One of the fundamental responsibilities of the President of the United States is to define foreign policy. This involves, among other areas, acting as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, advocating for the United States by forming (and possibly dissolving) relationships with other nations and organizations, and enacting the nation’s high-level strategy on the world stage.
On the subject of foreign policy, President Donald Trump and Joe Biden are polar opposites. Trump is a proven success. Biden is a proven failure. 
President Trump
While the Democrats and the mainstream media are working overtime to inform prospective voters of Trump’s apparent failure in the eyes of our so-called “global neighbors,” reality is increasingly difficult to deny.
To the dismay of his critics, Trump’s condemnation of the failure of NATO members to meet their financial obligations has not dragged Europe into World War III. To the contrary, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg even <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/jens-stoltenberg-donald-trump-nato-chief-thanks-trump-for-leadership-on-military-spending/">praised</a> Trump in 2018, saying “Let me thank you for the leadership you show on the issue of defense spending because it is very important that we all contribute more to our shared security, and it is really having an impact because, as you said, allies are now spending more on defense.” 
Throughout his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly warned against the growing threat posed by China, and he has continued to focus on the Communist dictatorship during his presidency. With China acting as the catalyst for the COVID-19 pandemic, which has dragged the world economy to its knees as they continue to commit outrageous human rights violations with impunity, it is impossible to argue that Trump’s history of criticism for China is unfounded. Reacting to China&#8217;s responsibility for the outbreak and spread of COVID-19, Trump again showed a determination to achieve value for the American tax payer when he worked to <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53327906">withdraw</a> from the World Health Organization, a group that has repeatedly covered for China’s actions and lies.
Then there is the obvious and undeniable impact the Trump administration has had on the Middle East. The United States withdrew from the disastrous Iran Nuclear Deal, which was built on the Left’s naive belief that terrorists will stop being terrorists if you’re nice to them. In the war against terrorism, the United States military obliterated ISIS, and two of the world’s leading terrorists, Qasem Soleimani and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, are now dead. Most horrifyingly of all for the Left, after years of quiet negotiations, the Trump administration successfully brokered a historic <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-54124996">agreement</a> for the normalization of mutual relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, with additional Arab states likely to follow suit. 
To summarize, Trump’s foreign policy has achieved financial, ideological, and moral victories across the world. Focus has been placed on the world’s real enemies of peace, including China and Iran, we have withdrawn from ineffective agreements and counter-productive organizations, and for the first time in centuries, the idea of peace in the Middle East is no longer an unobtainable dream.
Joe Biden
Conversely, as former Defense Secretary Robert Gates <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/has-joe-biden-ever-been-right-on-a-foreign-policy-issue">put it</a>, Joe Biden has been wrong about “nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.” 
Biden <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122049148440397625">opposed</a> Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, which is credited for aiding the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, and Biden was one of the first legislators to <a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2016/08/16/biden-offers-condolences-for-nato-bombing-serbia/y80d75hj4ML9Xbl0fXKiZJ/story.html">support</a> the bombing of Serbia in the 1990s and advocate for the Bosnian Muslims to be armed, with disastrous results.
Biden <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/bidens-chance-disavow-his-bad-foreign-policy-ideas/612787/">voted against</a> the Gulf War in 1991, which “the United States and a broad multinational coalition quickly achieved their goals.” Then, in 2002, he voted in support of the war against Iraq, and in 2003 said “I voted to go into Iraq, and I’d vote to do it again.” Now he <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/06/politics/fact-check-biden-iraq-war-repeat-iowa/index.html">claims</a> that he opposed President George W. Bush’s actions “from the very moment” they began. Such flip-flops are common for Biden, who also <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/09/12/biden-didnt-have-the-guts-to-say-we-should-take-out-bin-laden/">claims</a> that he supported the famous raid into Pakistan that killed Osama bin Laden, despite saying at the time “Mr. President, my suggestion is, don’t go.” 
The infamous drone war, which involved hundreds of strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, and other countries, was <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/international/194889-was-biden-always-wrong">bolstered</a> by Biden, who “advocated for a strategy he dubbed “counterterrorism-plus”: a combination of drone strikes and raids by special operations forces.” 
To understand Obama&#8217;s foreign policy, all you need to know is that Barack Obama <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5639015&amp;page=1">selected</a> Biden as his running mate in order to bolster his foreign policy and national security experience. This may explain why, under the combined foreign policy “experience” of Obama and Biden, we witnessed both the collapse of the Middle East and the establishment of Iran — one of the world’s leading sponsors of terrorism — as a regional power. When we consider non-military positions, such as Biden’s laughably <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/haworth-5-of-bidens-most-significant-flip-flops">inconsistent</a> views on China, there is not a single part of Biden’s foreign policy resumé which would justify the cost of the ink required to print it.
Biden has a demonstrated history of sowing disaster when it comes to foreign policy, and his return to the White House would simply trigger the same monumental failures of the Obama administration. If you want terrorists to continue breathing, Iran to continue funding terror across the world, and China to pursue their ambitions unchecked, vote for Biden. If not, vote for Trump.
Ian Haworth is host of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkPxdVsNp7k&amp;list=PLhi-aq-5DfuTQRVv1IOVMnA735vEYO0f5">The Ian Haworth Show</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E05t2L69Sks&amp;list=PLhi-aq-5DfuRHu5r0IV5qr4h2rBAV9oBd">The Truth in 60 Seconds</a>. Follow him on Twitter at <a href="https://twitter.com/ighaworth">@ighaworth</a>.
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe"> member</a>.

Donald Trump and Joe Biden

HAWORTH: Reason To Vote For Trump No. 1: Foreign Policy

2020 Election

Donald Trump

Foreign Policy

Joe Biden

One of the fundamental responsibilities of the President of the United States is to define foreign policy. This involves, among other areas, acting as

description

index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1

robots

HAWORTH: Reason To Vote For Trump No. 1: Foreign Policy | The Daily Wire

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/haworth-reasons-to-vote-for-donald-trump-no-1-foreign-policy/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/10/GettyImages-1228795132-1200x800.jpg

twitter:card

twitter:creator

References to the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution have peppered reports in recent years, with claims of violating the clause leveled at various high-profile officials, including the President of the United States. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court shot down Democrats&#8217; attempts to revive a lawsuit alleging that President Trump violated the clause by accepting money from foreign and domestic officials who stay at the Trump International Hotel, while controversial new reports alleged that the Biden family may have been involved in an &#8220;<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-corruption-and-abc-news-11602794575">influence-peddling racket</a>.&#8221;
So what is the Emoluments Clause?
An emolument is defined as “the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites.” The United States Constitution references “emoluments” in three provisions, which are often described either individually or collectively as the “Emoluments Clause.” These are the “Foreign Emoluments Clause,” the “Domestic Emoluments Clause,” and the “Ineligibility Clause.”
The Foreign Emoluments Clause — Article I, Section 9, Clause 8
The purpose of the Foreign Emoluments Clause is to prevent federal officers from engaging in corruption and limit the outside influence of foreign actors. Without the consent of Congress, federal officers are not permitted to accept foreign emoluments. Below is the full text of the clause:
<blockquote>No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.</blockquote>
The Domestic Emoluments Clause — Article II, Section 1, Clause 7
The purpose of the Domestic Emoluments Clause is to preserve and protect the President’s independence by preventing Congress from adjusting their compensation while in office, and preventing a sitting President from receiving any other emoluments from federal or state governments other than their salary. Full text below: 
<blockquote>The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.</blockquote>
The Ineligibility Clause — Article I, Section 6, Clause 2
The purpose of the Ineligibility Clause is to enforce the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. Federal officers are not permitted to also serve as Members of Congress, and Members of Congress are not permitted to hold an office if that office was established during their tenure, or that office’s emoluments were increased during their tenure. Here is how the clause reads:
<blockquote>No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.</blockquote>
In <a href="https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-21-30#s-lg-box-wrapper-25493335">Federalist 22</a>, Alexander Hamilton discussed the importance of protecting against corruption, writing:
<blockquote>“In republics, persons elevated from the mass of the community, by the suffrages of their fellow-citizens, to stations of great pre-eminence and power, may find compensations for betraying their trust, which, to any but minds animated and guided by superior virtue, may appear to exceed the proportion of interest they have in the common stock, and to overbalance the obligations of duty. Hence it is that history furnishes us with so many mortifying examples of the prevalency of foreign corruption in republican governments.”</blockquote>
Before 2016, <a href="https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IF11086.pdf">there had been</a> “no substantial litigation concerning the Emoluments Clauses.” During President Trump’s first term, however, several lawsuits have been filed which allege that Trump has violated the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) v. Trump “alleges violations of the Domestic and Foreign Emoluments Clauses through President Trump’s receipt of payments from the federal government and various foreign government officials at different Trump Organization properties.” District of Columbia v. Trump alleged “violations of the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses similar to those in the CREW lawsuit.” Blumenthal, et al. v. Trump “allege violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause through the President’s receipt of foreign-government payments at Trump properties, foreign licensing fees, and regulatory benefits, among other things.”
Ian Haworth is host of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkPxdVsNp7k&amp;list=PLhi-aq-5DfuTQRVv1IOVMnA735vEYO0f5">The Ian Haworth Show</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E05t2L69Sks&amp;list=PLhi-aq-5DfuRHu5r0IV5qr4h2rBAV9oBd">The Truth in 60 Seconds</a>. Follow him on Twitter at <a href="https://twitter.com/ighaworth">@ighaworth</a>.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe"> member</a>.

Trump Biden

What Is The Emoluments Clause?

Constitution

corruption

emoluments

References to the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution have peppered reports in recent years, with claims of violating the clause leveled at various

What Is The Emoluments Clause? | The Daily Wire

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/what-is-the-emoluments-clause/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/10/Trump-Biden.jpg

twitter:image

For many on the Left, government is the solution to all of our problems. In a similar fashion to Elizabeth Warren’s “I’ve got a plan for that,” the government is presented as a vague savior for every issue we face. Climate change? Poverty? Mental health? It doesn’t matter how general or specific the problem. Some form of government action is assumed to be the answer.
In addition, the hypothetical outcomes of such governmental proposals are used to justify the proposals themselves, providing a circular argument which avoids the need for factual evidence. One such example we see time after time is the presumed outcome of “job creation,” where politicians will describe vast expenditures as “investments” in “us” which will provide countless new jobs.
For example, when criticized for the much-maligned Green New Deal, Biden’s response has been to talk about the <a href="https://joebiden.com/climate-labor-fact-sheet/#">creation</a> of “more than 10 million well-paying jobs.” Using the same logic, Bernie Sanders promised 20 million new jobs, double Biden&#8217;s hypothetical number. Biden’s running mate, Kamala Harris, has made that same promise, saying, “We’re going to invest in renewable energy, create millions of jobs.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
In under 3 years, the United States restructured the entire economy in order to win World War II and defeat fascism.
If we could do that, then we can certainly address the climate crisis.
With a Green New Deal we can create 20 million good jobs and transform our energy system. <a href="https://t.co/eR8UvqnVLN">pic.twitter.com/eR8UvqnVLN</a>
&mdash; Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) <a href="https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1229946021553287170?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 19, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Only one candidate has a real plan to combat <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ClimateChange?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ClimateChange</a>—and that&#39;s <a href="https://twitter.com/JoeBiden?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@JoeBiden</a>. As <a href="https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@KamalaHarris</a> said: &quot;We&#39;re going to invest in renewable energy, create millions of jobs. We&#39;ll achieve net zero emissions by 2050. We&#39;ll re-enter the climate agreement with pride.&quot; <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/VPDebate?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#VPDebate</a> <a href="https://t.co/rpRaCCeZzf">pic.twitter.com/rpRaCCeZzf</a>
&mdash; NRDC Action Fund (@NRDC_AF) <a href="https://twitter.com/NRDC_AF/status/1314021152692596736?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 8, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Research firm Moody&#8217;s Analytics also assures us that Biden&#8217;s plan will create jobs; in fact, we&#8217;re assured, more than four more years of Trump. But there&#8217;s a catch: it will do so by racking up more federal debt and by <a href="https://taxfoundation.org/joe-biden-tax-plan-2020/">increasing taxes</a>. Here&#8217;s how <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-biden-economic-plan-jobs-trump-republicans-democrats-moodys-create-2020-9">Business Insider</a> reports on Moody&#8217;s economic projections:
<blockquote>The study, conducted by Mark Zandi and Bernard Yaros, evaluated the economy&#8217;s trajectory under four different scenarios. But it found that a Democratic sweep where Biden is elected and Democrats recapture the Senate would lead to a significant increase in federal spending. They assume it would be largely &#8220;deficit-financed,&#8221; meaning the government racks up a bigger federal debt.
The spending, though, wouldn&#8217;t be a drag on overall growth. Instead, 18.6 million jobs would be created during Biden&#8217;s first term, and lift the average American&#8217;s household after-tax income by $4,800. That&#8217;s 7 million more jobs compared to a scenario where Trump is reelected and Republicans hold onto the Senate. Household incomes largely stay the same should the GOP control both the legislative and executive branches.</blockquote>
The basic counter-argument to such statements involves one of two obvious facts. The first is that politicians routinely make promises which never materialize, and yet people continue to believe them this time. The second is that such lazy “job creation” math disregards the number of real and existing jobs which will inevitably be destroyed by their policy suggestions. 
However, there is another counter-argument which runs deeper than the financial illiteracy of politicians, and surrounds the question “should the government be in the business of job creation in the first place?” 
The fundamental assumption of figures like Biden, Harris and Sanders is that government job creation is an objective good and has a direct and undeniable impact on employment statistics. In their mind, if the government was to “invest” X dollars in government programs which will create Y jobs, then unemployment numbers will have been reduced by exactly Y jobs. In reality, this is far from the truth.
Politicians intentionally forget that the money they choose to spend did not appear out of thin air, but must be collected from one of three sources. The first is to collect funds from an additional tax on individuals or corporations. The second is to borrow funds. The third is to raise funds through inflation.
If X dollars are “raised” through individual taxes, then these individuals now have X fewer dollars in total disposable income which will not be spent elsewhere. The income of private businesses will therefore be reduced by up to X dollars, resulting in a reduced need for workers. Similarly, if X dollars are “raised” through corporate taxes, those same corporations will either be forced to raise prices for consumers, lower wages or layoff workers, or provide lower returns for their investors. Each choice results in an impact on the economy and therefore employment. 
In the same way, borrowing or inflation have externalities which are ignored by politicians who seek to justify their policies. Borrowing funds will reduce investment in the private sector, and inflation will cause a decrease in purchasing power. Both result in a decrease in employment.
In other words, governmental job creation is itself somewhat of a fallacy.
The crucial point to remember is that the government will be spending your money when they enact their latest fantasy project. By spending that money on new programs which will supposedly create some number of jobs, they ignore that they will be destroying jobs directly as side effects of their new legislation, and indirectly by taking money out of our hands and away from other industries and sectors which provide real, more sustainable jobs.
Ultimately, the Democrats want you to vote for them because they believe they know how to spend your money better than you. If you want to have less money and exchange real jobs for imaginary jobs, go right ahead.
Ian Haworth is host of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkPxdVsNp7k&amp;list=PLhi-aq-5DfuTQRVv1IOVMnA735vEYO0f5">The Ian Haworth Show</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E05t2L69Sks&amp;list=PLhi-aq-5DfuRHu5r0IV5qr4h2rBAV9oBd">The Truth in 60 Seconds</a>. Follow him on Twitter at <a href="https://twitter.com/ighaworth">@ighaworth</a>.
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe"> member</a>.

HAWORTH: Why The Democrat Plan For ‘Job Creation’ Doesn’t Add Up

Green New Deal

jobs

Unemployment

For many on the Left, government is the solution to all of our problems. In a similar fashion to Elizabeth Warren’s “I’ve got a plan for that,” the

HAWORTH: Why The Democrat Plan For ‘Job Creation’ Doesn’t Add Up | The Daily Wire

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/haworth-why-the-democrat-plan-for-job-creation-doesnt-add-up/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/10/GettyImages-1144717213-1200x800.jpg

Supreme Court LGBT

Is The Supreme Court Too Powerful? 8 Recent Cases That Redefined Society

Supreme Court

There is a reason President Donald Trump’s nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the United States Supreme Court has become a central issue at the heart of

Is The Supreme Court Too Powerful? 8 Recent Cases That Redefined Society | The Daily Wire

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/is-the-supreme-court-too-powerful-8-recent-cases-that-redefined-society/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/10/GettyImages-1249824201-1200x800.jpg

The Democrats are like children losing a board game. Rather than evaluating how their actions and decisions lead to their impending defeat, they choose from one of two preferable strategies. The first is to kick, scream, and throw the game onto the ground, otherwise known as the “peaceful protest” strategy. The second is slightly more mature — though not by much — and involves attempting to change the rules of the game so that, miraculously, they become the winners.
This second strategy is what is at play behind the Democrats’ attempt to undermine and derail the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the United States Supreme Court. Given that they view the judicial branch as a second legislative branch, and therefore a roadblock to “progress,” the replacement of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg with a textualist would be a sizable blow. They already stomped their feet and gnashed their teeth in 2018 when they promoted unsubstantiated accusations of gang rape during Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Now they have two remaining options: play the game, or change the game.
This is where the suddenly fluid phrase “packing the court” comes in. Multiple Democrats, including Joe Biden and his eager replacement Kamala Harris, have refused to answer the simple yes/no question, “Will you pack the Supreme Court?” When it became obvious that simply running away wasn’t an option, with even the Leftist media raising a few eyebrows, the “rule changing” had to become a little more complex.
Next, it was the “I’m not, you are” routine. “We’re not packing the court, because the conservatives are packing the court!” This absurd argument has been pushed by Kamala Harris, among others, claiming that the Republicans are “cheating” by simply existing. Remember, following the text of the Constitution and filling vacant court seats “isn’t fair,” yet another childish attitude to an &#8220;unfair&#8221; reality.
Now, this is obviously ridiculous. It is immature, cynical, and ultimately embarrassing to witness. However, there is a deeper lesson to take from this court packing saga, unearthed by the ever-declining Biden. When asked again whether he will attempt to add additional Supreme Court justices, and “don’t the voters deserve to know” his position, his reply was stunning.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Imagine if <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@realDonaldTrump</a> said that voters don’t deserve to know a fundamental policy position.
The Democrats and the media would declare that democracy was dead. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DontDeserveToKnow?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#DontDeserveToKnow</a> <a href="https://t.co/8kdqyyJUxP">pic.twitter.com/8kdqyyJUxP</a>
&mdash; Ian G Haworth (@ighaworth) <a href="https://twitter.com/ighaworth/status/1315052635636989955?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 10, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
“No they don’t.”
It’s important to understand just how deplorable this viewpoint is. Don’t be distracted by the childish tantrums of Democrats or cynical attempts to redefine what court packing means. This statement from Biden isn’t even about the Supreme Court. It speaks to the fundamental attitude of those who seek power over all else.
Politicians are, supposedly, elected based on a manifesto. A predefined and public set of positions on matters of public concern, allowing voters to decide which candidate or candidates would fit best with their ideology. Given that politicians compete for such public support, any political or personal belief is subject to questioning, whether it be their favorite ice cream, their opinion on whether clothing for dogs is cute or terrifying, or whether they would tear apart the branches of government.
To answer any such question with “no, they don’t deserve to know” demonstrates an unconscionable level of arrogance for which there should be no return. Biden, whether intentionally or not, has shown how he views the American people. With Biden, you have to buy before you can try. The fact that the engine doesn’t work is not his problem.
Let’s not forget his infamous interaction earlier this year with Jerry Wayne, a Michigan autoworker who <a href="https://youtu.be/-1dr8QxZ3BM?t=158">dared to ask Biden his views on gun control</a>. Biden berated Wayne, telling him he was “full of sh*t,” called him a “horse’s ass,” and said, “I’m not working for you.”
There is no difference between “I&#8217;m not working for you” and “they don&#8217;t deserve to know.” Every single “public servant” is just that, a servant of the public. Joe Biden wants to “lead us,” not “work for us.” That&#8217;s a dangerous difference.
Ian Haworth is host of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkPxdVsNp7k&amp;list=PLhi-aq-5DfuTQRVv1IOVMnA735vEYO0f5">The Ian Haworth Show</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E05t2L69Sks&amp;list=PLhi-aq-5DfuRHu5r0IV5qr4h2rBAV9oBd">The Truth in 60 Seconds</a>. Follow him on Twitter at <a href="https://twitter.com/ighaworth">@ighaworth</a>.
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe"> member</a>.

Joe Biden Jerry Wayne

HAWORTH: Biden Doesn’t Think You Deserve To Know Because He Doesn’t Work For You

Kamala Harris

The Democrats are like children losing a board game. Rather than evaluating how their actions and decisions lead to their impending defeat, they choose

HAWORTH: Biden Doesn’t Think You Deserve To Know Because He Doesn’t Work For You | The Daily Wire

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/haworth-biden-doesnt-think-you-deserve-to-know-because-he-doesnt-work-for-you/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/10/GettyImages-1206458621-1200x800.jpg

The writers of the dark sitcom 2020 have been working overtime as we approach the season finale. After progressive hero Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away in September, an already turbulent election race became even more explosive as the ever-contentious issue of the United States Supreme Court emerged as a central issue for both Republicans and Democrats.
On the Right, conservatives are pushing for Trump and his Republican Senate to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to replace “The Notorious RBG.” Democrats reacted to this standard constitutional process as further evidence that Trump is America’s ultimate villain, who dares go against Ginsburg’s “dying wish.” 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
“If Mitch McConnell isn’t going to honor RBG’s final wish, we will. We will. And we have to.” Thank you, ⁦<a href="https://twitter.com/AOC?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@AOC</a>⁩. For your voice. For your fight. Tonight. And always. <a href="https://t.co/2P5ttuvJsx">pic.twitter.com/2P5ttuvJsx</a>
&mdash; Eliza Orlins (@elizaorlins) <a href="https://twitter.com/elizaorlins/status/1307156716790968322?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 19, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Then came another twist — President Trump caught COVID-19, with returning character Hope Hicks playing the role of “White House Patient Zero.” Other members of the Trump administration who announced that they, too, had tested positive for COVID-19 included White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany, first lady Melania Trump, and Kellyanne Conway. Several Republican Senators also tested positive, with two receiving particular attention from Democrats.
Sen. Mike Lee of Utah and Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina both announced they’d tested positive for COVID-19 on October 2nd. The reason why their diagnoses are relevant to the Democrats is that both Lee and Tillis are members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the very body responsible for confirming Supreme Court nominations. Days later, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer declared that it was simply “too dangerous” to continue with “business as usual.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The Senate cannot proceed with business as usual as the virus continues to run rampant.
If it’s too dangerous to have the Senate in session, it is too dangerous for the committee hearings on the Supreme Court to continue. <a href="https://t.co/ZjenKKutLI">pic.twitter.com/ZjenKKutLI</a>
&mdash; Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/1312810410710577159?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 4, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
While Sen. Schumer will claim that his declaration was nothing other than an expression of bipartisan concern for the safety of his coworkers, the Democrats are laughably transparent. As they clutch their pearls and talk of “dying wishes” and “COVID-19 running rampant through the Senate,” we must see this for what it is: cynical political opportunism. Don’t forget, the Supreme Court is central to the Democratic Party strategy of forcing through legislation without having to deal with such inconvenient roadblocks to progress like Congressional authority.
There are three reasons why the Republicans must confirm Amy Coney Barrett, and why they must do so as soon as possible. First, it is their constitutional duty. Article II Section II of the United States Constitution is clear and concrete in its wording, with Ginsburg herself stating, “the president is elected for four years, not three. So the powers that he has in year three continues into year four.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
RBG declares&#8230; “the President is elected for four years, not three. So the powers that he has in year three continues into year four&#8230; and that’s how it should be.”<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/RBGRevolution?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#RBGRevolution</a> <a href="https://t.co/OuP5pszF62">pic.twitter.com/OuP5pszF62</a>
&mdash; David J Harris Jr (@DavidJHarrisJr) <a href="https://twitter.com/DavidJHarrisJr/status/1307881709837463557?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 21, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Secondly, we cannot allow COVID-19 to continue to be a reliable political tool of governmental disruption. For the foreseeable future, the virus is a reality we must learn to deal with. Until we have reliable methods of preventing its spread, it will continue to spread. Where possible, we must find a balance between protecting the vulnerable and returning to some semblance of normality. 
A fundamental pillar of such normality is the continuation of government process. The argument that the danger posed by COVID-19 is sufficient evidence in favor of shutting down politically convenient parts of the government is abjectly absurd when we consider that infected Senators could easily hold hearings via Zoom. If Sen. Schumer was Senate Majority Leader, would he close down proceedings if it meant giving up a Supreme Court seat? No way.
Finally, conservatives must be brutally honest and understand that too much is at stake, and we cannot start playing the Left’s game by the Left’s rules. The rules are clear, as described by the U.S. Constitution. The hierarchy is clear, with a Republican White House and Republican Senate. The consequences of missing the valid opportunity to cement another textualist voice in the Supreme Court are staggering, made worse by Biden’s obvious intention to pack the court if they don’t get their way. The Left have already used the Supreme Court to force through their objectives, and we will be abandoning our moral duty if we leave the door open for them in 2021.
Some conservatives, like David French and Jonah Goldberg, think that we should “play nice,” and make a “deal” with the Democrats, agreeing not to confirm a Supreme Court Justice now in return for their “promise” that they won’t pack the court later. Such a deal would be nothing less than a deal with an ideological devil. 
The Constitution matters too much. The United States matters too much.
No deals. No compromise. We have the power. Time to use it.
Ian Haworth is host of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkPxdVsNp7k&amp;list=PLhi-aq-5DfuTQRVv1IOVMnA735vEYO0f5">The Ian Haworth Show</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E05t2L69Sks&amp;list=PLhi-aq-5DfuRHu5r0IV5qr4h2rBAV9oBd">The Truth in 60 Seconds</a>. Follow him on Twitter at <a href="https://twitter.com/ighaworth">@ighaworth</a>.
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Amy Coney Barrett

HAWORTH: Democrats Try New Tactic To Stop Amy Coney Barrett Confirmation. Here’s Why It Must Continue.

U.S. Senate

The writers of the dark sitcom 2020 have been working overtime as we approach the season finale. After progressive hero Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed

HAWORTH: Democrats Try New Tactic To Stop Amy Coney Barrett Confirmation. Here’s Why It Must Continue. | The Daily Wire

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/dems-say-its-too-dangerous-to-confirm-amy-coney-barrett-heres-why-gop-must-continue-with-her-confirmation/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/10/GettyImages-1228793204-1200x800.jpg

“But are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha and as we&#8217;ve seen in Portland? Are you prepared to specifically do that?”
During the first (and possibly last) presidential debate, Fox News’ Chris Wallace asked President Donald Trump whether he was willing to condemn white supremacy. The narrative immediately pushed by the Democratic Party was that Donald Trump “refused to disavow white supremacists.” 
An ad released by Joe Biden also implied that Kyle Rittenhouse is a white supremacist, with Rittenhouse’s attorney <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/kyle-rittenhouses-attorney-demands-biden-remove-ad-claiming-client-is-a-white-supremacist-threatens-defamation-lawsuit?%3Futm_source=twitter&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_campaign=dwtwitter">threatening</a> to file a defamation lawsuit.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
There’s no other way to put it: the President of the United States refused to disavow white supremacists on the debate stage last night. <a href="https://t.co/Q3VZTW1vUV">pic.twitter.com/Q3VZTW1vUV</a>
&mdash; Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) <a href="https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 30, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The media also pushed this same conclusion. The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/09/29/us/presidential-debate-trump-biden">reported</a> “Trump Refuses to Denounce White Supremacy in Chaotic Debate.” Politico went <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/30/trump-proud-boys-white-supremacy-423464">with</a> “Trump’s refusal to condemn white supremacists launches an online furor.” The Hill <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/518871-trump-refuses-to-denounce-white-supremacy-says-stand-back-and-stand-by-on">reported</a> “Trump refuses to denounce white supremacy, says ‘stand back and stand by’ on Proud Boys movement.” NPR <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/09/30/918483794/from-debate-stage-trump-declines-to-denounce-white-supremacy">chose</a> “From Debate Stage, Trump Declines To Denounce White Supremacy.” CNN went <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/30/politics/proud-boys-trump-white-supremacists-debate/index.html">with</a> “Trump refuses to condemn White supremacists at presidential debate.” The Atlantic <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/09/trump-white-nationalism-proud-boys-debate/616546/">published</a> “Why Can’t He Just Say It? President Donald Trump refused to clearly condemn white supremacy at least night’s debate. This was no accident.” Forbes chose “‘Fascism At Our Door’: Outrage Grows After Trump Refuses To Denounce White Supremacy.”
Those of us who have maintained some semblance of mental clarity during 2020 will no doubt draw a few conclusions from these clearly coordinated reactions. 
Firstly, the report that Trump “refused” to condemn white supremacy is laughably presumptive given that the first word out of Trump’s mouth in response to Wallace’s question was “sure.” Secondly, it’s patently absurd that Trump’s imaginary association with the Proud Boys is being used as evidence of support for white supremacy, given that their national chairman Enrique Tarrio identifies as an Afro-Cuban. 
Finally, the most obvious conclusion is that both the Democrats and the mainstream media must not have been paying attention, as Trump has repeatedly condemned white supremacists, as described by White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Kayleigh McEnany: &quot;[Trump] has condemned white supremacy more than any President in modern history.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/JPY2AYp8t0">pic.twitter.com/JPY2AYp8t0</a>
&mdash; The Hill (@thehill) <a href="https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1311691885933662211?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 1, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The fact that Trump’s behavior as a private citizen (for example, routinely socializing with Jews and black people), his repeated rejection of white supremacist groups (including calls to designate the Ku Klux Klan a terrorist organization as part of his “Platinum Plan”), or that multiple members of his immediate family are Jewish should be sufficient evidence that Trump is not a white supremacist. Given these simple facts, just why are the mainstream media continuing to promote this claim?
The reason is simple. The strategy at play is an example of a “loaded question,” a question built on a controversial and unsubstantiated assumption. 
In the context of demanding that Trump denounce white supremacy, the goal is two-fold. Firstly, the Left are hoping that Trump will provide one of his stereotypically careless answers which can be easily spun as proof of his guilt. An example of such a response is his now infamous “fine people on both sides” comment, which the Left continues to mischaracterize to this day. Secondly, the Left don’t actually care if Trump does indeed condemn white supremacists (as he has done time, after time, after time), because the answer is not important. 
What is important is the premise of the question, which is that there is a reason we want Trump to condemn white supremacy. This reason, according to the Left, is that there are legitimate suspicions that Trump is either a white supremacist, or is happy to use white supremacists as a reliable base of support.
Both of these suspicions are ultimately baseless. There are legitimate criticisms to be made of Trump’s refusal to separate himself from the far-right and alt-right elements of his base during the 2016 election, but since then he has made substantial and repeated efforts to reject such radical ideologies and groups. With that in mind, we must understand that it is not the question which is objectionable, but the premise underlying the question. 
Therefore, when the Democrats and the media inevitably demand that Trump again condemns white supremacy, we must reject the premise.
Ian Haworth is host of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkPxdVsNp7k&amp;list=PLhi-aq-5DfuTQRVv1IOVMnA735vEYO0f5">The Ian Haworth Show</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E05t2L69Sks&amp;list=PLhi-aq-5DfuRHu5r0IV5qr4h2rBAV9oBd">The Truth in 60 Seconds</a>. Follow him on Twitter at <a href="https://twitter.com/ighaworth">@ighaworth</a>.
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe"> member</a>.

HAWORTH: Why The Left Keeps Asking Trump To Condemn White Supremacy

White Supremacy

“But are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a

HAWORTH: Why The Left Keeps Asking Trump To Condemn White Supremacy | The Daily Wire

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/haworth-why-the-left-keeps-asking-trump-to-condemn-white-supremacy/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/10/GettyImages-822537502-1200x800.jpg

Senator Lindsey Graham

10 Crucial Senate Battles; Here’s What You Need To Know

The political heat is reaching fever pitch as we rapidly approach the upcoming presidential election on November 3rd. The question dominating most

10 Crucial Senate Battles; Here’s What You Need To Know | The Daily Wire

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/election-2020-10-crucial-senate-battles/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/10/GettyImages-1085006712-1200x800.jpg

Donald Trump Mask

Trump Covid Diagnosis: 4 Classy Reactions; 28 Classless Reactions

Coronavirus

COVID-19

In true Donald Trump fashion, at 12:54am EST on Friday October 1st, the president took to Twitter to announce that he and the first lady had been

Trump Covid Diagnosis: 4 Classy Reactions; 28 Classless Reactions | The Daily Wire

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/trump-covid-diagnosis-4-classy-reactions-28-classless-reactions/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/10/GettyImages-1228916160-1200x800.jpg

The actions, words, and even hypothetical thoughts of Donald Trump have been the constant focus of the mainstream media since his famous descent down the golden escalator of 2015. Since his election, it has become increasingly clear that the media are desperate to play a role in his political demise, and have happily put themselves at the Democrat Party’s disposal. Together, this “dream team” of spin — and often outright lies — have formulated one wave of attack after another, whether it be the Russian collusion hoax, Trump’s description of United States veterans as “losers” or “suckers” according to “anonymous sources,” or Trump’s supposed refusal to condemn white supremacy.
While the hypocrisy and cynicism of the Democratic Party is somewhat understandable given their political nature, the same cannot be said for the media. Objectivity has been pushed aside in favor of subjectivity, and journalism has been abandoned as activist reporters let their agendas override truthful and fair-minded reporting of the facts. All that is needed to demonstrate just how overtly biased the media have become is to take a look at the words and actions of Democrats for whom the media reaction was one of justification, deceit, or incredulity. Imagine how they would react if the “guilty party” was their enemy, Donald Trump?
1. Divisive [Trump] Demands Racial Loyalty From His Followers
“If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”
Joe Biden in <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/22/politics/biden-charlamagne-tha-god-you-aint-black/index.html">2020</a> during an interview with Charlamagne tha God on The Breakfast Club.
2. [Trump] Defies Social Distancing To Vandalize Neighborhood
In July 2020, Bill De Blasio joined Al Sharpton and other activists to paint a Black Lives Matter “<a href="https://abcnews.go.com/US/bill-de-blasio-plaints-black-lives-matter-street/story?id=71690137">mural</a>” outside Trump Tower in New York City. Some attendees wore masks while others didn&#8217;t, and were far closer than the 6-foot demanded by social distancing “guidelines.”
<div id="attachment_128456" style="width: 860px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-128456" loading="lazy" class="wp-image-128456" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/GettyImages-1225946269-864x576.jpg" alt="New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, his wife Chirlane McCray and Rev. Al Sharpton help paint a Black Lives Matter mural on Fifth Avenue directly in front of Trump Tower on July 9, 2020 in New York City." width="850" height="567" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/07/GettyImages-1225946269-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/07/GettyImages-1225946269-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/07/GettyImages-1225946269-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/07/GettyImages-1225946269.jpg 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 850px) 100vw, 850px" />David Dee Delgado/Getty Images</div>
3. [Trump] Thinks All Black People Are The Same
“And by the way, what you all know, but most people don’t know, unlike the African American community, with notable exceptions, the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community with incredibly different attitudes about different things.”
Joe Biden in <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/leo-terrell-joe-biden-diversity-democrat">2020</a> during an interview.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
“Black people are all the same.” Good to see the Democrats getting back to their roots&#8230; <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Biden?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Biden</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BidenIsARacist?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BidenIsARacist</a> <a href="https://t.co/5ANZZbATod">pic.twitter.com/5ANZZbATod</a>
&mdash; Ian G Haworth (@ighaworth) <a href="https://twitter.com/ighaworth/status/1291444242783432705?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 6, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
4. For [Trump], His Hair Is More Important Than Your Life
During San Francisco’s strict COVID-19 lockdowns, Nancy Pelosi visited a salon for a “<a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-san-francisco-hair-salon-owner-calls-it-slap-in-the-face">wash and blow-out</a>,” and then claimed that she was tricked by the salon, and therefore was owed an apology.
<div id="attachment_153097" style="width: 860px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-153097" loading="lazy" class="wp-image-153097" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/GettyImages-1228327597-881x576.jpg" alt="White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany speaks while a video plays of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi walking into a hair salon as she holds a press briefing in the Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House in Washington, DC, September 3, 2020. (Photo by SAUL LOEB / AFP)" width="850" height="555" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/10/GettyImages-1228327597-881x576.jpg 881w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/10/GettyImages-1228327597-300x196.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/10/GettyImages-1228327597-768x502.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/10/GettyImages-1228327597-1536x1004.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/10/GettyImages-1228327597-2048x1338.jpg 2048w" sizes="(max-width: 850px) 100vw, 850px" />Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images</div>
5. Authoritarian [Trump] Laughs As He Tears Up The Constitution
“I would just say, ‘Hey Joe, instead of saying, ‘No we can’t’ let’s say, ‘Yes we can!’ Ha ha ha ha ha.”
Kamala Harris in <a href="https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/democratic-debate-september-2019/h_891093d64de8feedb12284747def8212">2019</a> in response to Joe Biden’s statement that there is “no constitutional” authority to allow Harris’ call to ban “assault weapons” with an executive order.
<div id="attachment_61316" style="width: 860px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-61316" loading="lazy" class="wp-image-61316" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Kamala-1024x682.jpg" alt="Kamala Harris speaks during the third Democratic primary debate" width="850" height="566" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2019/11/Kamala.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2019/11/Kamala-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2019/11/Kamala-768x512.jpg 768w" sizes="(max-width: 850px) 100vw, 850px" />Robyn Beck/AFP via Getty Images</div>
6. [Trump] Promotes Deadly Anti-Vaccine Propaganda
“Well, I think that’s going to be an issue for all of us. I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump&#8230;I will not take his word for it.”
Kamala Harris in <a href="https://twitter.com/CNNSotu/status/1302280854199308288">2020</a> in response to CNN’s Dana Bash who asked Harris whether she would take an approved COVID-19 vaccine if it was before the upcoming election.
7. [Trump] Stokes Anti-Semitism On Twitter Yet Again
“It’s all about the Benjamins baby.”
In <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/03/07/700901834/minnesota-congresswoman-ignites-debate-on-israel-and-anti-semitism">2019</a>, Ilhan Omar claimed that support for Israel was motivated solely by bribes, thereby promoting the centuries-old anti-Semitic trope of Jewish financial influence and control.
8. [Trump’s] Career Was Built On Abuse Of Native American Lie
Elizabeth Warren <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/elizabeth-warren-reveals-proof-native-american-ancestry-58517021">released a video</a> in 2018 announcing the results of a DNA test “proving” that she has Native American heritage&#8230;or at least between 1/64th and 1/1,024th of her does.
<div id="attachment_96854" style="width: 860px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-96854" loading="lazy" class="wp-image-96854" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Senator-Warren-807x576.jpg" alt="DETROIT, MI - JULY 24: Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) participates in a Presidential Candidates Forum at the NAACP 110th National Convention on July 24, 2019 in Detroit, Michigan. The theme of this year’s Convention is, “When We Fight, We Win.”" width="850" height="606" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/03/Senator-Warren-807x576.jpg 807w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/03/Senator-Warren-300x214.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/03/Senator-Warren-768x548.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/03/Senator-Warren-1536x1096.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/03/Senator-Warren-2048x1461.jpg 2048w" sizes="(max-width: 850px) 100vw, 850px" />Bill Pugliano/Getty Images</div>
9. [Trump] Praises Life Of &#8220;Exalted Cyclops&#8221; of the Klu Klux Klan
“Bishop, Reverend Clergy, Mona and Marjorie, the entire Byrd family — if you didn’t already know it, it’s pretty clear the incredible esteem your father was held in.  I know you’ve known that your whole life.”
Joe Biden in <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/realitycheck/the-press-office/remarks-president-and-vice-president-a-memorial-service-senator-robert-c-byrd">2010</a>, speaking at a Memorial Service for Senator Robert C. Byrd, former Exalted Cyclops of the Klu Klux Klan who also filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act for 14 hours in the Senate.
10. [Trump] Laughs While Admitting To Lying To Smear Future Running Mate As Racist
“It was a debate! Ha ha ha ha ha.”
Kamala Harris in 2020, in response to Stephen Colbert questioning how she could go from staunch critic of Joe Biden — i.e. implying he was a racist and guilty of sexual assault — to one of his closest supporters. 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
1) If <a href="https://twitter.com/StephenAtHome?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@StephenAtHome</a> is the only one willing to ask these questions, the media is failing. 2) If you think “it was a debate” is a valid excuse to flip on fundamental principles like racism, you have no principles. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/KamalaHarris?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#KamalaHarris</a> <a href="https://t.co/6nPmm7dGyh">pic.twitter.com/6nPmm7dGyh</a>
&mdash; Ian G Haworth (@ighaworth) <a href="https://twitter.com/ighaworth/status/1294654242561564678?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 15, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
***
Unfortunately, these satirical headlines are not far from reality. Next time you read a headline from The New York Times, CNN, The Washington Post, or any other outlet which prides themselves on their steadfast dedication to objectivity, ask yourself whether they would have written it the same way if the roles were reversed. If the headline praises or excuses a Democrat, ask whether they would do the same for Trump. If the headline excoriates the president, ask whether they would do the same for a Democrat. More often than not, the answer is simply no.
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author&#8217;s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe"> member</a>.

New York Times Trump Headline

HAWORTH: What If Trump Did It? 10 Headlines That Show How Biased Media Is Against Trump

Bill de Blasio

Media Bias

Nancy Pelosi

The actions, words, and even hypothetical thoughts of Donald Trump have been the constant focus of the mainstream media since his famous descent down the

HAWORTH: What If Trump Did It? 10 Headlines That Show How Biased Media Is Against Trump | The Daily Wire

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/what-if-trump-did-it-10-headlines-that-show-how-biased-media-is-against-trump/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/10/GettyImages-1096533774-1200x800.jpg

After President Donald Trump officially announced that he was nominating Amy Coney Barrett to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court, the Left dusted off their ideological boxing gloves which had been placed in storage since their attempted destruction of Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. Along with attacks on her faith, an even more insidious tactic involves a wave of attacks against her and her husband’s adopted children.
Barrett, and her husband Jesse, have seven children: Emma, Vivian, Tess, John Peter, Liam, Juliet, and Benjamin. Vivian and John Peter were adopted from Haiti, and it was this act of love which drew particular hatred from the Left. Democratic activist Dana Houle wrote, “Some adoptions from Haiti were legit. Many were sketchy as hell,” and “Would it matter if her kids were scooped up by ultra-religious Americans, or Americans weren’t scrupulous intermediaries &amp; the kids were taken when there was family in Haiti?” 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Disgusting. The left now smearing Amy Coney Barrett for adopting children. <a href="https://t.co/zFomehwwDW">pic.twitter.com/zFomehwwDW</a>
&mdash; Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) <a href="https://twitter.com/TomCottonAR/status/1309641209284001795?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 25, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
John Lee Brougher, another activist who is the managing director of NextGen America, <a href="https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/09/25/https-www-breitbart-com-politics-2020-09-25-donald-trump-russia-interfered-in-2016-election-on-behalf-of-hillary-clinton/">tweeted</a>, “As an adoptee, I need to know more about the circumstances of how Amy Coney Barrett came to adopt her children, and the treatment of them since. Transracial adoption is fraught with trauma and potential for harm, and everything I see here is deeply concerning.” 
These attacks on Barrett and her children were met with swift backlash. However, the largest blowback came in response to academic and author Ibram X. Kendi, who tweeted: 
&#8220;Some White colonizers &#8216;adopted&#8217; Black children. They &#8216;civilized&#8217; these &#8216;savage&#8217; children in the &#8216;superior&#8217; ways of White people, while using them as props in their lifelong pictures of denial, while cutting the biological parents of these children out of the picture of humanity.&#8221;
&#8220;And whether this is Barrett or not is not the point,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;It is a belief too many White people have: if they have or adopt a child of color, then they can&#8217;t be racist.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
And whether this is Barrett or not is not the point. It is a belief too many White people have: if they have or adopt a child of color, then they can&#39;t be racist.
&mdash; Ibram X. Kendi (@DrIbram) <a href="https://twitter.com/DrIbram/status/1309918635738173440?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 26, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Kendi attempted to “clarify” his comments after receiving heavy criticism, stating, “I&#8217;m challenging the idea that White parents of kids of color are inherently &#8216;not racist&#8217; and the bots completely change what I&#8217;m saying to &#8216;White parents of kids of color are inherently racist.&#8217; These live and fake bots are good at their propaganda. Let&#8217;s not argue with them.&#8221;
Presumably, Kendi was responding to claims by conservative figures such as Candace Owens who tweeted that Amy Coney Barrett “has two black children, so they can’t smear her as a racist.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Amy Coney Barrett:
-She’s a woman, so they can’t hire their usual fake sexual assault victims. -She has two black children, so they can’t smear her as a racist.
Taking early bets as to what the Democrats will cook up to try to stop ACB&#8230;
&mdash; Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) <a href="https://twitter.com/RealCandaceO/status/1309967793102749701?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 26, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
What unites these statements from Dana Houle, John Lee Brougher, and Ibram X. Kendi is a deep bigotry justified by a shared sense of assumed moral superiority. The reasoning behind Houle’s implicit accusation of impropriety is the fact that Barrett and her husband are “ultra-religious,” demonstrating a shameless level of anti-Catholic hatred. The reasoning behind Brougher’s similar accusation is, again, the assumption of “guilt” based solely on Barrett’s religion, political ideology, and the “transracial” nature of her decision to adopt two children. 
Kendi’s argument relies on the same historical time portal abused by academics such as Ta-Nehisi Coates. Hundreds of years ago, “white colonizers” indeed “adopted” black children because of deplorable and immoral motivations. According to Kendi and Coates, such historical actions are evidence of modern racism, and there is no difference between the attitudes of “white people” during slavery and “white people” today.
There are two fundamental problems with the “logic” of Houle, Brougher, and Kendi. Firstly, their sudden concern for “transracial” adoption is demonstrative of a political Left who expect their enemies to accept their impossible demands. If a white conservative adopted a white child instead of a hypothetical non-white child, the Left would almost certainly declare their decision as evidence of racism. If a white conservative adopts a non-white child, then they are still racist, and are only using their children as “props” to hide such racism. In conclusion, conservatives are racist regardless of who they adopt.
Of course, this attitude is never applied to members of the wider cultural Left. For example, here are a list of celebrities who have adopted children of a different race and are adored as pillars of moral integrity.
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;">Kristen Davis</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;">Tom Cruise</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;">Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;">Madonna</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;">Charlize Theron</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;">Steven Spielberg</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;">Hugh Jackman</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;">Ty Burrell</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;">Julie Andrews</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;">Lionel Richie</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;">Katherine Heigl</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;">Sandra Bullock</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;">Joely Fisher</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;">Michelle Pfeiffer</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;">Sandra Bullock</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;">Mariska Hargitay</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;">Mary Louise Parker and Billy Crudup</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;">Jane Fonda</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;">Jillian Michaels</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;">Connie Britton</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;">Meg Ryan</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;">Emma Thompson</li>
</ul>
It must go without saying that none of these celebrities should be accused of being racist because of the color of their children’s skin. The same should apply to Amy Coney Barrett.
<div id="attachment_151510" style="width: 810px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-151510" loading="lazy" class="wp-image-151510" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/GettyImages-1276873234-864x576.jpg" alt="WASHINGTON, DC - SEPTEMBER 26: Seventh U.S. Circuit Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett's family, including husband Jesse Barrett and their seven children, watch as President Donald Trump announces her as his nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court in the Rose Garden at the White House September 26, 2020 in Washington, DC. With 38 days until the election, Trump tapped Barrett to be his third Supreme Court nominee in just four years and to replace the late Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who will be buried at Arlington National Cemetery on Tuesday." width="800" height="533" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/09/GettyImages-1276873234-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/09/GettyImages-1276873234-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/09/GettyImages-1276873234-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/09/GettyImages-1276873234-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/09/GettyImages-1276873234-2048x1365.jpg 2048w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/09/GettyImages-1276873234-1800x1200.jpg 1800w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/09/GettyImages-1276873234-1200x800.jpg 1200w" sizes="(max-width: 800px) 100vw, 800px" />Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images</div>
The second problem with the “logic” of Houle, Brougher, and Kendi goes far beyond the standard form of hypocrisy we have grown to expect from the Left. It bleeds into an assumption of guilt based solely on race, religion, and political affiliation, with the willing use of children as ideological pawns. 
Amy Coney Barrett is a white woman who is a religious, observant Catholic. Therefore, it is to be assumed that her decision to adopt two black children is motivated by some form of malicious intent, in exactly the same way that slave owners “adopted” black children hundreds of years ago. This is the premise they assume to be true, for which they require evidence to the contrary before thinking otherwise.
It is this appalling assumption which is the true source of bigotry in this scenario. Houle uses Barrett’s apparent “ultra-religious” status to justify suspicion of wrongdoing. Brougher arrogantly uses his own “adoptee” status as justification for his demand to see evidence that Barrett is not guilty of some unknown adoption-related crime. Even Kendi, while applied with more intelligence and more subtlety, deliberately mischaracterizes the position presented by figures like Candace Owens to make the implicit accusation of wrongdoing based on race alone. 
Let’s revisit Candace Owens’ tweet. Discussing the Left’s potential means of attack against Barrett, Owens dismissed the “racist” tactic, because Barrett “has two black children, so they can’t smear her as a racist.” After the backlash, Kendi quickly backtracked and attempted to justify his statement as a logical counterargument to such a claim. In reality, Kendi’s argument is just as deplorable as that of Houle or Brougher. While he is technically correct to point out the logical fallacy underlying the assumption that “White parents of kids of color are inherently ‘not racist,’” his use of historical and irrelevant racism to justify this conclusion indicates a cynical motive which supersedes his subsequent attempt to remain “objective.” 
Yes, it is true that adopting a child of a different race is not irrefutable evidence of “non-racism.” However, notice the system of assumption applied by Houle, Brougher, and Kendi. All three assume the disgusting premise that people are racist until proven otherwise. For them, Barrett’s race, religion, or political affiliation stands as evidence of wrongdoing, which Barrett herself must refute. Such a position is entirely antithetical to both American notions of justice and basic human morality. To assume the worst of each other, either because of some irrelevant characteristic or the actions of others hundreds of years ago, is to embrace an irrefutable and bigoted fantasy.
Until Houle and Brougher provide any evidence of wrongdoing, their statements should be widely rejected as nothing other than an expression of hate. Until Kendi can provide evidence that white parents of “children of color” are still racist — or worse, using their children as “props” to hide their racism — with reference to an objective definition of racism rather than the fluid “inherent” form of racism relied upon by the Left, his statement should be rejected as equally invalid, equally absurd, and — frankly — equally racist.

Ibram X. Kendi

HAWORTH: Amy Coney Barrett Critics Reveal Their Own Bigotry In Attacks On Her ‘Transracial’ Adoptions

anti-racism

Racism

After President Donald Trump officially announced that he was nominating Amy Coney Barrett to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court,

HAWORTH: Amy Coney Barrett Critics Reveal Their Own Bigotry In Attacks On Her ‘Transracial’ Adoptions | The Daily Wire

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/haworth-critics-of-amy-coney-barrett-reveal-their-own-bigotry-in-attacks-on-her-transracial-adoptions/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/09/GettyImages-1206471025-1200x800.jpg

It shouldn’t be any great surprise that anti-Christian bigotry is on the rise, both in the United States and across the world. The driving force behind domestic anti-Christian sentiment is undoubtedly steered by the political Left, for whom Christians and Christianity rank far below other actual victims on the intersectionality scale. After all, they’re the majority of the United States population, how could they possibly be victimized?
The general derisive attitude towards Christianity — specifically, those who are devout Christians — has been yet again demonstrated with Amy Coney Barrett reappearing on the national scene as Trump’s Supreme Court nominee to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. A few years ago, when Barrett was nominated to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, her faith was a target for Democrats. Sen. Durbin asked, “Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?” Sen. Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, infamously said, “When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly in you. And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for for years in this country.” 
Today, such focus on Barrett’s “orthodoxy” looks likely to continue. Newsweek preempted Barrett’s predicted Supreme Court nomination with an <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/amy-coney-barrett-people-praise-group-inspired-handmaids-tale-1533293">article</a> which stated that the “People of Praise” — a Christian parachurch organization of which Barrett is a member — inspired Margaret Atwood’s &#8220;The Handmaid’s Tale.&#8221; Newsweek later “corrected” the headline when Atwood disputed this claim. Bill Maher, host of HBO’s “Real Time,” also attacked Barrett’s faith, <a href="https://www.theblaze.com/news/bill-maher-attacks-amy-coney-barrett">saying</a> that she’s “really, really, really Catholic,” and that Barrett is a “f***ing nut.”
The theme is clear. It’s not Barrett’s religion, per se, which is the issue. It’s her devotion to it. Sen. Durbin didn’t ask whether she was a Catholic, he asked if she was an “orthodox” Catholic. For Sen. Feinstein, the dogma doesn’t just live in Barrett. It lives loudly. For Maher, she’s not just Catholic. She’s really, really, really Catholic.
The reason for this distinction is not simply based on a shallow form of anti-religious bigotry. To understand why the Left express such a strong aversion to religiosity, it’s important to see the Left for what they truly are. In reality, they are also devoutly religious. The only difference is that the “dogma which lives loudly in them” is one which is devoid of any theistic principles. Instead of worshiping a god or gods, they worship the false prophets of celebrity and the idols of materialism. Instead of following scripture, they adhere to the fluid and subjective interpretation of an ever-changing set of progressive principles defined by an unknown force. Instead of repenting or sacrificing, they absolve themselves of responsibility or guilt with false expressions of “virtue” demonstrated by the appropriate use of hashtags or slogans.
When you understand that the Left are also, by their own definition, “f***ing nuts,” their ideological resilience becomes easier to explain. Moreover, when you understand that “virtue signalling” is the primary method of proving your “faith” in the false religion of progressivism, you can then understand how they can applaud the “religion” of some in their own ranks, while despising the religion of others.
For example, accusations of anti-Christian or anti-Catholic bigotry are often dismissed by Democrats by pointing to token members of their own party. Joe Biden is a Catholic! Nancy Pelosi is a Catholic! We can’t possibly be anti-Catholic. However, viewed through the lens of religious progressivism, the label of “Catholic” can not only be self-assigned, but confirmed by those without any theological understanding. Therefore, it doesn’t matter that Joe Biden has been refused Holy Communion because of his sudden newfound support for abortion. It doesn’t matter that Nancy Pelosi, another open advocate for abortion, also hides behind her Catholic faith when challenged on various issues.
The Left are perfectly happy to embrace those who are “religious,” as long as they are happy to abandon the necessary elements of their religion which denounce the principles of progressivism. Biden and Pelosi’s Catholicism is accepted, even applauded, because their beliefs stand as a secondary ideology. Conversely, the Left fear those for whom religion is their primary ideology, because they know it is a belief system they are incapable of undermining.
The Left hate what they fear, and they fear what they hate. They hate and fear Barrett not because she’s a Catholic, but because she’s a Catholic who means it.
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author&#8217;s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

HAWORTH: Why Democrats Hate Real Catholics

Catholicism

Religion

It shouldn’t be any great surprise that anti-Christian bigotry is on the rise, both in the United States and across the world. The driving force behind

HAWORTH: Why Democrats Hate Real Catholics | The Daily Wire

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/haworth-why-democrats-hate-real-catholics/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/10/Amy-Coney-Barrett.jpg

This past weekend, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a law which requires state prisons to house transgender inmates based on the gender with which they identify. During the intake process, officers must now ask inmates — in private — if they identity as transgender, nonbinary or intersex. Those who wish to do so can then request to be placed in a facility which houses the gender of their choice. 
According to The <a href="https://apnews.com/article/prisons-gender-identity-california-gavin-newsom-archive-14cd954b06360d21349b77233318369e">Associated Press</a>, the law says the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation cannot deny such requests solely because of “inmates’ anatomy, sexual orientation or ‘a factor present’ among other inmates at the facility.” The state does have the power to deny a request if it has “management or security concerns.”
The bill was authored by Democratic California State Senator Scott Wiener, who also introduced the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/haworth-false-equality-new-california-law-places-more-children-at-risk">controversial bill</a> SB-145, which “exempts from mandatory registration under the act a person convicted of certain offenses involving minors if the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor and if that offense is the only one requiring the person to register.”
Sen. Wiener said that he didn’t expect this “management or security concerns” exception to be used very often, saying “It’s just a false narrative about transgender people and about transgender women in particular that they’re somehow not really women and are just trying to scam their way into women’s bathrooms or facilities in order to do bad things,” and that “Overwhelmingly the people who are being victimized are trans people.”
Firstly, it’s important to acknowledge that transgender people are certainly subject to increased levels of victimization in prison systems, and protections should be put in place to provide for their safety while in the custody of the state. However, the fact that transgender people are victimized does not justify the full embrace of the demands of the transgender movement with a complete disregard for any potential consequences.
Sen. Wiener’s claim that it&#8217;s &#8220;just a false narrative about transgender people and about transgender women in particular that they’re somehow not really women and are just trying to scam their way into women’s bathrooms or facilities in order to do bad things” includes several fundamental flaws. Firstly, transgender women are not biological women, by definition. Legislation based on concrete issues like biological sex cannot be presented as objective if they are built upon subjective and scientifically disputed notions. Secondly, while it is certainly untrue to claim that every transgender woman is “trying to scam their way into women’s bathrooms or facilities in order to do bad things,” it is utterly naive to draw the invalid conclusion that such a risk does not exist.
The brutal fact is that prisons house people who have broken the law. Sometimes, the laws broken involve violence against others. Sometimes, the laws broken involve sexual violence. Wiener is assuming good intent among those who have demonstrated a willingness to break the law and harm others.
When Democrats approach issues, they routinely use the argument “if it could save one person.” By that logic, we should ban so-called “assault weapons” if it saves just one life, and we should enforce a national COVID-19 lockdown if it saves just one life. However, if they assume that premise, why do they cheer for legislation which will likely lead to an avoidable victimization of at least one person? More specifically, why do they cheer for legislation which will put at least one vulnerable woman at risk?
The reason why they cheer is that Democrats have made a choice. This choice involves the latest step in their rejection of true feminism in favor of an LGBTQ+ agenda. The fact that feminism and transgenderism are in many ways antithetical is irrelevant. The fact that women continue to be one of the most victimized groups in our society is irrelevant. The fact that some men who think they are women will likely abuse this system to place themselves among vulnerable women is irrelevant. What matters is “progress,” regardless of how truly regressive such progress is.
Just like SB-145, this legislation claims to protect today’s “victims.” The abandonment of yesterday’s victims is a price the Democrats are all too willing to pay.
Ian Haworth is host of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkPxdVsNp7k&amp;list=PLhi-aq-5DfuTQRVv1IOVMnA735vEYO0f5">The Ian Haworth Show</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E05t2L69Sks&amp;list=PLhi-aq-5DfuRHu5r0IV5qr4h2rBAV9oBd">The Truth in 60 Seconds</a>. Follow him on Twitter at <a href="https://twitter.com/ighaworth">@ighaworth</a>.
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author&#8217;s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Gavin Newsom

HAWORTH: Gavin Newsom’s Transgender Inmate Law Could Put Women At Risk

LGBT

Prison

Transgender

This past weekend, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a law which requires state prisons to house transgender inmates based on the gender with which

HAWORTH: Gavin Newsom’s Transgender Inmate Law Could Put Women At Risk | The Daily Wire

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/haworth-gavin-newsoms-transgender-inmate-law-could-put-women-at-risk/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/09/GettyImages-100543008-1200x800.jpg

First Presidential Debate Between Donald Trump And Democratic Candidate Joe Biden

CNN Claims Biden Debate ‘Largely Accurate.’ Here Are 14 False Claims By Biden.

debates

On Tuesday evening, viewers suffered through the first Presidential debate between incumbent Donald Trump and challenger Joe Biden. When the petty

CNN Claims Biden Debate ‘Largely Accurate.’ Here Are 14 False Claims By Biden. | The Daily Wire

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/cnn-claims-biden-debate-largely-accurate-here-are-14-false-claims-by-biden/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/10/GettyImages-1228795411-1200x800.jpg

The most consequential moment (so far) of the presidential campaign is finally here. We are on the edge of the first debate between incumbent President Donald Trump and his challenger Joe Biden, who will be hoping that “third time running for president is the charm.” Whether or not Biden would actually face Trump has been the subject of heated debate on both sides of the aisle and, barring any last minute changes between the time this is published and the evening of September 29th, it seems like we will finally witness the battle many have been clamoring for.
With Joe Biden acting as the feeble Trojan horse for Kamala Harris and an unrecognizably radical Democratic Party, the stakes have never been higher. With polls tightening across the country, this first debate stands as an opportunity for either candidate to stake their claim to the White House and hammer the first nail into the coffin of their opponent&#8217;s campaign.
Here are five things Donald Trump must do if he hopes to emerge victorious and send Biden shuffling back to the comforting silence of his basement.
1. Don’t be complacent. Prepare.
Joe Biden’s obvious mental decline is a double-edged sword for the Republicans. The more infirm Biden becomes, the lower the bar sinks in terms of what constitutes a “good performance.” Before Biden’s brain cells began to jump ship like rats on the Titanic, he was judged as a competent and formidable opponent. When Kamala Harris famously accused her now running mate of opposing busing — implying that he was a racist — Biden was criticized for the weakness of his response. When he was bullied by other candidates, his apparent frailty was analyzed and discussed. 
Biden is simply not the same man he was even a year ago. As a result, expectations are not the same. If Biden manages to make it through a short, scripted speech in front of a tiny audience with no follow-up questions without falling over his own feet, he’s applauded. Given these rock-bottom expectations, this could mean that even a mediocre showing from Biden during Tuesday’s debate could be viewed as a big success. Indeed, conservatives have joked for months that Biden will crumble under pressure during a debate with Trump. If Biden escapes reasonably unscathed — or worse, holds his own — then he would have achieved a contextual victory which Trump could struggle to recover from.
<div id="attachment_151582" style="width: 860px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-151582" loading="lazy" class="wp-image-151582" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/GettyImages-1162219738-827x576.jpg" alt="DES MOINES, IOWA - JULY 15: Democratic presidential candidate former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden pauses as he speaks during the AARP and The Des Moines Register Iowa Presidential Candidate Forum at Drake University on July 15, 2019 in Des Moines, Iowa. Twenty Democratic presidential candidates are participating in the forums that will feature four candidate per forum, to be held in cities across Iowa over five days. " width="850" height="592" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/09/GettyImages-1162219738-827x576.jpg 827w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/09/GettyImages-1162219738-300x209.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/09/GettyImages-1162219738-768x535.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/09/GettyImages-1162219738-1536x1070.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/09/GettyImages-1162219738-2048x1427.jpg 2048w" sizes="(max-width: 850px) 100vw, 850px" />Justin Sullivan/Getty Images</div>
While Trump has apparently “<a href="https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-virus-outbreak-joe-biden-campaigns-michael-pence-ee021beed099a2cf8cbd1e28161740a1">skipped formal preparation</a>,” his supporters should hope that he has prepared in his own way. You can be sure that Biden — or, more realistically, Biden’s campaign team — are prepared. All they require is a few strong minutes of attack against Trump to provide the complicit mainstream media with enough soundbites and video clips to “prove” that Biden is a strong vibrant young man who knows the Pledge of Allegiance by heart. Trump cannot give Biden an inch, and must therefore prepare for battle.
2. Rattle Biden.
Trump is a hammer in search of a nail. Sometimes, the hammer hits a puppy, but sometimes, the hammer destroys a Democrat. Tuesday night is built for this hammer, and it is time for Trump to go full Trump, and enter the debate with the expressed objective of destroying Biden.
Biden is demonstrably unstable, falling apart under even the slightest pressure. Difficult questions will lead him to challenge opponents to physical confrontations, or to stumble on his words, or to retreat from the topic entirely. Trump must channel his inner schoolyard bully and target these weaknesses. The goal is to make Biden speechless. The goal is to make Biden forget where he is. The goal is to make Biden forget who he is.
<div id="attachment_151583" style="width: 860px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-151583" loading="lazy" class="wp-image-151583" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/GettyImages-613702054-868x576.jpg" alt="TOPSHOT - US Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton (R) and Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump participate a town hall debate against Republican nominee Donald Trump at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, on October 9, 2016. / AFP PHOTO / POOL / SAUL LOEB" width="850" height="564" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/09/GettyImages-613702054-868x576.jpg 868w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/09/GettyImages-613702054-300x199.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/09/GettyImages-613702054-768x509.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/09/GettyImages-613702054-1536x1019.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/09/GettyImages-613702054-2048x1359.jpg 2048w" sizes="(max-width: 850px) 100vw, 850px" />SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images</div>
This may seem cruel, but it is a necessary cruelty if Trump wishes to beat Biden. If this becomes a battle of personality, Trump loses. If this becomes a battle of stability under pressure, Biden loses. Trump must rattle Biden, and should therefore focus on the legitimate and relevant subject most likely to trigger “Old Joe” — Hunter Biden. The millions of dollars from Russian billionaires? The huge salary from a Ukrainian gas company despite no industry knowledge or experience? The illegitimate child uncovered by a DNA test who doesn’t count as a grandchild in Joe’s eyes? All options are on the table.
3. Focus on energy. Punish Joe for being &#8220;Hidin’ Biden.&#8221;
Donald Trump is a true master of language when it comes to his political enemies. “Low Energy Jeb.” “Pencil Neck Schiff.” “Pocahontas.” Whether you like it or not, Trump has a certain talent when it comes to nicknames. His simple-yet-ruthless attacks on his Republican opponents during the 2016 primary race played a significant role in his eventual victory, and Trump should capitalize on another appropriate nickname: “Hidin’ Biden.”
<div id="attachment_119291" style="width: 860px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-119291" loading="lazy" class="wp-image-119291" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Biden-At-Home-863x576.jpg" alt="Former Vice President Joe Biden, 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, listens to a question during a virtual press briefing on a laptop computer in this arranged photograph in Arlington, Virginia, U.S., on Wednesday, March 25, 2020. During the livestreamed news conference today, Biden said he didn't see the need for another debate, which the Democratic National Committee had previously said would happen sometime in April." width="850" height="567" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/06/Biden-At-Home-863x576.jpg 863w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/06/Biden-At-Home-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/06/Biden-At-Home-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/06/Biden-At-Home-1536x1025.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/06/Biden-At-Home-2048x1366.jpg 2048w" sizes="(max-width: 850px) 100vw, 850px" />Andrew Harrer / Bloomberg via Getty Images</div>
Biden has attempted to be the first candidate in United States history to win an election remotely. Biden, Harris, and his campaign routinely evade questions from journalists, and Biden has recently “called a lid” on his campaign on multiple consecutive days. Regardless of the reason for Biden’s reduced schedule, Trump must highlight his opponent’s lack of visibility and action as a sign of inability to handle the demands of being President of the United States. People do not want to vote for someone who is afraid of the outside world, or unwilling to face hard questions, or even any questions. How can you lead a country when you are afraid of the country? Trump must present Biden as a retreating anti-leader, unwilling and unable to face challenges head on.
4. Remember that the target audience isn’t Trump’s base. It’s undecided voters.
Trump’s first term has been turbulent, to say the least. While the legislative actions of his administration have largely been positive, Trump has insisted on inserting a constant level of impulsivity which seems to undermine the objective success of his tenure. Whether through unscripted press conferences or late-night Twitter sessions, Trump has a propensity for saying regrettable things, leaving many with their head in their hands.
The response to such behavior is usually either “but his base love it,” or that even his most bizarre statements or reckless retweets are part of some brilliant larger plan. “He’s playing 4D chess!” However, this debate isn’t about pleasing his base. It’s about undecided voters.
There are very few people who voted for Trump in 2016 who would now change their minds. Same goes for those who have decided to vote for Biden. The goal should instead be to attract those who are still yet to decide between Trump and Biden.
<div id="attachment_134568" style="width: 860px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-134568" loading="lazy" class="wp-image-134568" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/FC4B4617-185D-440C-8F2C-C6CF04FDF73D-1024x576.jpeg" alt="Protesters walk past burning debris outside the Third Police Precinct on May 28, 2020 in Minneapolis, Minnesota, during a protest over the death of George Floyd, an unarmed black man, who died after a police officer kneeled on his neck for several minutes." width="850" height="478" />Kerem Yucel/AFP via Getty Images</div>
This means using issues with bipartisan support and presenting the Republicans as the sole option for those who continue to live in reality. Trump should cite his foreign policy, and the fact that Biden has been wrong on every foreign policy position he has ever held. Trump should point out that Biden and his party silently endorsed the widespread riots which gripped the country until it hurt them in the polls. Trump should remind everyone of the economic strength of the United States prior to COVID-19, and reject Biden’s unsubstantiated claims that he alone has “the solution” when he was still holding political rallies in March as Democratic governors across the country implemented policies which lead to thousands of COVID-19 deaths.
It isn’t time for 4D chess, or even 3D chess. It’s time to smash Biden on the checkers board.
5. Rather than Trump versus Biden, make the debate Trump versus Biden and the media.
In 2016, Trump’s willingness to attack the media for the partisan hacks that they are earned him a powerful following. Throughout his first term, his resilience in the face of increasingly shameless bias was a constant feature of his brand, and he should capitalize accordingly.
Since Trump’s victory against Hillary Clinton, the mainstream media have actively worked to undermine his presidency, repeatedly crossing the line from “objective reporting” to “subjective activism.” They have pushed false collusion hoaxes, legitimized spurious accusations of sexual assault leveled against Supreme Court nominees, and described violent riots as “mostly peaceful.” Time after time, they have covered for the blatant wrongdoings of Democrats, and are now spoon feeding Joe Biden with challenging questions <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/biden-press-conference-shamefully-embarrassing-questions-reporters">such as</a>, &#8220;When you hear these remarks — &#8216;suckers,&#8217; &#8216;losers,&#8217; recoiling from amputees, what does it tell you about President Trump&#8217;s soul and the life he leads?”
<div id="attachment_48515" style="width: 860px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-48515" loading="lazy" class="wp-image-48515" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/brian_stelter-1024x576.jpg" alt="NEW YORK, NEW YORK - DECEMBER 09: Brian Stelter attends 12th Annual CNN Heroes: An All-Star Tribute at American Museum of Natural History on December 09, 2018 in New York City." width="850" height="478" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2019/09/brian_stelter-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2019/09/brian_stelter-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2019/09/brian_stelter-768x432.jpg 768w" sizes="(max-width: 850px) 100vw, 850px" />John Lamparski/WireImage via Getty Images</div>
Trump has been fighting a battle against the media every day of his presidency. The fact is that the media have completely abandoned their duty to present the truth with integrity, and act as an elitist class of intellectual leftists. This is an issue which goes beyond Republican or Democrat, and therefore presents Trump with an opportunity. If he can stand as the primary opponent to media bias, he opens himself up to a wide cohort of apolitical supporters who despise the arrogant and deceitful mainstream media.
On Tuesday evening, Trump must not only destroy Biden. He must also destroy the entire class of partisan hacks like Don Lemon, Chris Cuomo, and Brian Stelter who are working overtime to cover for Joe Biden and the Democratic Party.
Ian Haworth is host of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkPxdVsNp7k&amp;list=PLhi-aq-5DfuTQRVv1IOVMnA735vEYO0f5">The Ian Haworth Show</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E05t2L69Sks&amp;list=PLhi-aq-5DfuRHu5r0IV5qr4h2rBAV9oBd">The Truth in 60 Seconds</a>. Follow him on Twitter at <a href="https://twitter.com/ighaworth">@ighaworth</a>.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

HAWORTH: Debate 2020: Five Things Trump Must Do To Win

The most consequential moment (so far) of the presidential campaign is finally here. We are on the edge of the first debate between incumbent President

HAWORTH: Debate 2020: Five Things Trump Must Do To Win | The Daily Wire

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/debate-2020-five-things-trump-must-do-to-win/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/09/GettyImages-483208412-1-1200x800.jpg

After rocketing to political stardom, Rep. Ilhan Omar has been cemented as one of the faces of American “progressivism.” The first-term congresswoman from Minnesota, alongside her fellow “squad” members Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, and Rep. Ayanna Pressely, is one of the most prominent voices in favor of the array of radical policies demanded by the increasingly radical Left. For Omar, healthcare is a human right. Housing is a human right. Higher education is a human right. She has also been provided with unquestionable authority by an adoring mainstream media, and even famously appeared on the cover of Rolling Stone alongside House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The title read “Women Shaping the Future.”
Ilhan Omar is a public figure, and a rising star in her own party at that. Therefore, she is fair game for criticism. Moreover, given her outsized authority within the radical wing of the Democratic Party, she is fair game for targeted criticism from President Donald Trump. However, Trump’s methods of attack against Omar have at times been not only misdirected, they’re handing Omar the opportunity to avoid legitimate criticism under the banner of claiming victimhood.
Last year, Trump sparked outrage when he criticized the “squad” on Twitter, suggesting that they “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.” 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
&#8230;.it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1150381396994723841?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 14, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
More recently, Trump referenced the “where you came from” trope while speaking to supporters in Moon Township, Pennsylvania. “She’s telling us how to run our country.” ‘’
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
President Donald Trump on Tuesday night launched into a racist diatribe against Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), saying this isn’t her country and mocking her birthplace.
Read more: <a href="https://t.co/z0cWFq8652">https://t.co/z0cWFq8652</a> <a href="https://t.co/HcOzGMGMNp">pic.twitter.com/HcOzGMGMNp</a>
&mdash; HuffPost UK (@HuffPostUK) <a href="https://twitter.com/HuffPostUK/status/1308768920598446080?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 23, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Omar&#8217;s <a href="https://twitter.com/IlhanMN/status/1308579169081540608">response</a> began with “Firstly, this is my country &amp; I am a member of the House that impeached you.” She is correct.
Trump’s line of attack is misguided for three reasons. First, Ilhan Omar is a United States citizen, and has been for 20 years. Indeed, Omar has been a U.S. citizen longer than the First Lady, with Melania Trump obtaining citizenship in July 2006. However, whether you’ve been a citizen for 50 years or 30 minutes, citizenship of the United States is a binary status. To treat someone’s views as invalid because they were not born in the United States is, by definition, xenophobic. To treat someone’s citizenship as invalid because they were not born in the United States is, by definition, un-American.
Secondly, the “go back where you came from” argument is unnecessarily providing Trump critics with another opportunity to claim he&#8217;s &#8220;racist.&#8221; While some will argue that it’s valid to request that those who advocate for political systems respect the fact that they have failed elsewhere, that is simply not what Trump is saying. Telling United States citizens elected to the House of Representatives to “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came,” or that “she’s telling us how to run our country” makes their supposed “foreign home” the target of criticism, and not their ideas.
Lastly, and most importantly, Trump’s strategy provides Omar with the ability to continue spewing hateful, bigoted, and ideologically immoral nonsense. By focusing on Omar as an immigrant, he makes it easy for the Left to — understandably — defend Omar as victim. He also makes it easy for Omar to stand on the platform of intersectionality and use her authority as a “black Muslim woman” to reject Trump’s rhetoric as bigoted on its face. 
Instead, Trump should be focusing on what makes Omar truly objectionable — her views. Criticize her for the radical socialist policies she promotes, which are based on an ideology of greed, entitlement, and an ignorance of history and reality. Criticize her rampant and shameless obsession with spewing anti-Semitic tropes that fuel the rising rate of anti-Semitic attacks across the United States. Criticize her leadership and the leadership of her fellow Democrats, which has left the city of Minnesota in ashes.
Omar&#8217;s ideological positions are so abjectly appalling that there is a wide range of legitimate criticisms about her which can be made. Where she “comes from” is not one of them. What matters is what she says and what she thinks. Somalia could be a shining paradise, and she would still be a terrorist-defending, anti-Semitic socialist whose policies will drag the United States — her country — into an abyss of misery. 
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Ilhan Omar

HAWORTH: Trump Is Right To Criticize Ilhan Omar, But Not For Her Background

Anti-Semitism

After rocketing to political stardom, Rep. Ilhan Omar has been cemented as one of the faces of American “progressivism.” The first-term congresswoman from

HAWORTH: Trump Is Right To Criticize Ilhan Omar, But Not For Her Background | The Daily Wire

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/haworth-trump-is-right-to-criticize-ilhan-omar-but-not-for-her-background/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/09/GettyImages-1058488634-1200x800.jpg

In recent months, the Democrats have found a new favorite word — “distraction.” When President Donald Trump or his administration achieve anything of value, the Democrats will claim that such action was meant to “distract” us from whatever the they would rather talk about. Conversely, when the Democrats are criticized for something, they will claim that such criticism is meant to “distract” from what the Republicans are “up to.”
Earlier in September, it was <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-54124996">announced</a> that Israel had reached an agreement to fully normalize their relations with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. The UAE and Bahrain were only the third and fourth Arab countries to recognize Israel’s existence since its founding in 1948. Trump and his administration — particularly Jared Kushner — brokered this once-in-a-generation agreement.
Speaking with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on September 11th about the agreements between Israel and the two Arab states, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/09/13/pelosi_calls_trump-brokered_mideast_peace_deals_a_distraction.html">claimed</a> that a step closer to peace in the Middle East was a “distraction.”
“Good for him for having a distraction on a day when the numbers of people who are affected and the numbers of people who are dying from this virus only increases.”
This is not the first time Nancy Pelosi has accused Trump of attempting to “distract” us from “the truth.” In May, for example, she <a href="https://www.msnbc.com/andrea-mitchell-reports/watch/pelosi-claims-trump-is-using-his-feud-with-twitter-as-a-distraction-84032581778">said</a> that “she believed President Trump was using his feud with Twitter and an upcoming executive order on social media regulations as a distraction from the impact of coronavirus.”
The same is true of the mainstream media, who happily direct and divert focus based on political necessity. The Atlantic published a piece titled “‘Obamagate’ Is Just Trump’s Latest Effort at Distraction,” arguably in a bid to distract us from the “<a href="https://nypost.com/2020/05/23/obamagate-isnt-a-distraction-its-about-outrageous-abuses/">outrageous abuses</a>” at the heart of the accusations. Similarly, The New Yorker published a <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-trumps-washington/trump-is-a-superspreader-of-distraction">piece</a> titled “Trump Is A Superspreader — Of Distraction,” and <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/30/politics/trump-distractions-pandemic-racial-unrest/index.html">CNN</a> went with “A week of distractions from Trump shows a leader in crisis.” 
These suggested that any of Trump’s actions — whether real or imaginary — were motivated solely by a desire to “distract” his supporters from his “original sins.” 
Now, it’s important to acknowledge that politics is entirely a game of deflection and distraction. The most successful politicians are experts at redirecting criticism with lightning-fast flashes of “whataboutism” or shameless refusals to accept culpability. For example, Pelosi’s unbelievable assertion that her decision to attend a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/nancy-pelosi-accuses-salon-of-setting-her-up-suggests-shes-owed-an-apology">San Francisco hair salon</a> during lockdown was “a setup” and that it was the salon who owed her an apology.
However, the attempt by the Left to label everything Trump says and does as a distraction proves how willing they are to avoid any context or perspective, and how unwilling they are to remain rooted in reality. While the odd reckless tweet is likely designed to distract from a breaking news story, this logic simply doesn’t hold when it comes to the positive of his administration on a broader level.
According to the Democrats, Trump announcing that the United States would withdraw from the World Health Organization has nothing to do with the fact that the WHO are simply high-level shills for communist China. It’s a “distraction.” Trump’s warning that universal mail-in voting will provide huge opportunity for fraud is not an obvious statement of fact for anyone who doesn’t want to benefit from such potential fraud. It’s a “distraction.” Brokering once-in-a-generation peace agreements in the Middle East — when countless Democrats sneered at the very idea of Trump achieving what they claimed was impossible — is not deserving of praise, and certainly not a Nobel Peace Prize &#8211; those are reserved for Democrats who set the Middle East on fire. It’s a “distraction.”
Ironically, accusations of distraction from Democrats are themselves distractions from the objective success of the Trump administration on several occasions. If peace in the Middle East or our withdrawal from the corrupt WHO is a “distraction,” keep the distractions coming, Mr. President.
More from Ian Haworth: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/haworth-supreme-court-hypocrisy-a-look-at-last-30-years-shows-its-dems-whove-abused-process">Supreme Court Hypocrisy? A Look At Last 30 Years Shows It’s Dems Who’ve Abused The Process</a>
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer

HAWORTH: The Media & Democrats’ New Strategy For Trashing Trump

Middle East

World Health Organization

In recent months, the Democrats have found a new favorite word — “distraction.” When President Donald Trump or his administration achieve anything of

HAWORTH: The Media &amp; Democrats’ New Strategy For Trashing Trump | The Daily Wire

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/haworth-the-media-democrats-new-strategy-for-trashing-trump/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/09/GettyImages-1091560438-1200x800.jpg

The Supreme Court continues to be one of the central issues driving every modern presidential election. The death or retirement of a single Supreme Court Justice can send shockwaves through our entire society, stirring up stunning levels of vitriol, hyperbolic rhetoric, and aggression. But how did we get here? Why is the Supreme Court so important?
The Authority of the Supreme Court
The United States Supreme Court “is the highest tribunal in the nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.” 
Article III of the United States Constitution establishes the federal judiciary.
<blockquote>“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” </blockquote>
Congress has the power to decide how to organize the Supreme Court, with the Judiciary Act of 1789 establishing 6 justices. This number has fluctuated over time, from a low of 5 to a high of 10. Since the Circuit Judges Act of 1869, there have been 9 justices on the court, with a Chief Justice and 8 Associate Justices.
Article III, Section II outlines the court’s jurisdiction, which allows certain cases to be tried directly before the court, and for appeals to be considered regarding almost any other case that involves a matter of constitutional and/or federal law. 
<blockquote>“The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;&#8211;to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;&#8211;to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;&#8211;to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;&#8211;to controversies between two or more states;&#8211;between a state and citizens of another state;&#8211;between citizens of different states;&#8211;between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.”</blockquote>
Article II Section II provides the president — with the support of the Senate — with the ability to appoint judges to the Supreme Court.
<blockquote>“He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.”</blockquote>
Why is the Supreme Court so powerful?
The best-known, and arguably the most impactful, power of the Supreme Court is “judicial review.” The case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803 first established the Court’s ability to strike down any Legislative or Executive act as “unconstitutional” if it is deemed to violate the text of the Constitution. 
Therein lies the rub. While the United States Constitution is a concrete document, the action of interpreting it is often abstract. The subjectivity of interpretation possessed by each Supreme Court Justice means that the same text can be “interpreted” in a variety of ways. There are originalist justices, who believe that there is some form of original intent or meaning which remains unchanged in the words of the Constitution. Then there are those who interpret the Constitution as a vague &#8220;living document&#8221; which morphs based on the society of its time. Then there are those who see the Constitution as a barrier to underlying political objectives which must therefore be traversed rather than respected.
The style of interpretation possessed by its members is what makes the Supreme Court such a politically contentious issue. When we analyze the potential implications of judicial review through the lens of genuine intellectual disagreement or partisan cynicism, history is replete with examples of devastatingly consequential judicial decisions which had entirely legislative outcomes.
Legislative power through the judicial branch
In Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), the Supreme Court determined that the Constitution was supposedly not meant to include American citizenship for black people. In Roe v. Wade (1973), the Supreme Court concluded that the Constitution somehow protects a woman’s freedom to have an abortion under the banner of “protecting privacy.” In Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Supreme Court declared that same-sex marriage was guaranteed by the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. These landmark decisions, with vast legislative and societal results, were determined by nine unelected members of the judicial branch.
Apart from whether or not these individual decisions — and many others — are right or wrong, the broader issue is that the Supreme Court can be deliberately misused as a tool of “progress” to bypass the inconvenient barrier of legislative process. For this reason, those who view the Constitution as either a “living document” which can be molded to their perspective or as an obstacle see the Supreme Court as a prize which must be won. In return, those who wish to defend the Constitution must also fight to protect it from such judicial abuse.
Over the decades, political activists have discovered that it is immeasurably more efficient to achieve their political desires with the support of a handful of unelected and politically-motivated lawyers than the support of the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the White House. Ultimately, it is up to us to demand that the legislative branch do their job, and it is up to us to protect the Constitution.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Pro-Abortion outside Supreme Court

Why Is The Supreme Court So Important?

Judicial Branch

The Supreme Court continues to be one of the central issues driving every modern presidential election. The death or retirement of a single Supreme Court

Why Is The Supreme Court So Important? | The Daily Wire

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/why-is-the-supreme-court-so-important/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/09/GettyImages-56303751-1200x800.jpg

Yet again, the Supreme Court is on the frontlines of an already raging political war. With only weeks remaining before the election in November, the Democrats are pivoting to focus solely on Trump and his Republican Senate’s constitutional ability to nominate and confirm a Supreme Court Justice to succeed the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Trump’s rightful determination to follow Article 2 Section 2 of the United States Constitution is being disingenuously presented as proof of his corrupt desire to “steal another&#8221; Supreme Court seat, a charge leveled by the Left to justify the emergency use of “every tool at their disposal.”
In addition, the undeniable political importance of the Judicial Branch is being used by the Democrats to further prop up their cynical belief that the American political system must reject the legislative nuisance that is the Electoral College and embrace mob rule, all under the banner of “democracy.” The argument is that, because Trump didn’t win the popular vote, any and all of his constitutionally valid abilities and actions are therefore democratically invalid.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
We&#39;re in danger of a majority of Justices on the Supreme Court being chosen by Presidents who didn&#39;t even get the majority of the popular vote. 
Any way you look at it, we&#39;re getting less democratic by the day.
&mdash; Pete Buttigieg (@PeteButtigieg) <a href="https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1308549912456556545?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 22, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Not only that, the Democrats and their mainstream media enablers have preemptively launched an attack on Amy Coney Barrett, who has <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/22/politics/amy-coney-barrett-trump-supreme-court/index.html">emerged</a> as “Trump’s overwhelming favorite” to succeed Ginsburg. 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Handmaid&#39;s Tale? U.S. Supreme Court candidate&#39;s religious community under scrutiny <a href="https://t.co/eEkDpJqaQi">https://t.co/eEkDpJqaQi</a> <a href="https://t.co/4vpEbe7jmi">pic.twitter.com/4vpEbe7jmi</a>
&mdash; Reuters Politics (@ReutersPolitics) <a href="https://twitter.com/ReutersPolitics/status/1308489127332061185?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 22, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
For the next few weeks, the Democrats will scream to the skies while declaring that this time things are truly worse than ever before. It’s important that we avoid being dragged into this emotionally driven trap and, instead, seek a healthy dose of historical context. Looking at previous nominations to the Supreme Court during the past 30 years paints a different picture, where Democrats have it easy when they are “in power,” and are willing to use “every tool at their disposal” whenever the political tables turn.
Donald Trump
Both of Trump’s Supreme Court nominations have been controversial, with the absurdity of the latter making the former seem routine. Despite Democrats filibustering a confirmation vote in April 2017, the Republicans invoked the “nuclear option,” which <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/senate-nuclear-option-neil-gorsuch/index.html">allowed</a> them “to break a Democratic filibuster of Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch.” After what now seems like a laughable attempt to smear Gorsuch by <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/chrisgeidner/a-short-section-in-neil-gorsuchs-2006-book-appears-to-be">citing</a> supposedly “similar language” between his book “The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia” and an earlier law review article, the Senate confirmed Gorsuch’s nomination by 54 votes to 45, with three Democrats voting in favor. With that majority vote, Gorsuch replaced the late Justice Scalia.
What came next tore political wounds which have yet to even begin to scar. Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing stands as an infamous moment in modern political history, proving how far the Democrats are willing to go in their pursuit of power. Fearing that Justice Kavanaugh would remove the legislative advantage provided by his predecessor Justice Kennedy, the Democrats and the mainstream media promoted accusations of sexual assault leveled against Kavanaugh, ranging from the unsubstantiated to the utterly spurious. The entire political Left embraced the illogical “Believe All Women” slogan, with presidential hopefuls Sen. Kamala Harris and Sen. Cory Booker gleefully using this newfound virtue signaling opportunity as a platform to launch their doomed campaigns. Sen. Lindsey Graham famously achieved “Lindsey Graham 2.0” status with his powerful summation of the Democrats’ strategy.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@LindseyGrahamSC</a>’s iconic rejection of the Democrats’ attempt to destroy Kavanaugh in their lust for power. <a href="https://t.co/J1nRhEm3z8">pic.twitter.com/J1nRhEm3z8</a>
&mdash; Ian G Haworth (@ighaworth) <a href="https://twitter.com/ighaworth/status/1308926787884167168?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 24, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
After weeks of inflammatory accusations, media malfeasance, and FBI investigations, Justice Kavanaugh was narrowly confirmed by 50 votes to 48, despite the Republicans holding a larger majority in the Senate throughout Trump&#8217;s first term.
Barack Obama
During his administration, Obama had three opportunities to nominate new Supreme Court Justices. In 2009, with a Democratic Senate majority of 57 seats, Justice Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed by 68 votes to 31, including Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham 1.0. Sotomayor replaced Justice David Souter, appointed by President George H. W. Bush in 1990. In 2010, with the same Senate majority, Obama nominated Elana Kagan to replace Justice John Paul Stevens, who was appointed by Republican President Gerald Ford in 1975. Justice Kagan was confirmed by 63 votes to 37. Even minority whip Jon Kyl, who opposed Kagan’s nomination as a Supreme Court Justice, rejected the use of strong measures to block a confirmation vote, <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2010/05/kyl-gop-wont-filibuster-kagan-037308">stating</a>, “The filibuster should be relegated to extreme circumstances, and I don’t think Elana Kagan represents that.”
The only Obama Supreme Court nominee who faced significant opposition was Merrick Garland. While the Democrats will compare 2020 to 2016 as evidence of the Republican’s deep hypocrisy, there are two fundamental differences. Firstly, the Republicans held a Senate majority in 2016, and therefore had every right to reject a Democrat president&#8217;s nominee. Secondly, Obama was attempting to replace the originalist and textualist Justice Scalia, meaning that the Republicans were keen to prevent a significant ideological switch.
<div id="attachment_134716" style="width: 860px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-134716" loading="lazy" class="wp-image-134716" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/sctous-2.jpg" alt="WASHINGTON, DC - NOVEMBER 30: United States Supreme Court (Front L-R) Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice Samuel Alito, Jr., (Back L-R) Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Elena Kagan and Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh pose for their official portrait at the in the East Conference Room at the Supreme Court building November 30, 2018 in Washington, DC. Earlier this month, Chief Justice Roberts publicly defended the independence and integrity of the federal judiciary against President Trump after he called a judge who had ruled against his administration’s asylum policy “an Obama judge.” “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Roberts said in a statement. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.” (Photo by" width="850" height="461" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/08/sctous-2.jpg 1018w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/08/sctous-2-300x163.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/08/sctous-2-768x416.jpg 768w" sizes="(max-width: 850px) 100vw, 850px" />Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images</div>
George W. Bush
During his administration, both of President Bush’s nominees for the Supreme Court were considered by a Senate with a Republican majority. Justice John Roberts was confirmed in September 2005 by 78 votes to 22, succeeding Ronald Reagan appointee Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who died days earlier. Just over two months later, Justice Samuel Alito was confirmed by 58 votes to 42, despite comments from Sen. John Kerry who called for a filibuster to block Alito’s confirmation, <a href="https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Filibuster-option-on-Alito-divides-Senate-2542729.php">accusing</a> “President Bush of trying to make the Supreme Court more ideologically conservative.” Justice Alito succeeded Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, another Reagan appointee who was also considered to be the swing vote for the Rehnquist court.
Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton’s nominees experienced stunningly smooth confirmation processes, both with a Democrat Senate majority. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed with a now unimaginable 96 votes to 3, despite refusing to answer questions regarding the constitutionality of some issues and not others during her confirmation hearings. Kavanaugh was famously <a href="https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/ct-perspec-kabuki-theater-brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-0716-story.html">criticized</a> for similarly refusing to answer similar questions during his hearings. Almost a year later, Justice Stephen Breyer succeeded Nixon appointee Justice Harry Blackmun with 87 votes to 9. 
<div id="attachment_149314" style="width: 860px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-149314" loading="lazy" class="wp-image-149314" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/GettyImages-882518370-864x576.jpg" alt="Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, at the 2016 JFNA GA." width="850" height="567" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/09/GettyImages-882518370-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/09/GettyImages-882518370-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/09/GettyImages-882518370-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/09/GettyImages-882518370.jpg 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 850px) 100vw, 850px" />Michael Brochstein/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images</div>
George H. W. Bush
President George H. W. Bush successfully nominated two Supreme Court Justices, despite the Democrats holding a Senate majority on both occasions. In 1990, Justice David Souter succeeded President Eisenhower appointee Justice William J. Brennan Jr., confirmed by 90 votes to 9. Souter was nominated by Bush despite being a “stealth justice” with a minimal “paper trail,” with Souter’s views regarding abortion, affirmative action, or other issues being unknown. As a result, while it was foolishly assumed that Justice Souter would be a “conservative” member of the court, he would go on to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/topic/person/david-h-souter">consistently</a> vote in line with the Court’s Left-leaning wing. 
However, while Bush’s second nomination was eventually successful, his confirmation hearing was eerily similar to Kavanaugh’s hearing in 2018. Justice Clarence Thomas was nominated in 1991 to succeed Justice Thurgood Marshall, a civil rights activist who was appointed by President Johnson in 1967. Justice Thomas’ nomination proceedings were deeply contentious, with multiple groups opposing Thomas because of his conservative positions, especially regarding abortion. In the same way as 2018, the media hungrily spun sexual harassment allegations leveled against Thomas by Anita Hill into an unprecedented frenzy. One statement made during Thomas’ testimony seemed to predict what was yet to come in 2018.
<blockquote>&#8220;This is a case in which this sleaze, this dirt, was searched for by staffers of members of this committee. It was then leaked to the media. And this committee and this body validated it and displayed it in prime time over our entire nation.&#8221;</blockquote>
Another described the racist condemnation of conservative black Americans we still see leveled today against targets such as Candace Owens or Kanye West.
<blockquote>“This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It&#8217;s a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.”</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Clarence Thomas’ statement in 1991 describes the same racist depravity we see today. <a href="https://t.co/WuANcdB8N2">pic.twitter.com/WuANcdB8N2</a>
&mdash; Ian G Haworth (@ighaworth) <a href="https://twitter.com/ighaworth/status/1308966084687654913?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 24, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Can you see the difference?
Our brief analysis of the past 30 years has covered the experiences of 10 different nominations to the Supreme Court. These cases demonstrate a clear pattern, uncovering the cynical strategy at the heart of the Democratic Party’s attempt to undermine Trump’s constitutional right as president to nominate a Supreme Court Justice, and the current Republican Senate’s constitutional duty to confirm his nominee.
Democrat President &amp; Democrat Senate
When the Democrats hold both positions of power relevant to the Supreme Court &#8211; the White House and the Senate &#8211; their experience has been comparatively smooth sailing. Clinton appointed both Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer to the Court with vast bipartisan support, and Obama appointed both Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan with comfortable support.
Republican President &amp; Republican Senate
While George W. Bush had a mixed experience when his party held both the White House and the Senate &#8211; with Chief Justice Roberts confirmed with a large majority and Justice Alito confirmed with a narrow majority &#8211; the same cannot be said for the next Republican president.
Replacing conservative judicial titan Justice Scalia required the use of a “nuclear option” in order to successfully appoint Justice Gorsuch. Replacing Justice Kennedy, whose swing vote was politically crucial for the Democrats’ strategy of using the Supreme Court as a second legislative branch, required overcoming unsubstantiated and discredited waves of accusations of sexual assault, including gang rape.
Democrat President &amp; Republican Senate
The Democrats only nominated one judge for the Supreme Court in the last 30 years when they did not hold the Senate. Obama was well within his constitutional power to nominate Merrick Garland to replace Justice Scalia, and the Republican Senate were well within their constitutional power to refuse a vote.
Republican President &amp; Democrat Senate
The Republicans nominated two judges for the Supreme Court in the last 30 years when they did not hold the Senate. While Justice Souter was confirmed with a huge majority of 90 votes to 9, Justice Thomas experienced a barrage of politically motivated accusations of sexual misconduct, with the clear goal of preventing a conservative judge from replacing a “progressive” one.
<div id="attachment_84187" style="width: 860px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-84187" loading="lazy" class="wp-image-84187" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/327B4654-BB14-4AFE-9B5F-226BDD96AB2E-1024x576.jpeg" alt="Clarence Thomas closes his eyes and puts his hand to his head during his hearing regarding the alleged sexual harassment of Anita Hill." width="850" height="479" />Wally McNamee/CORBIS/Corbis via Getty Images</div>
The conclusion is obvious. When the rules are in the Democrats’ favor, all is well. In any other scenario, as they state even today, every tool is at their disposal.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

HAWORTH: Supreme Court Hypocrisy? A Look At Last 30 Years Shows It’s Dems Who’ve Abused The Process

Brett Kavanaugh

Clarence Thomas

Yet again, the Supreme Court is on the frontlines of an already raging political war. With only weeks remaining before the election in November, the

HAWORTH: Supreme Court Hypocrisy? A Look At Last 30 Years Shows It’s Dems Who’ve Abused The Process | The Daily Wire

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/haworth-supreme-court-hypocrisy-a-look-at-last-30-years-shows-its-dems-whove-abused-process/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/09/GettyImages-1041952460-1200x800.jpg

In the aftermath of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, the Democrats reacted by presenting the Republicans — and the country as a whole — with two options. The first is to honor Ginsburg’s “dying wish” and wait until after the upcoming election to nominate her replacement. The second is to respond to the Republican Senate’s constitutionally valid selection of a nominee by moving to “expand” the Supreme Court.
&#8220;Mitch McConnell set the precedent. No Supreme Court vacancies filled in an election year,&#8221; Democratic Sen. Ed Markey (MA) tweeted Friday. &#8220;If he violates it, when Democrats control the Senate in the next Congress, we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court.&#8221;
&#8220;If Sen. McConnell and [the Republican Senate] were to force through a nominee during the lame duck session — before a new Senate and President can take office — then the incoming Senate should immediately move to expand the Supreme Court,&#8221; Democratic congressional leader Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) agreed Saturday.
The action of “expanding” the U.S. Supreme Court is more commonly known as “packing the court.” Markey and Nadler were not alone in calling for the radical move.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Mitch McConnell set the precedent. No Supreme Court vacancies filled in an election year. If he violates it, when Democrats control the Senate in the next Congress, we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court.
&mdash; Ed Markey (@EdMarkey) <a href="https://twitter.com/EdMarkey/status/1307122232850870274?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 19, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
If Sen. McConnell and <a href="https://twitter.com/SenateGOP?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SenateGOP</a> were to force through a nominee during the lame duck session—before a new Senate and President can take office—then the incoming Senate should immediately move to expand the Supreme Court. 1/2 <a href="https://t.co/BDYQ0KVmJe">https://t.co/BDYQ0KVmJe</a>
&mdash; Rep. Nadler (@RepJerryNadler) <a href="https://twitter.com/RepJerryNadler/status/1307379171354652673?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 19, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
End the filibuster. Eliminate the electoral college. Expand the court. Term limits for SCOTUS. Lower the voting age. Expand the franchise. 
Take your government back.
But first — VOTE.
&mdash; Joe Kennedy III (@joekennedy) <a href="https://twitter.com/joekennedy/status/1308403573479403522?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 22, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
As Republicans show support for moving forward with a Supreme Court nominee quickly, <a href="https://twitter.com/AOC?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@AOC</a> tells me if that happens, “we should leave all options on the table, including the number of Justices that are on the Supreme Court.” Adds expanding is “absolutely” an option worth weighing. <a href="https://t.co/9KgoyrmUkL">pic.twitter.com/9KgoyrmUkL</a>
&mdash; Adam Harding (@HardingReports) <a href="https://twitter.com/HardingReports/status/1307422375131185154?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 19, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
What does “packing the court” mean?
Whether described as “packing the court” or “expanding the court,” the end result is the same — the addition of Supreme Court Justices with the deliberate goal of tipping the balance of the Supreme Court in a politically advantageous manner. In this case, the Democrats would “pack the court” with Left-leaning Justices.
The supposed justification for such an action is as a response to the hypothetical scenario in which the Democrats hold the White House and potentially the Senate, but are unable to leverage the Supreme Court as a second legislative body due to its conservative leaning. Rather than waiting for seats to become available and hope that they are able to reverse this alleged bias, they could instead work to pass a bill which would expand the Supreme Court and — overnight — guarantee their political advantage for a generation.
The alteration of the size of the Supreme Court is — by definition — political, and therefore partisan. But it’s also important to note that the size of the Supreme Court is <a href="https://www.history.com/news/7-things-you-might-not-know-about-the-u-s-supreme-court#:~:text=The%20Judiciary%20Act%20of%201789,1863%2C%20it%20rose%20to%2010.">far from constant</a>. 
When the U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court, Congress was left to decide how many justices it should hold. In 1789, The Judiciary Act set this number at six, with one chief justice and five associate justices. In 1807, it increased to seven; in 1837, to nine; and in 1863, to ten. 
In 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act which shrank the number of justices down to seven and prevented President Andrew Johnson from appointing new justices. In 1869, Congress returned the number of justices to nine, and it has remained that way ever since.
It’s also important to note that this is not the first time a political party has made plans to “pack the court” since the nine-justice precedent was set back in 1869. 
In 1937, Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt proposed The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill, which would grant the president power to appoint up to six additional justices to the Supreme Court, one for every member of the court over the age of 70 years and 6 months. What drove this proposal was Roosevelt’s growing frustration with the Supreme Court’s “<a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/how-would-court-packing-work">thwarting</a>” of his New Deal programs on constitutional grounds.  Ultimately, Roosevelt did not succeed.
“Expanding” or “packing” the Supreme Court is nothing new, and calls for its implementation will likely reappear any time those who see the Supreme Court as a legislative blocker grow impatient or frustrated. However, while “packing the court” may provide immediate powers, it would only serve to trigger a slippery slope of court expansion in return. 
The end result would be the utter rejection of the protections provided by The Founders through their masterful system of checks and balances, instead effectively merging the Judicial Branch with the Legislative Branch, leaving matters of constitutionality to be decided by popular vote. In other words, the Constitution would die.
Will the Democrats actually go there?
The chances that the Democrats would actually take the extreme measure if they were to win the presidency and Senate would appear to be low, though the growing number of Democrats getting on board may change the calculus.
Asked about the idea during the primary last year, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden said he was &#8220;not prepared&#8221; to go there &#8220;because we&#8217;ll live to rue that day.&#8221; As reported by <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/death-of-ruth-bader-ginsburg/2020/09/20/915048049/if-republicans-confirm-new-justice-scholars-say-democratic-court-packing-is-poss">NPR</a>, Biden rejected the idea again a month later. &#8220;I would not get into court packing,&#8221; he said. &#8220;We add three justices. Next time around, we lose control, they add three justices. We begin to lose any credibility the court has at all.&#8221;
Biden didn&#8217;t address the issue in his comments on the Supreme Court Sunday, while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) sidestepped the question on ABC, saying, &#8220;Let&#8217;s just win the election. Let&#8217;s hope that the president will see the light.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
“Let’s just win the election. Let’s hope that the president will see the light,” Speaker Pelosi tells <a href="https://twitter.com/GStephanopoulos?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@GStephanopoulos</a> when asked about some Democrats calling for an expansion of the Supreme Court if Republican approve a Trump SCOTUS nominee ahead of 2020. <a href="https://t.co/TkkaJ0jj9y">https://t.co/TkkaJ0jj9y</a> <a href="https://t.co/nS13nDbWh0">pic.twitter.com/nS13nDbWh0</a>
&mdash; This Week (@ThisWeekABC) <a href="https://twitter.com/ThisWeekABC/status/1307673913711828993?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 20, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Chuck Schumer Nancy Pelosi

HAWORTH: What Is ‘Packing’ The Supreme Court, And Will The Democrats Really Go There?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

In the aftermath of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, the Democrats reacted by presenting the Republicans — and the country as a whole — with two

HAWORTH: What Is ‘Packing’ The Supreme Court, And Will The Democrats Really Go There? | The Daily Wire

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/haworth-what-is-packing-the-supreme-court-and-will-the-democrats-actually-go-there/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/09/Chuck-Schumer-Nancy-Pelosi.jpg

Menu