howling about McConnell’s alleged hypocrisy, we have heard not a peep about Biden happily sidestepping his own rule in 2016. 

Remember, too, that senators no less than presidents have constitutionally enumerated powers and popular mandates. They owe loyalty to their voters no less than did President Obama or does President Trump. Republican voters elect Republican senators in very large part because they expect those senators to shape the courts in a conservative direction. Doing so can mean blocking the elevation of liberal justices no less than ensuring the confirmation of conservatives. 

In either case, Republicans are both exercising their lawful powers and delivering for their constituents—which is exactly what they are elected to do

The fact that Mitch McConnell—no one’s idea of an ideological firebrand—understands this while many “principled conservatives” do not should prompt the latter rethink their squeamishness.

The two most recent, and therefore currently binding, expressions of the will of the people were the elections of 2016 and 2018. The former produced a Republican president and reaffirmed Republican control of the Senate, in place since the election of 2010. The latter reaffirmed Republican control of the Senate yet again. The will of the people, therefore, as expressed through elections—the only legitimate basis for the exercise of political power in our constitutional system—is that conservative justices be elevated to the Supreme Court.


One-Way “Precedents”


Alleged “precedents” such as the Garland nomination, in any case, seem only to apply to us. The Democrats violate precedents at will when doing so suits their interests, and then attack us when we follow their most recent precedent. 

It wasn’t Republicans who nuked the filibuster for judicial nominees. Can you recall a single instance of Republicans treating a nominee as disgracefully as the Democrats treated Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, or Brett Kavanaugh? I can’t. Yet they constantly and sanctimoniously insist that the process is sacrosanct while scolding Republicans to obey every past procedural and conventional nicety that the Democrats have already torched.

Republicans mostly go along obediently. The Democrats nearly always vote in lockstep against any Republican judicial nominee; Republicans routinely break ranks and vote for Democratic nominees. A phrase I’ve heard to describe this faux-magnanimity is “beautiful losers,” though there’s nothing beautiful about it.

Does anyone for a second think, were the shoe on the other foot, the Democrats would hesitate to confirm their pick? To ask is to laugh.

The call to respect “norms” rings hollow after four years of the Left, the leftist media, the courts, and the administrative state all breaking norms, to the point of threatening if they don’t get their way on this vacancy, even more systemic change: D.C. and Puerto Rico statehood (four more Democratic senators, forever), abolishing the Electoral College (New York, California, Chicago, and Philadelphia electing the president, forever), and packing the Supreme Court.


Stopping Election Chaos


This argument is not original but bears repeating. Democrats have assured the American people that, unless Joe Biden wins in a landslide, they will litigate the living hell out of the 2020 election. One likely outcome, given the potentially huge number of lawsuits and the slow and cumbersome nature of the legal process, is that, in order to have a president by January 21, the Supreme Court will need to intervene as it did in December 2000.

In that case, what happens if the court splits 4-4? Who decides? There does not appear to be a clear constitutional mechanism. An unresolved Electoral College vote, constitutionally, goes to the House. But what if, because of legal chaos, electors are not designated? Then what? Decide the election in the streets?

Democrats appear to relish the thought. Some have openly called for a “street fight” to follow the chaos they deliberately intend to unleash in the courts. To say nothing of the fact that Republicans have no hope whatsoever of winning a “street fight” against the Democrats’ combined Antifa-Black Lives Matter militia and the protection and leniency that militia receives from law enforcement and Soros-funded prosecutors, a “street fight” settling an American presidential election should be the last thing any decent citizen of either party would want. As would any un- or extra-constitutional means for settling such an election.


What Is Political Power For?


Republican senators should ask themselves: why are they senators? Why did they run for office? What, if anything, do they hope to achieve once there?

Some no doubt are time-servers who like the perks and hope to get rich after leaving office. But some, even most, surely got into the game to do something. Is there a bigger something than confirming a constitutionalist Supreme Court justice to a closely divided court, when at least two of the “conservative” justices are drifting left, on the eve of the most important election in living memory? If you can’t rise to this occasion, why are you there? And why should your constituents send you back?

The Democrats know what political power is for: to enact your side’s agenda. They and their media allies successfully gaslight Republicans into fearing that exercising political power is “partisan” and therefore illegitimate—but only when Republicans do it. Democrats themselves have no hesitation.

Nor should they. The whole point of our democratic-republican system is for voters to elect people they perceive to be on their side, who favor their own approach to common problems, and who when given the opportunity then enact that agenda. That, in essence, is democracy. That is what Republican senators are there to do. Let them do it.


The Politics Are on Our Side


Not a single Republican should pay a moment’s heed to Democratic crocodile tears about the unseemliness of political considerations intruding into such grave matters. Whom to nominate to the Supreme Court, and when, are fundamentally political questions. In our system, political questions are supposed to be decided politically.

Yet those worried that the politics play against our party’s interests are wrong. Nothing energizes the Republican base like a Supreme Court fight. Nothing brings out Democratic ugliness and insanity like a Supreme Court fight. Few issues, if any, unite the Republican Party’s various factions—from the country-clubbers to the MAGA diehards—quite as effectively as judges.

I know some senators are in tough reelection fights this year. I will not presume to claim to understand their state electorates better than they do. I ask of them only two things. First, consider the possibility that, in this extraordinary year, the views of your constituents aren’t what they used to be. They may well be more open than you think to confirming a Supreme Court justice right now.

Second, the worst that could result from doing the right thing is that you aren’t reelected. Is that so bad? Aren’t you there to cast the tough votes? And consider the upside: doing the right thing for your country and party, and then paying a political price for it, will make you a hero whose courage will be long-remembered. Is there a finer legacy?


A Show of Strength in the Face of Chaos


This year has amply demonstrated the fragility of American society, the weakness of our political institutions, and the strength and ferocity of the Left. The latter has made it quite plain that they want to tear down the entire edifice of our nation, burn our cities, topple and desecrate our monuments, destroy law and order, shred the Constitution, and transform the country into a permanent leftist one-party state. One more justice on the court won’t necessarily prevent all that—but one more conservative sure would help!

The Republican base is fired up now, but only months ago was demoralized in the face of constant rioting, mayhem and seemingly purposeful government inaction. Should Republican senators, who have the power to make this appointment happen, not exercise that power, Republican voters are likely to conclude their government, and their country, has been lost to them. And, in all likelihood, it will have been. 

If on the other hand Republican senators stick together, get behind and elevate a qualified nominee to the court, not just Republicans but moderates, independents and apoliticals alike are likely to appreciate a show of strength in service to our nation and its constitutional order.

To borrow from Margaret Thatcher, now is no time to go wobbly.


Fill the Seat

There will be no constitutional crisis

 posted by Stephen L. Miller at The American Spectator

When you have power in Washington DC, use it. That saying is true for both parties. There has been much distress on social media in the past few hours, with people declaring that a Supreme Court vacancy prior to this election will tear the country apart, putting unimaginable stress on the Republic as it attempts to hold together in the face of Trumpism. TikTok users are screaming into their phones while driving. CNN personalities are threatening to ‘burn the entire thing down’ if Mitch McConnell attempts to push through a nominee. Writer Laura Bassett proclaimed that ‘if McConnell jams someone through, which he will, there will be riots.’ That seems a threat more than a prediction. Even writers at the supposed ‘real conservative’ website the Bulwark warned of a political crisis, where the only way out would ‘require the prudential coordination of elites’.

It’s all nonsense. There is no crisis. Fill the seat.

For those imagining a crisis into existence, don’t fret: the process will play out. The President will nominate a replacement. The Senate Majority Leader will call for a vote and the Senate body will vote to confirm or deny. There’s not a single thing Twitter busybodies, rioters, media personalities or Democrats in the minority party can do to stop it. Nothing.

The national media is already doing its best to shame members of the GOP-led Senate for their position on President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016 following the death of Antonin Scalia. The process worked just as it was designed then as well. The Senate is not a subservient body to the President and the executive. Advice and consent is very clear and is meant as a powerful check on power, should voters decide in favor of a divided government. That’s the way things are. Deal with it.


In the coming weeks, there will be hundreds of journalists and Democrats unearthing clips of supposed rank hypocrisy from GOP politicians over their position in 2016. They will claim these Republicans have reversed their position on filling Supreme Court vacancies in an election year. Pundits on the right will also unearth clips of the current Democratic nominee and his so called ‘Biden rule’ or Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer tweeting in February 2016, ‘Attn GOP: Senate has confirmed 17 #SCOTUS justices in presidential election years. #DoYourJob’. Activist groups will demand to shut down the country and fringe groups will attempt more political violence, just as we’ve seen for the past months. Celebrities will sing ‘Imagine’.

Democrats are already again threatening to eliminate the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court should they gain power, but they were already making this threat prior to Ginsburg’s passing. None of this matters one bit. The process is all laid out in Article II, section 2.

The constitutional process unfolding as designed by the Framers is not a crisis — no amount of tweets or New York Times opinion pieces can make it so. Nor can the celebrities making threats to take to the streets while never leaving their palaces; nor can antifa activists burning down businesses. Lululemon cosplayers will once more attempt to barnstorm elevators, just as they have done for the past four months in cities across the country. If you’re the political side threatening violence if you don’t get what you want politically, perhaps you should revisit your assertion that Mitch McConnell or the Republican party are the power-hungry fascists. If the ne’er-do-well Twitter punditocracy are looking for a scapegoat, might I suggest directing your ire toward former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, without whom we would not even be entertaining this ‘crisis’.

The system is working as designed. Though it may have been Ginsburg’s final wish to not fill her seat until after the election, it’s not her call, with all due respect. Instead it falls to the people who voted for a Republican majority and a Republican president in 2016. The people threatening violence are the people without the constitution or guns on their side.

Mitch McConnell is exercising his constitutional authority, just as he did in 2016. Ultimately whether or not President Trump’s coming nominee sits on the Supreme Court will be decided by a small handful of Republicans. Not Joe Biden. Not Hollywood. Not reporters on Twitter or millennial women on Instagram. On November 3, voters may choose a different path. The Constitution will endure regardless.


Joy Reid Wins the Prize for Dumbest Idea of the Day After Hot Take On Supreme Court Seat


Bonchie reporting for RedState

 With the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Republicans already moving to fill the seat prior to the election, the hot takes from the left have been flowing. We’ve seen threats, from burning down cities to packing the court, thrown around by media members and Democrat politicians alike.

But never to be outdone, MSNBC’s Joy Reid took the cake this evening with her idea on what Democrats should do to stop Mitch McConnell from moving forward.


Wait, what? Who is so ill-informed and vapid so as to be giving such advice? That’s probably a question Reid should answer since she’s claiming to have heard this from sources.

This is going to blow some minds over at the resident liberal news networks, but “president-elect” is not a government position. In fact, such a person holds no power whatsoever in regards to our republic until they are inaugurated at the end of January. The only thing a president-elect can do is whatever the current president allows them to do within the context of the peaceful transition. What said president-elect certainly can’t do is nominate their own pick for the Supreme Court before they even assume the office.

Even if I want to be kind and assume that Reid is not speaking in legal absolutes, i.e. she just wants Biden to “name” someone as a propaganda tool for the media to use, this idea still makes no sense. Democrats refusing to attend any calls or hearings involving Trump’s nominee would probably make McConnell the happiest man in Washington. The last thing he wants to do is deal with more of the smears and ridiculous grandstanding that occurred during the Kavanaugh hearings. Any Democrat who takes their ball and goes home is doing Republicans a favor.

But for some reason, this kind of analysis passes as both objective and smart over at MSNBC. They are the ones who promoted a rabid conspiracy theorist and generally insane person to a prime-time slot where she now presents herself as a journalist. Perhaps they should have thought this through more? Is this really the type of junk they want headlining their network? The answer is probably yes, actually.

Joe Biden is not nominating a Supreme Court Justice as president-elect. Democrats are not going to skip the hearings on Trump’s nominee because it’s their only time to preen for the cameras. There’s quite literally nothing about Reid’s hot take that makes any sense. That’s par for the course I suppose.


Snobs or Mobs?


 


 Article by Kevin D. Williamson in The National Review

Snobs or Mobs?


Our political discourse in 2020 is in important ways more free, more diverse, and more robust than it was in 2004. It is also in important ways worse

  A   lot of us were feeling pretty good about the future of the media in late September of 2004.

Dan Rather and the CBS news division had just tried to derail George W. Bush’s reelection campaign with some genuine fake news — based on fake documents — and, in spite of the manful attempts of Democratic-allied media outlets such as the Boston Globe, which worked overtime to create just enough of a reasonable-doubt defense for CBS’s bulls*** story to float on until Election Day, CBS eventually was forced to acknowledge what everybody knew: The story was a political hit disguised as journalism, a fraud executed with malice aforethought. Dan Rather was chiseled off the Mount Rushmore of broadcast news and became the witless conspiracy kook we all know and pity today.

CBS executive Jonathan Klein had sneered about his citizen-journalist critics: “You couldn’t have a starker contrast between the multiple layers of checks and balances at 60 Minutes and a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas.” Oops. That remark lives on in the name of PJ Media, now a division of Salem Media Group. (Full disclosure/self-serving plug: Salem owns Regnery Publishing, which will be bringing out my Big White Ghetto in October.) The age of the citizen-journalist — the partisan citizen-journalist, inevitably — was at hand, though back then we were still calling them “bloggers,” and social media hadn’t quite been invented. (“The Facebook,” which had come online at Harvard in February of that year, was a very limited thing.) Still, we understood that we were at the dawn of something new and exciting.

We just didn’t know how much it would suck.

What came before wasn’t a golden age. Television news has pretty much always been crap, produced by crappy companies on a crappy commodity basis, in order to accumulate an audience to which various producers of crappy consumer goods could advertise their crappy products. (Plus ça change . . .) The best kind of television news consisted mostly of an avuncular figure reading (generally without credit) the first three paragraphs of the morning’s New York Times front-page stories and the afternoon’s Associated Press briefs to an audience of millions without much in the way of choice or alternatives.

The giants of 20th-century television “journalism” had much more in common with actors than they did with reporters, though some of them had been real reporters in their youth. Like Dan Rather, they had partisan bias problems, and, like Dan Rather, more than a few of them were bonkers. I met Walter Cronkite once in the 1990s, and he, being a crackpot, explained that George W. Bush, then governor of Texas and getting ready to run for president, was planning to overthrow the Constitution and impose a kind of Christian Taliban arrangement on the United States. (He got crazier as he got older, and at one point insisted that Karl Rove and Osama bin Laden were working together on President Bush’s behalf.) They were better when they were just reading the Times or the Wall Street Journal — when the big three networks actually got off their asses and did something enterprising, they frequently got into trouble or got it wildly wrong: Cronkite and the Tet Offensive, Dateline rigging that GM pickup truck to explode, 60 Minutes and Alar, etc.

Print journalism was (and is) generally better, though it had and has similar problems of its own. In an earlier era, because of the nature of pre-Internet news media, the bias and other problems at the big newspapers and the Associated Press were communicated throughout the entire news ecosystem. A daily newspaper in a conservative small city — e.g., my hometown Lubbock Avalanche-Journal — might not suffer from a great deal of left-leaning bias in its own reporting and editing, but such newspapers relied on the AP and other sources for most of their national news coverage and practically all of their international coverage. And so their pages were full of the same biases that infect the big papers in New York, Los Angeles, or Chicago. In some areas where it really mattered — most notably, coverage of Washington — newspapers around the country caught bias the same way you catch a cold. And this was a particularly urgent problem in an age in which the daily news agenda was set by a group of men small enough to all be seated together at lunch around a single table at the 21 Club.

Conservatives were, for obvious reasons, not very sad to see all that go, beginning with the long-awaited defenestration of Dan Rather in 2005. The conservative effort to build alternative institutions had enjoyed some success — National Review and Firing Line prominent among them — but rarely had been able to assert themselves very effectively beyond the role of critic and corrective, “restricted to What Precisely and If and Perhaps and But.” We modern American conservatives always have been too easily ensorcelled by populism and self-deludingly convinced that “the People” are really on our side, only they haven’t realized it yet. The merry dismemberment of the old media cartel and its replacement by an army of citizen-journalists and activists liberated from the parochial smallness of the Harvard-Georgetown-Manhattan circuit seemed, at the time, like an obvious and unadulterated win.

The view from 2020 is a little more complicated.

The flow of information and commentary in 2020 has been significantly, though by no means entirely, disintermediated compared to where things stood in 2004. We have many more competing institutions than we did in 2004: National Review has been joined by a number of newer right-leaning online media operations of varying degrees of quality and responsibility, the left-wing media ecosystem has seen a similar multiplication, and digital publications such as the Daily Beast and the Huffington Post have recreated in digital form many of the virtues and most of the defects of the 20th century’s newspapers and magazines. Thanks in no small part to Steve Jobs and the iPhone, the most important locus of news has moved from the desktop to the pocket, accompanied by more or less exactly the intellectual and emotional degradation one would expect from such a development. Thanks to the work of Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, et al., the proliferation of news sites has been swamped in turn by the almost completely disintermediated intellectual ecosystem of social media, a destructive antidiscourse almost completely dominated by disinformation, juvenile memery, and cultic phenomena such as QAnon and Black Lives Matter — part cult, part low-stakes activism, part role-playing game.

Our political discourse has, inevitably, adapted itself to the new disintermediated environment. And so we have, e.g., Ted Cruz of Princeton and Harvard trying his hand at sophomoric insult comedy and making soy-latte jokes on Twitter. Senator Cruz is a very intelligent man, maybe the smartest man in the Senate, and he isn’t doing this stuff thinking it doesn’t work. It does work. Politician-as-troll is not an obviously unpromising model: It made Donald J. Trump, a game-show host who spent half of his life in bankruptcy court after slamming his own testicles in the cash register more times than anybody can count, president of these United States. Disintermediation doesn’t mean that there are no gatekeepers — it means that instead of a Richard Salant or a Turner Catledge, the gatekeeper is the dumbest and most irresponsible slice of the general public in the form of a bunch of Twitter yahoos who think that algebra is racist or that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a reptilian shape-shifter. Lyndon Johnson worried that he had lost Walter Cronkite. Donald Trump has to worry about losing Twitter.

We traded the snobs for the mobs.

The upside of that trade is that it knocked down the gatekeepers a few pegs and subjected their biases and unspoken priors to more robust competition and critical evaluation. That is mostly to the good: As John Milton argued in Areopagitica, open exchange is the best available antidote for error. The downside of that trade is that those old gatekeepers had been a source of bias but also had been the main source of institutional responsibility and quality control in journalism, and no one in the new media environment is willing — or even able — to fill that role. The new disintermediated media did not replicate the virtues of the New York Times while liberating journalism from its biases; instead, newspapers such as the New York Times (especially its op-ed pages and its election coverage) have come to more closely resemble Twitter — irresponsible, tribal, and careless with the truth. Even the so-called fact-checking operations at Politifact and similar outlets regularly are engaged in outright intellectual dishonesty. This isn’t a technical problem or a market failure: It is a people problem. In a blind taste-test, nine out of ten American media consumers prefer bulls***.

Our political discourse in 2020 is in important ways more free, more diverse, and more robust than it was in 2004. It is also in important ways worse — less intelligent, less honest, less responsible — more full of it. We might have been better off with less but better total media output, meaning, necessarily, a conversation with fewer but better participants. The very suggestion rubs equality-minded Americans the wrong way, and enrages many of them, who will be heard from in the comments. We Americans believe very strongly in equality. But there are many kinds of equality: equality before the law, equality before God, equality of standing among different social or racial groups, etc. Those are matters of principle. But nobody who has ever logged into Twitter or attended a political rally can really believe in genuine equality as a matter of fact. Some people are morons. Some people are liars. We may be equal as a matter of law and as a matter of political standing, but it plainly is not the case that every citizen is equally wise or responsible, or that every voice contributes something of equal value to the national conversation.

American populism — in both its left-wing and right-wing expressions — is predicated on a belief that we suffer from insufficient equality, that We the People are being held back and frustrated by Them the Elites. But we suffer at least as much — in fact, much more — from insufficient hierarchy. We do not have the time or the ability to figure out everything for ourselves, but where do we go for authoritative answers when presidents, senators, and New York Times columnists increasingly are indistinguishable from Twitter trolls, when the most ridiculous and indefensible conspiracy theories are taken as articles of faith on both sides of the aisle, when the academic establishment is held hostage by its own cowardice and incompetence, when “fact-checkers” lie and expertise is perverted for political ends?

I do not know what the answer to that is, but I am pretty sure it is not amplifying the dumbest, angriest, and most dishonest voices in the conversation.

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/09/snobs-or-mobs/ 


Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage