See the source image


SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/37107-162-house-democrats-vote-against-antisemitism-amendment-to-rights-bill;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

After Representative Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) proposed an amendment to the Equity and Inclusion Enforcement Act (H.R. 2574) adding antisemitism to race, color, or national origin as a form of discrimination to be prohibited by the act, 162 Democrats in the House voted against Foxx’s amendment.

“With anti-Semitism on the rise around the world, the need for this amendment is clear,” Foxx said,

The summary of H.R. 2574 said that the bill “authorizes private civil causes of action for disparate impact violations … of federal regulations of general applicability that prohibit discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national origin in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance.” The stated purpose of the bill, which was introduced by two Democrats, Bobby Scott of Virginia and John Conyers, Jr. of Michigan, was to strengthen Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by restoring “the right to individual civil actions in cases involving disparate impact.”

Most Republicans, including Foxx, initially opposed H.R. 2574. Foxx stated during debate: “The consequences of this legislation within the education community are very clear. The creation of a private right of action would lead to additional burdens on already taxed State and local agencies, especially school systems who would have to defend themselves against tenuous allegations advanced by parents and activists.”

When the speaker pro tempore asked Foxx, “Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?” Foxx answered, “I am in its present form.”

Foxx then moved to insert an amendment into the text that included this wording: “Antisemitism Considered Discrimination. — In carrying out the responsibilities of the recipient under this title, the employee or employees designated under this section shall consider antisemitism to be discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin as prohibited by this title.” 

Foxx continued: “If this House is going to radically rewrite title VI, as this bill does, we should use this opportunity to show commitment to combating anti-Semitism.”

One might think that this language would appeal to most Democrats, who usually describe themselves as champions of all minorities. However the vote indicated differently. While 66 Democrats voted for the amendment, enough to pass it when added to the votes of 189 Republicans, 162 voted “nay.” Among the 162 were all four members of the “squad” — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Rashida Tlaib (Mich.), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), and Ayanna Pressley (Mass.)

H.R. 2574 passed in the House on September 16 by a vote of 232-188 and now goes on to the Senate. If the Senate passes it, President Trump will likely veto it. 

A September 14 statement issued by the Executive Office of the President begins: “The Administration strongly opposes passage of H.R. 2574.” The statement continues: “Granting a private cause of action for enforcement of such regulations would inevitably lead to a massive expansion of litigation involving recipients of Federal financial assistance, diverting resources toward litigation and away from education.” It concludes: “If H.R. 2574 were presented to the President, his advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.”

Related articles:

Do Democrats Have an Anti-Semitism Problem?

The Continuing Scourge of Anti-Semitism



We confirm justices to interpret the Constitution, not to dictate through “dying wishes” who their successors should be or when they should be nominated
The Hill
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Mitch McConnell: "This is a man who does not care about a dying woman's final wish."


SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/37101-burn-congress-down-elite-dems-leftists-urge-violence-if-rbg-is-replaced-before-election;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

It’s not enough that this year’s rioting and looting have hurt innocent people, destroyed their businesses, and even taken some of their lives. Now pseudo-elite Democrats/leftists are calling for another violent response — if President Trump and the Senate exercise their constitutionally granted power and replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg before the election.

Ginsburg died Friday at age 87 of complications from metastatic pancreatic cancer. Since then, a firestorm has arose, with Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell resolving to quickly fill the vacant Supreme Court seat and Democrats insisting that November 3rd’s winner be allowed to choose Ginsburg’s replacement.

The Street Rabble Are No Longer Just in the Street

“Elections have consequences,” said Barack Obama shortly after his 2009 inauguration. Yet prominent writers, a professor, and an ex-CNN host are among the leftists singing a different tune now that they’re out of power, essentially saying that the consequence of their losing elections will be destruction.

As the Daily Mail reports on the Ginsburg-oriented threats:

Reza Aslan, a religious scholar and former CNN host, tweeted to his 293,000 followers: ‘If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire f****** thing down.’ 

... Beau Willimon, a screenwriter who produced the U.S. version of House of Cards and the president of the Writers Guild of America, East, told his 164,000 followers: We’re shutting this country down if Trump and McConnell try to ram through an appointment before the election.’

Another writer predicted riots. 

‘If McConnell jams someone through, which he will, there will be riots,’ said Laura Bassett, a political journalist writing for GQ and the Washington Post.

Author Aaron Gouveia, whose latest book is about toxic masculinity, tweeted:  ‘F*** no. Burn it all down.’ 

And a professor of political science repeated calls for arson attacks on Congress.  

Emmett Macfarlane, who teaches at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada, tweeted: ‘Burn Congress down before letting Trump try to appoint anyone to SCOTUS.’

A member of the Wisconsin Ethics Commission, responsible for administering state laws regarding campaign finance, ethics and lobbying, echoed the urging for violence.

When Ed Markey, senate candidate for Massachusetts, said that McConnell should not nominate a replacement in an election year, Scot Ross tweeted: ‘F****** A, Ed. If you can’t shut it down, burn it down.’

It’s truly striking. The United States had always been known for exhibiting what we’d previously taken for granted: The peaceful transfer of power — and respect for its lawful exercise. Now we’re starting to resemble a Third World nation, where violence and underhanded dealings elevate leaders as much as, if not more than, free and fair elections.

Speaking of which, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has also gotten in on the act (and in many cases it is an “act”), as she “on Sunday refused to rule out pushing forward a privileged impeachment resolution that would have the effect of eating up Senate floor time and potentially stalling a Supreme Court nomination,” reported the Mail in a different article.

“We have our options,” said Pelosi. “We have arrows in our quiver.”

(The speaker certainly is perturbed. But I would recommend, Nancy, that you be more fatalistic and remember some counsel I once heard you give: “People will do what they do.”) 

Returning to the approval of violence, it’s beginning to appear a pattern with pseudo-elites. Just about a week ago, in fact, some leftists essentially applauded the shooting of police officers.

As for the SCOTUS vacancy, both parties are fending off accusations of hypocrisy. For “Ginsburg’s death immediately recalled how Republicans resisted a vote on former President Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland while Democrats told the other side it was their job to confirm another justice,” writes TheSpectator.Info.

Moreover, the Spectator relates Barack Obama as saying that a “basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment.”

Of course, this is the same man who said in 2010 “I am not king” when explaining why he couldn’t unilaterally alter immigration law, but then did so anyway in instituting DACA. In contrast, the only “law” involved in the SCOTUS vacancy’s filling is the constitutional provision stating that the president and Senate have the rightful power to fill it. The GOP’s 2016 rationale for not voting on Garland was just that — a rationale — not a “law.”

Moreover, some Republicans are saying the rationale is actually that a SCOTUS seat should not be filled during an election year when the White House and Senate are controlled by different parties. As McConnell put it Friday, “Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year.”

Of course, here’s reality: The Democrats wouldn’t flinch from filling the seat were the roles reversed. Alluding to this, I tweeted the following yesterday:

The point is that the Democrats are seeking power by any means necessary, including vote fraud and Big Tech manipulation (and violence) — and the application of socialist revolutionary Saul Alinsky’s RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

Then there’s guilt. That is, leftists insist we must respect Ginsburg’s “dying wish,” which allegedly was that she not be replaced until after the presidential election. Below is avowed socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) making this appeal, saying on video that McConnell is “a man who does not care about a dying woman’s final wish.”

First, this “dying wish” claim could be a ploy — and one that puts Ginsburg in a bad light. For we’re to believe that in her final moments her thoughts weren’t about God or her ultimate destination, but about politics and power.

Regardless, there’s an irony here. Despite Democrats’ talk about “consistency” and abiding by laws, what they’ve consistently done is appoint “living Constitution” justices who violate the law, engaging in judicial activism and imposing their will from the bench.

Now they want a judge to be able to impose her will even after death.

And the consequence for defying this postmortem judicial activism, say some pseudo-elites, is violence in Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s name. Hey, nothing proves your devotion to the rule of law like threatening insurrection.

Selwyn Duke (@SelwynDuke) has written for The New American for more than a decade. He has also written for The Hill, Observer, The American Conservative, WorldNetDaily, American Thinker, and many other print and online publications. In addition, he has contributed to college textbooks published by Gale-Cengage Learning, has appeared on television, and is a frequent guest on radio.




SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2020/09/21/breaking-trump-indicates-when-hell-announce-scotus-nominee-n948033;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

During an exclusive interview on Fox & Friends Monday morning, President Trump revealed that his list of potential Supreme Court nominees to fill the vacancy left by Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been narrowed down to five and that he’ll announce his choice Friday or Saturday.

“The bottom line is we won the election, we have an obligation to do what’s right and act as quickly as possible,” Trump said. “I think it will be on Friday or Saturday and we want to pay respect. It looks like we will have services on Thursday or Friday, as I understand it, and I think we should, with all due respect for Justice Ginsburg, wait for services to be over.”

Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on Friday from metastatic pancreatic cancer. She was 87 years old.

Democrats have vowed to do anything in their power to either stop the nomination or retaliate afterward. Nancy Pelosi refused to rule out using impeachment as a tactic to tie up the Senate to keep it from confirming a replacement. Chuck Schumer has also threatened to pack the court next year if Trump proceeds with the nomination.

But Democrats were previously all for election-year nominations to the Supreme Court.

“I made it absolutely clear that I would go forward with the confirmation process, as chairman — even a few months before a presidential election — if the nominee were chosen with the advice, and not merely the consent, of the Senate — just as the Constitution requires,” Biden said back in 2016. “Eight is not a good number for a collegial body that sometimes disagrees.”

Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.”

Editor’s Note: Want to support PJ Media so we can continue telling the truth about what the Left is up to? Join PJ Media VIP TODAY and use the promo code LOYALTY to get 25% off your VIP membership

Matt Margolis is the author of the new book Airborne: How The Liberal Media Weaponized The Coronavirus Against Donald Trumpand the bestselling book The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama. You can follow Matt on Twitter @MattMargolis

McConnell Gets Key Republican Senators to Support Filling SCOTUS Vacancy
Radical Left Threatens Riots, War, and to ‘Burn It Down’ if RBG Replaced
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies at Age 87
Trump Calls for Filling Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Seat ‘Without Delay’


Masks off. Fight on. This is the American way.

See the source image

SEPT 21, 2020

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/09/americans-against-unconstitutional-mask-mandates-michelle-malkin/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Good news: The anti-mask mandate movement is gaining steam. Americans yearning to breathe free are waking up from their pandemic stupor. Common sense and constitutional principles, now more than ever, are vital to a sovereign nation's health.

On Monday, a federal judge rescinded Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf's shutdown orders restricting gatherings, forcing "nonessential" business closures and directing citizens to stay at home to combat COVID-19. U.S. District Judge William Stickman determined that the sweeping measures violated "the right of assembly enshrined in the First Amendment." He noted Wolf's hypocrisy in severely limiting indoor and outdoor fairs, festivals, concerts and other gatherings and condemning a small anti-lockdown protest of small-business owners (whom he called "selfish," "cowardly" and "unsafe") — while marching with thousands of non-socially distancing Black Lives Matter radicals in Harrisburg in June.

Moreover, Stickman ruled, Pennsylvania's stay-at-home order — a sweeping population unlike any "in the history of our Commonwealth and our Country" — violated the 14th Amendment's due process rights to travel, association and privacy. Similarly, Wolf's extreme and open-ended power grab designating and closing "nonessential" businesses undermined due process protections "against arbitrary government action."

While Wolf's measures may have been "well-intentioned," Stickman concluded that "good intentions toward a laudable end are not alone enough to uphold governmental action against a constitutional challenge. Indeed, the greatest threats to our system of constitutional liberties may arise when the ends are laudable, and the intent is good — especially in a time of emergency."

In Florida, conservative lawyer and state House Rep. Anthony Sabatini cheered the defeat of Wolf's draconian COVID-19 orders. "Some in the Judiciary are finally waking up to the fact that the government is not always right — and that the constitution is not suspended during an emergency," he told me. Sabatini has filed 15 ongoing challenges to the Sunshine State's lockdown measures. "We're looking forward to winning."

In Colorado, I joined a similar lawsuit with state House Rep. Pat Neville to challenge Gov. Jared Polis' whopping 166 COVID-19 executive orders, as well as multiple public health orders issued by state and county health departments. As in Pennsylvania, our state Supreme Court declined to hear the case. So we filed in Denver District Court two weeks ago. Polis and other government officials are on notice: No more kings.

Like Americans all across the country, Coloradans have been threatened with civil and criminal penalties for failure to wear a mask in public, and businesses are coerced by the governor into enforcing his mask order with zero input from voters or their elected representatives. Last week, Polis unilaterally extended the mask mandate by another 30 days. Our lawyer, Randy Corporon, laid down the law:

"The Colorado Constitution expressly prohibits the delegation by the legislature of lawmaking authority to the governor. While courts have made limited exceptions for emergency situations, we are now six months into this 'emergency' with a governor who, on his own, extends his superpowers every 30 days. Enough is enough."

Corporon's law firm has filed a companion lawsuit seeking an injunction against "Power Grab" Polis on behalf of the family owners of the Bandimere Speedway — where more than 5,500 patriots joined us at a rally to "Stop the COVID Chaos" two weeks ago. Liberals and "Never-Trumpers" have condemned our constitutionally protected peaceful protest, while downplaying violent BLM and antifa riots that have turned downtown Denver into a Third World hellhole.

We are not alone. Parents in Tennessee are suing to free their children from unlawful and unhealthy mask mandates unsupported by science. Minnesotans have filed multiple lawsuits against Gov. Tim Walz. "It's not the place of government to impose those requirements on us when there is no lawful authority to do so," Doug Seaton, Upper Midwest Law Center President and attorney, argues. "That's something that is against our self-governing principles that we've had in the state of Minnesota since we were a part of the northwest territory. We can't have our governor override the separation of powers and the limited government we have and trample on rights, whatever good the intentions might be."

In Boise, Idaho, this weekend, citizens held an anti-mask rally at the local Veterans Memorial park. Organizer Jeff Buck spoke for all of us: "We feel like we are being held hostage and we need to stand up for our rights or the government will take them away."

Masks off. Fight on. This is the American way.