Two more points of prayer on the Supreme Court Dobbs case

Amy Coney Barrett is right about safe haven laws

The Washington Examiner discusses how Amy Coney Barrett has it right regarding the effect of safe haven laws on abortion.

Regardless of what the pro-choice side says, Amy Coney Barrett is correct: No one is forcing a woman to raise a child once he or she is born.

Last week, the Supreme Court justice inquired about safe haven laws during oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The case involves a 2018 Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks, except to protect the life of the mother.

During oral arguments on Wednesday, Barrett mentioned safe haven laws when talking about Roe v. Wade. She said, “Insofar as you and many of your amici focus on the ways in which forced parenting, forced motherhood, would hinder women’s access to the workplace and to equal opportunities, it’s also focused on the consequences of parenting and the obligations of motherhood that flow from pregnancy. Why don’t the safe haven laws take care of that problem? It seems to me that it focuses the burden much more narrowly.”

Safe haven laws offer an easy way for a mother to drop off an unharmed, unwanted newborn baby with no questions asked and without any legal obligation to the child. Depending on the state , a mother may have 72 hours after giving birth or up to 90 days to do so.

States, municipalities, and safe haven locations, including police stations and fire departments, need to do a better job of promoting where safe haven sites are in their respective communities with additional signage. However, Barrett is correct that this is a serious alternative to abortion — and one that doesn’t kill a child.

Safe haven laws exist to prevent unwanted children from being killed. They were implemented in all 50 states as a direct response to infanticide. In Massachusetts, for example, someone gave birth at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and the baby was found dead in a trash can. So the Democratic-dominated Legislature worked with then-Gov. Mitt Romney to enact a safe haven law.

Safe haven laws weren’t in place at the time of the Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey rulings. This vital alternative to abortion came about in the late 1990s and early 2000s. As Texas governor, George W. Bush signed the first one into law in 1999. Therefore, it is something for Supreme Court justices to keep in mind when ruling on this case. It’s something that they didn’t have to consider when deciding those older cases.

(Read where the science takes us regarding the start of life at the Washington Examiner)

The “Baby Moses Law” (signed by then-Governor G. W. Bush) has a story behind it

Oddly, many people do not associate the story of Moses with the “Baby Moses Law.” Although the story of Moses’ beginning (where a baby that would have died is saved when his mother courageously puts the child in a place to be adopted anonymously) fits the situation presented by this law, our society has drifted from its Biblical moorings so much that it no longer recognizes the core stories.

Possibly, this might be part of the reason for the need for the law.

Nonetheless, we need to pray that this law continue to protect children and that the current trend in adoption (especially in Christian families) either continue or accelerate.

The Supreme Court isn’t a medical board or legislature — it shouldn’t make abortion law

The New York Post allows Rich Lowry to observe that the Supreme Court was not created as a legislature (therefore, it should not create any law from whole cloth). Likewise, it is not a medical board (therefore, it has no place in sanctioning medical procedures).

At times, you might have been forgiven for thinking that oral arguments over the Dobbs case were being held before the Health and Human Services Committee of the Pennsylvania state Senate or some other legislative body.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, involving Mississippi’s ban on abortion after 15 weeks, is, of course, the most consequential abortion case to reach the Supreme Court in decades. The arguments, as you would expect, featured plenty of intricate legal discussion. 

They also delved at length into questions of policymaking that aren’t rightly in the ambit of the Supreme Court — and that the court never should have taken on in Roe and Casey, the abortion cases that are on the verge of collapse owing to their manifest constitutional shabbiness.

Indeed, the discussion was relatively light on what is the supposed source of a constitutional right to abortion. The advocates opposed to the Mississippi law located it somewhere in the 14th Amendment, even though, as Justice Samuel Alito pointed out, no one at the time of the amendment’s passage believed it guaranteed a sweeping right to abortion.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor even said at one point that the Supreme Court comes up with decisions all the time that aren’t directly grounded in the Constitution.

In Roe and Casey, the court made the mistake of thinking that it should be the arbiter of a fraught social and moral issue and essentially crafted an abortion policy for the entire nation without any democratic input. Because pro-choicers like the outcome, they have become invested in the notion that Supreme Court precedent, even bad precedent, should stay on the books forevermore. 

One of the more jaw-dropping moments of the arguments was when Alito nearly cornered Biden administration Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar into maintaining that it would have been a mistake for the Supreme Court to overturn its hideous pro-segregation decision in Plessy v. Ferguson too soon.

The conservative justices and the abortion-rights advocates went back and forth on where the court should draw the line on allowing restrictions on abortion. Prelogar and Julie Rickelman, a lawyer representing the Mississippi abortion clinic in the case, insisted that it should be at fetal viability, around 23 or 24 weeks of pregnancy. 

According to Rickelman, the line of viability is “objectively verifiable and doesn’t delve into philosophical questions about when life begins.” This is in doubt, though. Some premature babies have survived after being born at 21 weeks, and many abortion-rights advocates deny that unborn babies have any moral standing at any point in a pregnancy.

Sotomayor said that believing an unborn baby has a right to be protected under law is a religious view. If so, why does the Supreme Court get to impose its “religious view” that the state can protect a fetus after 24 weeks but not before? She and her colleagues sit on the highest court in the land, not the Sanhedrin.

(Read more at the New York Post)

Maybe this COVID pandemic is a God-send, since it may get people to think about getting the court out of enforcing health

Maybe people will see the hypocrisy of shouting “my body, my choice” when it comes to killing a baby, but ignoring another person’s shout of “my body, my choice” when it comes to a jab to their own body.

Maybe people will see how the court has manufactured Roe from whole cloth now that both unelected and not-soon-to-face-election Democrats (and some RINOs, like Cheney) run roughshod over liberties in the name of a largely-manufactured crisis of COVID.

So, we need to pray for the opening of our own eyes to the predicament within our nation, our ability to communicate in a convincing and winsome way (but not childish), and the direction of our nation from here.


Three Trump court wins during the week before Thanksgiving and some foreshadowing of a Trump win

Since the main stream press does not report on these, here are the multiple wins which I found in alternative media.

A judge halts Pennsylvania from taking further steps in certifying its election results

Townhall discusses in a 25 November 2020 article how a judge’s decision slows the progress of Pennsylvania toward being certified for Biden.

Does this mean the certification of PA’s results has been reversed? No.

Well, I shouldn’t say that; that’s what Democrats say.

It’s a separate legal challenge filed by state Republicans. It’s unlikely to reverse the course of what has transpired in the Keystone State this election. Joe Biden was certified the winner. You’re never going to convince me that the election results for 2020 were legitimate, given the scores of voter fraud allegations, but the material that could have been used as evidence has been destroyed. And the bar to toss ballots is higher than Everest, so I doubt this will lead to major changes, but never say never around the holidays. As of now, further steps to verify PA’s election results have been halted by a judge. A hearing is slated for Friday (via Fox News):

A Pennsylvania state court issued an injunction Wednesday blocking any potential further certification of election results in the state, pending a hearing to be held Friday.

The order from Judge Patricia McCullough comes in the case brought by Pennsylvania voters including Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., in which they allege that a state law allowing for no-excuse absentee voting violated the Pennsylvania constitution, which outlines specific cases where absentee voting is allowed.

[T]o the extent that there remains any further action to perfect the certification of the results of the 2020 General Election … for the office of President and Vice President of the United States of America, Respondents are preliminarily enjoined from doing so, pending an evidentiary hearing[,]’” McCullough wrote.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro quickly responded on Twitter, pointing out that this does not have much impact since the results of the presidential election have already been certified and electors chosen.


As for any other races in November’s elections that may not have been certified, state officials are barred from certifying the results of any election that has not already been certified.

The Trump legal team is still fighting the certification of PA’s results, but this is certainly a Black Friday development. We’ll keep you updated.

(Read more at Townhall)

There are hundreds of witnesses to this fraud; therefore, the chances of the delay going long seem high

As noted in numerous comments at Bunkerville, The Conservative Treehouse, and elsewhere, only a few things outnumber the hundreds of documented cases of voter fraud. If any or a sampling of these affidavits become translated into courtroom testimony that must be heard before things progress toward the Supreme Court, then there might be some delay.

Still, one of the things that might outnumber the media-mentioned, documented cases of voter fraud might be the instances where apologists in the main stream media try to
explain away or discount
the media-mentioned, documented cases of voter fraud.

Additionally, the number of groups who try to claim victimhood (based on illegal votes not being counted) might outnumber the media-mentioned, documented cases of voter fraud.

Trump win in Nevada

Townhall covers the legal team win in Nevada in a 25 November 2020 article.

For the most part, it’s been something of a disaster for the Trump legal team, but I will say they are scrappy and are not giving up. Yet, time is a resource that is in very short supply. Rush Limbaugh and Fox News’ Tucker Carlson have called out the Trump legal effort for hosting press conferences promising bombshell evidence that has yet to be revealed. We’re still waiting, but the Trump team did score a big legal win in Nevada, where a judge granted a motion allowing the campaign to present its evidence regarding voter fraud. Paul Bedard of the Washington Examiner says it could set the precedent for other state challenges:

In its first court victory, a Nevada judge has agreed to let the Trump campaign present its evidence that fraud and illegalities plagued the state’s election, enough to reverse Joe Biden’s win and set an example for other state challenges.

According to Trump officials, the judge set a Dec. 3 hearing date and is allowing 15 depositions. What’s more, the campaign plans to present its evidence that could result in the rejection of tens of thousands of mail-in ballots in Democratic Clark County where Biden ballots outnumbered Trump ballots by 91,000 in unofficial results.


Oddly, there has been a virtual news blackout of the Trump court victory. However, there were major headlines on the state Supreme Court’s certification of Biden’s victory Tuesday.

In its court filing from Nov. 17, the Trump team made several allegations of voter fraud, including votes by nonresidents and the dead.


But its biggest claim was that the signatures on hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots were not verified by human officials, as required by law.

What’s more, they found that officials used a machine to verify signatures, apparently against the rules, and even those machines were plagued with problems.

(Read more at Townhall)

Odd that (among all the times that the press has been treating Biden as if he is already President) the press cannot mention the wins in Nevada and Pennsylvania

If either the Pennsylvania case (or the related affidavits of fraud) or the Nevada case had an effect on the outcome of the election, the consumers of the product of that main stream press might feel mislead.

Pennsylvania judge opines State’s mail-in ballot procedures likely illegal

NewsMax reports in a 28 November 2020 article on the Pennsylvania judge’s opinion.

A Pennsylvania judge who Nov. 25 blocked the state from going forward with additional steps that might be required to certify the state’s presidential vote said in a written opinion that changes to the Pennsylvania’s mail-in balloting procedures were likely illegal.

The order is delayed while the Pennsylvania Supreme Court considers the case, filed by Pennsylvania Republicans, on an expedited basis. Friday night’s opinion simply provides the judge’s reasoning for ordering a temporary delay.

It is unclear exactly what further steps in the process can be delayed, but the plaintiffs suggested there were several, including the assembly of electors. The Electoral College vote to certify the Nov. 3 election results does not take place until Dec. 14.

A federal appeals court Friday had rejected President Donald Trump’s attempt to revive a lawsuit in which his campaign was seeking to undo Pennsylvania’s certification Joe Biden’s victory in the state.

A three-judge panel resoundingly dismissed the campaign’s goal of striking out tens of thousands of ballots, saying there were no claims of fraud in the lawsuit, or proof.

The decision potentially tees the case up for the U.S. Supreme Court, and the president has openly mused the 6-3 conservative majority could deliver the election to him. But most legal experts doubt the high court will take up a case which will not change the race. Biden would still win the presidency without Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes, and Georgia, Michigan and Nevada have also certified results in his favor.

“Voters, not lawyers, choose the president,” the federal appeals court in Philadelphia said.
“Ballots, not briefs, decide elections. The ballots here are governed by Pennsylvania election law. No federal law requires poll watchers or specifies where they must live or how close they may stand when votes are counted. Nor does federal law govern whether to count ballots with minor state-law defects or let voters cure those defects.”

In its ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit took apart the Trump campaign’s legal arguments, as it refused to force the lower-court judge who dismissed the case to allow the campaign to file a revised complaint.

(Read more at NewsMax)

As noted with the previous articles in this post, why won’t the main stream media mention things that might benefit the Trump case?

Why won’t they mention the hundreds of affidavits? Why won’t they mention the expert testimony? Why won’t they mention the real voters who have been disenfranchised by Democrat operatives who cheated?

Foreshadowing of a Trump win

A case of following the Constitution is painted as helping President Trump

As reported by Bloomberg, one set of liberals think that the Supreme Court has laid out a path to help President Trump in a contested race.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservatives started carving a path that could let President Donald Trump win a contested election, issuing a far-reaching set of opinions just as Amy Coney Barrett was getting Senate confirmation to provide what could be a crucial additional vote.

In a 5-3 decision released minutes before the Senate vote Monday night, the court rejected Democratic calls to reinstate a six-day extension for the receipt of mail ballots in Wisconsin, a hotly contested state that is experiencing a surge of Covid-19 cases. The Supreme Court as a whole gave no explanation for the decision.

The outcome was bad enough for Democrats, but an opinion by Trump-appointed Justice Brett Kavanaugh bordered on catastrophic. Kavanaugh suggested sympathy for Trump’s unsubstantiated contentions that votes received after Election Day would be tainted by fraud, warning that “charges of a rigged election could explode” if late-arriving ballots change the perceived outcome.

Most states “want to avoid the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election,” Kavanaugh wrote. “And those states also want to be able to definitively announce the results of the election on election night, or as soon as possible thereafter.”

(Read more of Bloomberg on MSN)

How is following the rules construed as a plot to (unfairly) support one side?

How is equal application of the law a plot?

Admittedly, Democrats should know a plot in regard to the Supreme Court. It seems that Senator Harris was accusing then-Judge Kavanaugh of actions untoward for a potential justice. It also seems that Senator Biden led the push to accuse then-Judge Thomas of placing a pubic hair on a Diet Coke can. Additionally, while the confirmation of Justice Coney-Barrett held nothing near the animosity generated in the cases of Thomas or Kavanaugh, Democrats did not make friends with her.

A case of not counting illegal votes is painted as disenfranchising Blacks

As reported by the Detroit NBC affiliate, another set of liberals think that by not counting illegal votes, Trump disenfranchises Black voters.

Three Detroit voters have joined a local organization in suing President Trump and his campaign over their effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

The Michigan Welfare Rights Organization, along with three Detroit residents, filed a lawsuit against the Trump campaign Friday, arguing that the campaign is seeking to disenfranchise Black voters in their attempt to block the certification of Michigan votes — especially those from Wayne County.

“Having lost the vote in Michigan and other states that are necessary for a majority of the electoral college, President Trump and the Donald J. Trump For President, Inc. Campaign are engaged in a campaign to overturn the results of the election by blocking certification of the results, on the (legally incorrect) theory that blocking certification would allow state legislatures to override the will of the voters and choose the Trump Campaign’s slate of electors,” the complaint reads.

The lawsuit, filed on the plaintiffs’ behalf by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, claims that President Trump and his campaign are in violation of section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which states: “No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for urging or aiding any person to vote or attempt to vote.”

(Read more at Click on Detroit)

How can the NAACP tell that the illegal votes were Black?

If we are going to start ignoring the legal and counting the illegal, let’s start by applying that standard to anything legally filed by a liberal group.

It seems that Obama’s IRS was allowed to get away with discriminating against the Tea Party groups on a whim. So, until we can get everything set right, let’s turn it around on them.

A series of tweets that pull out the best of the ACB hearings today

While we don’t have the circus of the Kavanaugh hearings, we do have some sterling moments

Because I feel that I have spent too much time on some of the negatives pulled out of the ether by Democrats, I have compiled a mostly positive set of Twitter videos encapsulating the ACB hearings today.

Eight stories disproving myths about Democrats

  1. Liberals do not have compassion for the worker

American Airlines to begin furloughing 19,000 workers because Pelosi cannot agree to deal

Breitbart reports in a 30 September 2020 article that Pelosi’s dedication to bailing out liberal states outweighs any compassion for as many as 36,000 workers in the airline industry.

American Airlines said it will begin furloughing 19,000 workers after lawmakers and the White House can’t agree on a coronavirus relief deal.

The major airlines have held off on layoffs and mass furloughs under the terms of a $25 billion payroll support program Congress passed in March. The deal was aimed at helping the airlines cope with shutdowns, quarantines, and a crash in bookings, but at the time it was passed, lawmakers believed demand for air travel would recover in a few months.

The March legislation’s ban on cutting jobs expires October 1. Demand for air travel has recovered a bit since the depths of March and April, but passenger volume remains 70 percent below pre-pandemic levels.

Airline executives say they simply cannot avoid eliminating jobs and furloughing employees without a new round of relief from Congress.

American Airlines Chief Executive Doug Parker said in a letter to employees that he stood ready to reverse the furloughs if lawmakers reach a deal, according to Reuters.

Pelosi-MiddleEastPeaceA_DiversionU.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said on Fox News on Thursday that talks with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had made progress, but no deal has been reached. Democrats have resisted reaching a deal with Republicans, with some Democratic politicians and strategists worried that any deal to boost the economy might help Trump’s re-election efforts. Some liberal activists oppose any deals with the Trump administration under any circumstances.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called a proposed $2.2 trillion coronavirus relief  package from the Democrats “outlandish.”

President Trump has told Capitol Hill Republicans that he would prefer a bill that spent more than the earlier Republican proposal that was rejected by Democrats to no deal at all.

(Read more at Breitbart)

If this were only support for the workers, maybe then it would get more support in Congress

However, seeing that anti-American companies like American Airlines, Delta Airlines, and Frontier Airlines (who are among a group of airlines who have harried air marshals over politically-correct issues) will be among the companies impinged, I worry about it. If these companies did not fly the BLM flag at their corporate headquarters while they push pc concepts, then maybe I might care.

Here’s an idea for them: since BLM has received billions in donations, maybe they can get a bailout from BLM.

  1. Liberals do not stick up for truth and the little guy

Rittenhouse lawyers demand Biden retract the claim he is a “White Supremacist”

Townhall reviews the demand by Kyle Rittenhouse’s lawyers that Joe Biden retract the comment made during the debate alleging that Kyle is a “White Supremacist.”

Lawyers for Kyle Rittenhouse, one of the alleged shooters in Kenosha, Wisconsin, are demanding Joe Biden’s Democratic presidential campaign retract their claim that the 17-year-old is a white supremacist in a tweet sent on Wednesday.

The Biden campaign tweeted a video overlaid with the question from Fox News anchor Chris Wallace to President Trump to disavow white supremacists. As the video played, it included a picture of Rittenhouse.

Rittenhouse’s lawyers tweeted that the Biden campaign needs to make a public retraction:

“There is absolutely no evidence, not even a pinch, of this defamatory accusation that my client Kyle Rittenhouse is a ‘white supremacist’ — none. My client is a 17-year-old patriotic, dutiful American boy who came to ‘help people,’ that’s in his own words. These words and his Good Samaritan actions are on videos being shared all over social media from that night in Kenosha,” said Marina Medvin, who is also a senior columnist for Townhall and is one of Rittenhouse’s criminal defense lawyers.

“There is no evidence of him being a ‘white supremacist.’ This dangerous storyline was concocted by online trolls and then parroted by mindless politicians and pundits. The flagrant defamation needs to stop. They can retract and apologize, or they can deal with Lin Wood in court. It’s their choice,” she continued. “As for the criminal charges, I am not going to address the issues of self-defense before trial. What I will say is this— there are countless lies being spread about Kyle Rittenhouse— lies about him crossing state lines into Wisconsin with a rifle and lies about him coming to Kenosha to shoot people — and these are absolutely false. The lies and propaganda need to stop.”

Rittenhouse is accused of shooting three people during the height of the riots in Kenosha. Videos compiled from that night, including video taken by Townhall, shows Rittenhouse running away from Joesph Rosenbaum before being cornered in a car parking lot. An eyewitness said Rittenhouse fired after Rosenbaum lunged for his rifle.

Prior to the first shooting, Rosenbaum was seen being aggressive towards the group of armed civilians who were out protecting businesses from rioters.

(Read the closing points at Townhall)

Has Biden been planning this?

Maybe this has been planned from the beginning by the Biden campaign, since the Miami Herald now reports that Rittenhouse’s attorneys have set in motion a lawsuit due to Biden including the claim in an advertisement. At first, it seemed like another stupid statement by brainless Joe, but now it seems to be a campaign in itself to defame Kyle Rittenhouse.

Maybe this is being done to distract the conservatives from the fact that a socialist White supremacist (Richard Spencer) has endorsed Joe Biden.

Or maybe this is supposed to get us to overlook the fact that entering opens up to the Biden fundraising page.

  1. Liberals are not the moral compass of America

Left-wing double standard: Biden good Catholic, Barrett bad Catholic

Breitbart comments in a 30 September 2020 article on Democrat hypocrisy of supporting Biden while condemning Barrett. Think of this: Biden has been a politician who has promoted the killing of babies up to and beyond 9 months of development in the womb. Add to that the other Democrat stances that go against Christian doctrine. Despite this, the press promotes him as a “faithful Catholic” (much as they want to make us think Pelosi is the same). Now consider Amy Barrett, who lives out her faith and is the mother of seven (including 1 handicapped and 2 Haitian girls). Because of her potential decisions that might impinge on abortion, the Democrats are staging another snit-fit lie session much like the concocted Kavanaugh lies by Christine Blasey-Ford.

Democrats, the media, and leftwing activists generally faun over former Vice President Joe Biden for his Catholic faith while claiming Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett’s Catholicism is a threat that must not infiltrate the institution.

This narrative continues even as people across the political spectrum have praised Barrett’s superior qualifications for joining the bench.

Tax-payer funded and anti-Trump National Public Radio (NPR) provides one example of the double standard about the right and the wrong kind of Catholic.

On September 20, NPR reported on Biden’s faith in an article titled, “How Joe Biden’s Faith Shapes His Politics”:

When Joe Biden seeks to inspire or comfort, he turns to his faith. He speeches are woven with references to God, biblical language, or the pope.

Biden, who carries a rosary in his pocket and attends Mass every Sunday, is known as a deeply devout person of faith, and his campaign sees electoral implications in that — in part because Biden has tried to frame this election as a clear moral contrast between Trump and himself.

Some Democrats would go so far as to say that Biden is running perhaps the most overtly devout Democratic presidential campaign since Jimmy Carter in 1976.

NPR did not report on the controversy Joe Biden’s pro-abortion stance has played in practicing his faith, including during the presidential primary when he was denied communion at a Catholic church in South Carolina.

Fast forward to September 29 after President Donald Trump announced Barrett as his nominee. NPR said her “Catholicism is controversial” in its report on her religious background and beliefs:

Not all Catholic justices think alike. Sonia Sotomayor and Clarence Thomas, both Catholic, are ideological opposites. A strict adherence to Catholic teaching may lead a justice in contrasting directions, from opposing abortion and same sex marriage, to advocating for immigrants and expanded health care, or to opposing the death penalty.

If Amy Coney Barrett’s religious beliefs were to be raised during her confirmation hearings, it would presumably be because her Catholic faith appears to be of unusual intensity and character.

The possible impact of Barrett’s Catholicism on her jurisprudence has continued to be a subject of speculation in part because of her reported membership in a conservative Catholic “covenant” community known as People of Praise. The organization, which also includes some non-Catholics, holds to highly traditional social views and has been subject to critical reviews in progressive circles.


After pointing out that Democrats attacked Barrett about her faith three years ago when she was up for confirmation to the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, McGurn cited the upcoming confirmation hearings:

This time the religion-based attacks have largely zeroed in on People of Praise, a charismatic Christian community to which Judge Barrett and her husband belong. Because it holds traditional views of marriage and family, the idea is that anyone who belongs, especially a woman, must be willfully backward and perhaps a little creepy. Newsweek even ran a story claiming — falsely — that People of Praise was the inspiration for Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale.”

You might think that Judge Barrett’s extraordinary life — as a distinguished law professor, as a highly regarded appellate judge, and as a woman who will become the first Supreme Court mom with school-age children — might occasion a rethink of prejudices against religious moms with large families. Or about Jesse Barrett, the very model of a husband who supports his wife in her chosen career.

Instead, this accomplished professional is painted as a helpless female living in her own little Gilead. If the Democrats and their allies keep it up, these attacks will undo all the work Mr. Biden has undertaken to persuade the American voter his campaign is friendly to religion and committed to restoring decency to our civic life.

McGurn concluded by saying that Biden should be pressed on whether he’ll insist the same standard used to measure his religiosity should also be applied to Barrett.

(Read the whole article at Breitbart)

As far as I am concerned, I got sick of the double standard years ago with Justice Clarence Thomas

However, I also got a refresher course during the Trump-Wallace debate (where Wallace interrupted President Trump five times more often than he interrupted Biden.

You know, maybe President Trump did interrupt. Listen to the recordings of the debate. Both Biden and Trump interrupted one another. However, there was only one who referred to the other as a “clown.”

Back during the Obama administration, a member of Congress shouted out “You lie” in response to a portion of Barack’s lying claims during that year’s State of the Union Address. In response, the Democrat press came unglued (claiming that the proclamation was nothing but disrespectful). Now, the press wants to focus on the Proud Boys, who it calls a White Supremacist group despite the many photographs of members showing Black, Hispanic, and Asian members. Why doesn’t the press focus on the former Senator and Vice President who has not shown respect for the office? Why do they want to allege a racist connection between President Trump and the Proud Boys when there is a known connection between Joe Biden and Robert Byrd and Strom Thurmond (two members of the KKK)? Why not mention the endorsement by the White Supremacist Socialist?

  1. Liberals do not learn from their mistakes

Liberals used the nuclear option, made an election-year Supreme Court nomination, complained when Republicans did the same, and now threaten to add states, kill the filibuster, and pack the Supreme Court if they win the Presidency and Senate

Breitbart quotes Chuck Schumer as he fantasizes over burying Republicans by adding Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico as states and packing the Supreme Court.

On Wednesday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “The ReidOut,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said that he would “love to” make D.C. and Puerto Rico states and addressed the prospect of ending the filibuster if Democrats take the Senate by stating, “I’m not busting my chops to become majority leader to do very little or nothing. We are going to get a whole lot done. And as I’ve said, everything, everything is on the table.”

Schumer said that Senate Democrats are “using all the tactics we can” to slow down Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court confirmation.

(Read more at Breitbart)

Democrats have already been stabbed on their own knife twice. They are trying for times 3, 4, 5, and 6

After getting stabbed with their own metaphorical knife twice during a knife fight with Republicans, one would think that Democrats would stop providing the means of their own destruction. But if they bring in Puerto Rico and D.C., then Texas could break up into West Texas, South Texas, North Texas, and East Texas. With the same number of House members but four times the Senators, it could make things interesting.

As I understand it, though, D.C. cannot become a state without an amendment to the Constitution.

  1. The Democrat press has doubled down on lying

AP issues guidance for reporters to lie about left-wing violence

Townhall comments on the changes within the Associated Press that should stop our reading of their articles for true information.

Mobs of violent left-wing kooks have been roaming the streets of American cities for months terrorizing residents, murdering Trump supporters, beating people to a pulp, shooting police officers, and assaulting people in their vehicles. But you wouldn’t know any of this if you consumed news exclusively from the mainstream media because the mainstream media doesn’t want you to know about it.

The Associated Press (AP) issues guidelines, closely adhered to by many journalists, dictating what words are politically correct at the time and what words to avoid. The AP issued new guidance on Wednesday telling journalists to avoid using the word “riot” when covering leftwing events and refrain from reporting on property destruction because, according to the AP, such reporting has been used in the past as a way to stigmatize protests against lynching and racial injustice. To the AP, it’s not the job of journalists to report the news. It’s the job of journalists to advance a left-wing narrative.

The AP dictates that “unrest” should be used instead of the word “riot” because it’s less “emotional.” The AP then points out how great the words “protest” and “demonstration” are because both words can technically refer to violent and peaceful gatherings alike and help gloss over the violence.

(Read more at Townhall)

We have come to expect that (since the press has reported more negatively on Trump from the beginning)

On 17 August 2020, Fox News reported that the press reported negatively on President Trump 150 times more often than they did with Biden.

Of course, this goes back as least as far as early 2017 (when Pew found Trump gathered 82% more negative coverage than other presidents).

Still, it does not make it any more acceptable to lie.

  1. Democrats are not the party of police officers, but the party of “defund police”

Forty Minneapolis restaurants ask mayor for help due to fear that perception of lawlessness has impacted businesses

The Daily Caller reports in a 30 September 2020 article that restaurateurs have gone to the mayor of Minneapolis due to the lawlessness of the city.

Forty Minneapolis restaurants asked Democratic Mayor Jacob Frey to prioritize public safety downtown amid concerns that crime in the city could threaten the viability of businesses, CBS Minnesota reported.

The letter urges Frey to create a plan of action to make public safety a priority in order to drive business in the area. Tanya Spaulding, who lives and works in downtown Minneapolis and is representing the restaurants in the letter, says the city is at a turning point and business owners need city leadership to focus on combating crime, according to CBS Minnesota.

“We want them to address that there is an issue in downtown that needs to be fixed now, before downtown Minneapolis goes in the wrong direction for good,” Spaulding said. “What is the plan of action? We want zero tolerance for the crime, for the harassment, for the assaults, for the theft. and we want the greater community to know it is not lawless. There is law here.”

Violence surged in Minneapolis in the weeks following the death of George Floyd.

Floyd died after a Minneapolis Police officer knelt on his neck for nearly 9 minutes May 25. The crime surge came as the Minneapolis City Council voted unanimously to dismantle the city’s police department and switch to a “community-based” public safety system.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

Maybe I could remind you of who has garnered the support of police

Let me remind you of the stories from July (when the riots had only been going on for months) where Trump received endorsements from Florida, New York, and nation-wide. Conversely, police groups stood against the Biden campaign.

  1. Democrat talking points for the past 3 years cannot be trusted

DNI letter proves Obama, Clinton approved Russia hoax

One America News Network reports that a DNI letter outlines how Obama was briefed on how Clinton

The Director of National Intelligence declassified documents detailing former President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s alleged roles in making false ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.

On Tuesday, John Ratcliffe issued a statement saying he will release handwritten notes of Obama’s meetings with then-CIA chief John Brennan back in 2016 at the request of Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

The notes allege 2016 Democrat presidential nominee Clinton approved plans for her campaign to pin the hacking of the DNC on the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. Further, the document claims the FBI briefed then-President Obama shortly after Clinton’s approval of the plan.

Meanwhile, some reports are saying the declassified information is unverified Russian disinformation. However, Ratcliffe released a follow up statement responding to those claims saying the Intelligence Community has not assessed it as being false.


This all comes amid longstanding concerns the Obama-era Intelligence Community may have had a left-wing anti-Trump bias. Former FBI Director James Comey is scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday about operation Crossfire Hurricane.

Graham has said that hearing will focus on whether there was preferential treatment when it came to alleged corruption in the Clinton campaign compared to allegations against the Trump campaign.

(Read more at the One America News Network)

In the least, someone print a copy of this to hang around Obama’s neck every time he enters public life

This really should be his scarlet letter.

  1. For a Democrat, his word is not his bond

Biden keeps flipping on the central issue of energy

The Daily Caller points out how Biden has flipped repeatedly on the central issue of energy.

The fact Joe Biden is trying to rebrand himself as an environmental moderate proves one thing: he really thinks we’re stupid.

During the first presidential debate, Biden told the world he suddenly doesn’t support the radical Green New Deal. However, his fake run to the center is no surprise to those who have followed his fumbling green flip-flops over the last year or even the last month.

In the very last Democratic debate, Biden quickly agreed with Bernie Sanders in saying he wants to ban all new fracking in the United States. Then, just a few short months later, Biden had to face the very energy workers who use fracking to deliver power to our country, where he flipped and said he’s now against a full fracking ban.

The message is simple: No matter if you’re an oil worker from rural America or a socialist congresswoman from New York, Joe Biden needs you to believe he agrees with you about everything.

To be fair, Joe Biden is consistent in his support for fracking under very special circumstances. First, the fracking has to take place in Ukraine. Second, the company doing the fracking has to be delivering his son a paycheck. However, if you’re an energy worker in the United States and you’re not related to Joe Biden, your job is on the chopping block.

After Tuesday’s debate it’s going to be hard for Joe Biden to explain how he is against the Green New Deal even though his running mate sponsored the bill in the Senate. Biden would have us believe he either didn’t know Senator Harris is a major supporter of extreme environmentalism, or that we’re too stupid to figure it out.

The worst part of Biden’s green shell game is what his plan would actually mean for America. On Tuesday night, Biden wanted us all to know he has a different plan than the Green New Deal, but it’s clear he didn’t expect anyone outside of a supportive Chris Wallace to read it.

Spoiler: under the Biden “please don’t call it the Green New Deal” plan, Americans will have to buy a new electric vehicle in the near future while watching their power bill skyrocket. The plan is so extreme, even Biden’s strongest supporters want no part of it.

In energy-rich New Mexico, the Democratic congresswoman who said she will vote for Biden said the plan he supports is “out of touch with the reality on the ground.” The state’s governor, who Biden appointed to lead his transition team, has floated the idea of seeking a waiver from the Biden plan if he’s elected. Keep in mind, those are Biden’s supporters.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

I wouldn’t call his supporters stupid, but I might call them crazy

I would call his supporters crazy because they are gambling on this man being true to them while betraying the rest of those to whom he made promises. They may gamble right, but soon, they will not.