If you’ve never heard of Ibram Henry Rogers, don’t feel as though you’re uninformed. These days he goes by Ibram X. Kendi.

Still doesn’t ring a bell? Well, Kendi is the head of something called the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, and he’s the author of such titles as The Black Campus Movement: Black Students and the Racial Reconstitution of Higher Education, 1965–1972, Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America, How to Be an Antiracist, STAMPED: Racism, Antiracism, and You, and Antiracist Baby.

Kendi’s background, based on such titles, would indicate he must have come up grotesquely poor and disadvantaged, but nope — his parents were professionals. Larry Rogers is a tax accountant, hospital chaplain, and Methodist minister, and Carol Rogers is a former health care business analyst for a health-care organization and now a Methodist minister. He attended private schools in Queens before moving to Manassas, Virginia, and graduating from Stonewall Jackson High School. College at Florida A&M, grad school at Temple, marination in the African-American Studies programs in both institutions, and pow — you get someone capable of tweeting this:

Some White colonizers “adopted” Black children. They “civilized” these “savage” children in the “superior” 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.

That popped out of Kendi’s Twitter account on Saturday, just before President Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.

What prompted Kendi’s paranoid and quite racist screed is the fact that Barrett and her husband have, among their seven children, an adopted daughter and son from Haiti.

Among the various things that white people may not do, according to the High Priests of Critical Race Theory like Ibram X. Kendi, is to adopt black children. And Kendi is not alone among leftists willing to push this hot button. For example, there was the troglodyte Democrat activist Dana Houle, who tweeted:

I would love to know which adoption agency Amy Coney Barrett & her husband used to adopt the two children they brought here from Haiti.

So here’s a Q: does the press even investigate details of Barrett’s adoptions from Haiti? Some adoptions from Haiti were legit. Many were sketchy as hell. And if press learned they were unethical & maybe illegal adoptions, would they report it? Or not because it involves her children.

Would it matter if her kids were scooped up by ultra-religious Americans, or Americans weren’t scrupulous intermediaries and the kids were taken when there was a family in Haiti? I dunno, I think it does, but maybe it doesn’t or shouldn’t.

And then there was John Lee Brougher, the former chief technology officer for Texas Democrat state senator and failed gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis (he also operates Tom Steyer’s PAC), who popped this out:

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.

Both Twitter accounts have been made private since after bringing down a mountain of objection and opprobrium with those obnoxious tweets. Nevertheless, it’s clear the Left is determined to turn “controversial” an unalloyed good deed that Amy and Jesse Barrett have done in raising a pair of kids from desperate circumstances in one of the poorest countries in the world as their own.

And Kendi, Houle, and Brougher ought to be thanked for their hideously poor manners. What they’ve done is to provide us a perfect stage upon which to demonstrate the utter and total atrocity that is Critical Race Theory. We should absolutely have that conversation right now, before the election and during Barrett’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

It’s timely not just because the Left thinks it’s appropriate, and, worse, advantageous to attack Barrett on her “transracial adoptions,” an attack which cuts to the heart of Critical Race Theory.

To bring those of you up to speed on what CRT is, it’s a Cultural Marxist academic aggression which holds that everything about white European-based civilization is inherently and irredeemably racist, and therefore People of Color are constantly victimized by everything white people — and in particular white Americans — do. Everything you’ve heard about “white privilege” spews forth out of CRT, which is so extreme as to say that white people are racists at birth. And that black people can’t succeed in so racist a society as this, despite the fact black people in America have a standard of living that would compare similarly to that of white people in Europe, and so must be held to a lower standard of behavior than whites.

Of course, Critical Race Theory is an offshoot of Critical Theory, which was invented by white people. It’s one of the intellectual dirty bombs set off by the Marxists of the Frankfurt School, under the motive of undermining a free capitalist society by destroying its culture. And also under the recognition that since in America there is suitable economic mobility that one can more easily rise from poor to middle class to rich than anywhere else in the world, “class” cannot be used to establish the revolution of the proletariat.

Instead, they use race.

That’s how you get a perfectly middle-class American from a white-collar family like Ibram Rogers who turns into the virulent racist Ibram X. Kendi with just enough indoctrination from Marxist professors in the universities.

The President, God bless him, is the first American politician determined to do something about this societal scourge and attempt to toss it in the trash where it belongs. Trump issued an executive order essentially banning the use of Critical Race Theory by all federal agencies and contractors last week.

The order was a masterpiece. It prevents those affected from pushing “divisive concepts”:

“Divisive concepts” means the concepts that (1) one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; (2) the United States is fundamentally racist or sexist; (3) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; (4) an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex; (5) members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex; (6) an individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex; (7) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex; (8) any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex; or (9) meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race. The term “divisive concepts” also includes any other form of race or sex stereotyping or any other form of race or sex scapegoating.

This fight has largely been under the radar for the bulk of September since Trump first denounced CRT, but now it has a human race and an awfully positive one. Amy Coney Barrett is about as shining an example as anyone will find of the good that ordinary white Americans can do without engaging in idiotic leftist virtue-signaling. And if the Ibram X. Kendis of the world insist on demonizing her along Critical Race Theory lines, it’s going to go very, very badly for them.

And very well for the rest of us. A movement as noxious and intellectually vacant as CRT must at some point meet its demise, and there is no better time than now.

Go to Source
Author: Scott McKay

Which Biden Shows Up Tuesday?

If this is the most important election in decades, this is its most important moment. Thus far, this campaign has been a referendum on Trump; Tuesday’s debate will be one on Biden. Its outcome depends on which Biden shows up.

In 2012, this Biden took quick command of his Vice Presidential debate with his younger opponent Rep. Paul Ryan.

Like all races with a president seeking re-election, this one has centered on the incumbent. Thanks to a hostile media and Trump’s aggressive use of social media, America has had plenty of material for judgement. Topping it off, 2020 has been an acutely tumultuous year: Beginning with an impeachment trial and now a contentious Supreme Court vacancy — with a pandemic, a recession, and nationwide violence in between.

While violence and the vacancy have taken some recent focus off Trump, the campaign’s basic contour has remained a race about him. That will change next Tuesday with the first of three presidential debates. For ninety minutes, America’s focus will be on Joe Biden’s performance in Cleveland.

In conventional campaigns, debates are challengers’ opportunities to elevate themselves to the level of their incumbent opponent. In this most unconventional of campaigns, it presents Biden more risk than opportunity.

Biden has not wanted this focus; through his “virtual campaign,” he has worked hard to avoid it at all costs. Nor has Biden needed it; he has held a consistent lead and used a long political résumé to supplant current scrutiny. However now, whether wanted or needed, he will have it. The question is: Which Biden will get this scrutiny?

Tuesday’s Biden could be the professional politician. This Biden has had two previous presidential runs, two terms as Vice President, and six terms as Senator. He has been in countless public settings, to the point they are second nature.

In 2012, this Biden took quick command of his Vice Presidential debate with his younger opponent Representative Paul Ryan. He was aggressive beyond the point of arrogance, never letting Ryan off the defensive. His persona was completely scripted, and he held it with an actor’s skill throughout the one-sided contest.

However, the Biden of 2020 has not been the Biden of 2012. Biden has a long past history in public settings, what he has lacked is a current one. Its absence is no more accidental than his 2012 debate Alpha-Male persona; it has been assiduously crafted and adhered to.

Tuesday’s Biden could be the current reclusive one. This Biden exudes a fragility. It is the one of continuous gaffes. It is the one who did not win a single one of the countless Democratic debates, even as he won the nomination. It is the one who went into virtual isolation after winning the nomination.

This Biden still cannot speak effectively to his most important constituency, blacks, who saved his campaign and at whom his candidacy so clearly aims. Note how many of his worst gaffes have come in his attempts to connect with them. This Biden has speeches without real audiences and press conferences without real questions.

On Tuesday, in the midst of a four-year referendum on Trump, America will get a one-night reprieve with Biden. There are those on the right who doubt the debate will occur; there are those on the left who doubt that it should. However, none can doubt its potential impact.

A Biden “victory” could cement his lead. A Biden “loss” could give Trump much-needed momentum in a horrendous year. Even more than changing the momentum, a Biden “loss” could change the race’s focus from Trump to Biden, extending this from a single night to the contest’s remaining month. After four years, Americans already know Trump; what they do not know is which Biden will show up. Tuesday’s outcome depends on it.

J.T. Young served under President George W. Bush as the director of communications in the Office of Management and Budget and as deputy assistant secretary in legislative affairs for tax and budget at the Treasury Department. He served as a congressional staffer from 1987 through 2000.

Go to Source
Author: J.T. Young

The West Must Take Revenge on China: Send in Clippy

I love Word’s auto-correct feature. Every time I get a letter addressed to Txistu, Ixtu, or Two Diaz, I laugh out loud and then reply with a letter bomb. I guess it was the last nail in the coffin of the company that in the ’90s bet on a speaking paperclip that smiled and asked: “What can I do for you?” You would look at it scratching your head, thinking I don’t know, maybe I have a couple of loose documents in the drawer, try to catch them as hard as you can so they don’t fly off, okay? What else could that idiot Clippy do? He was such a useless assistant that next to him Joe Biden looks like Albert Einstein. Before he stuck his fingers in a socket.

I have been observing these skirmishes for days now and can only conclude that we are uneasy, upset, and deeply irritated, like Democrats at a Trump rally.  

Over the years the clip disappeared but Office continued to roll out smart features, although much to my frustration as a writer they still haven’t developed anything really smart that can write my articles without me. I thought, innocently, that if you are capable of inventing a paperclip that dances, emulating a mediocre writer should be a piece of cake. Apparently, it’s not that easy: even writing nonsense requires a little more talent than making a paperclip shake its wires.

I know this article will make some readers feel uncomfortable, and maybe I’m being unfair to Clippy, who in the end was just a paperclip with eyebrows. By the way: what was Bill Gates smoking to decide that paperclips should have eyebrows? Perhaps there’s something Freudian about the fact that millions of teenagers wear paperclips in their eyebrows these days. I will ask Siri about this.

Either way I think I’m taking my bad mood out on Clippy. It’s true. I’m in a very bad mood. And I’m not the only one. People are walking down the street with driver’s angst, which includes symptoms like thinking 99% of the population is an idiot, slow, drives poorly, and doesn’t look where they’re going. Pedestrians are behaving like drivers now. Last night I was honked at by an imbecile at a green light. He was walking too. It took me a second to get going when the light turned green, due to an old knee injury that makes my leg start up 2.5 seconds later than average, and the jerk behind me shouted “Hoooooonk, where did you get your walking license, you pile of dung with legs?” I thought about backing up and knocking him down with a double elbow blow I learned in Vietnam, but I finally pulled out, feeling his anger flashing on the back of my neck.

Yes, we are all in a bad mood lately. Yesterday I saw my first shopping cart crash at the supermarket. A young woman in her thirties, looking so empowered I could imagine her gnawing on ex-boyfriend bones for breakfast every morning, was crossing the cookie aisle at high speed, unaware that a guy weighing at least 650 pounds was accelerating to speed across the diet products aisle without being tempted into buying any of those disgusting muesli and wheat semolina bars — which, up until we all became morons, were kept in the pet section, subsection bird food. They collided at the intersection with a loud crash that sent the fat man tumbling into the melon stand, sending the melons flying and receiving a major concussion as they fell, impacting on his head, like something out of a scene from The Blues Brothers. As for the empowered lady, she was launched right over her equally empowered cart. I saw her fly in slow motion, noticing a slight decrease in her empowerment in lieu of panic in her expression, so I was forced to save her life and catch her in my arms, at the risk of standing accused of being a male chauvinist for not letting her crack her teeth against the floor.

As a consequence of the cart wreck, a heated argument ensued in which he called her a “repressed obesophobe,” while she called him a “heteropatriarchal blob.” The mess had to be cleaned up by the butcher, who entered the scene wielding a Toledan sword and a large piece of half-cut beef hanging from his shoulder, asking: “Are you going to stop arguing or do I have to put a stop to it myself?” The fat man took advantage of the distraction to slip away and the girl, still at the door of the supermarket, mumbled to herself “cow killing pig,” but too low for the butcher to actually hear.

I have been observing these skirmishes for days now and can only conclude that we are uneasy, upset, and deeply irritated, like Democrats at a Trump rally. And the reason is that this time we have been attacked and have been able to respond to the offense. Perhaps because the enemy is tiny and unknown, or because there has been no declaration of war, or because we are too preoccupied with ingesting tons of paracetamol to take away our headache and fever to even think about bombing someone in order at least to channel the frustration. Traditionally, the West, after such a conflict, has only been able to feel comfortable again after dropping a good number of missiles onto strategic military points of some secular enemy. Every cloud has its silver lining.

And it’s not true that there’s no one to blame for this whole coronavirus thing. Trump let it slip a few days ago and it would be healthy to insist: we must hold China accountable. It is the Chinese communists who hid the epidemic from the world, turning it into a pandemic. No capitalist democracy would be left unpunished after doing something like that. But even if you find my proposal of burying 50 tomahawks in Xi Jinping’s breakfast mug excessive, because it might cause trouble from the communist regime, I propose that we at least send the Chinese the Word paperclip for a while. We can bundle it with useless old Cortana, and of course the Word’s smart corrector. I doubt it will solve the problem but it will give us the satisfaction of knowing that the Chinese dictator will be receiving letters addressed to Bee Xinpin, Xi Shampoo, or Xi Ping-Pong for years to come. I can’t think of more fitting poetic justice than avenging coronavirus and the technological war all at once.

Itxu Díaz is a Spanish journalist, political satirist and author. He has written nine books on topics as diverse as politics, music, and smart appliances. He is a contributor to the Daily Beast, the Daily Caller, National Review, the American Conservative, The American Spectator, and Diario Las Américas in the United States, and is a columnist for several Spanish magazines and newspapers. He was also an adviser to the Ministry for Education, Culture, and Sports in Spain. Follow him on Twitter at @itxudiaz or visit his website

Translated by Joel Dalmau

Illustration by Iñigo Navarro Dávila

Go to Source
Author: Itxu Díaz

Race in 2020 America


A spectacularly sunny, hot day here in Rancho Mirage. Just beautiful. As usual, I swam in the morning, but even as I stroked the backstroke in my pool, I felt dizzy. I am still reeling from an experience I had last night. It started actually a couple of weeks ago when I was talking to a woman who has known me all of my life. We were discussing the election in a guarded way. She said, after I told her I planned to vote for Trump, “So I guess you really hate black people.”

I was floored. This woman, although she had known me a long time, obviously did not know me well. She did not know that in college, I had driven from Columbia in New York to Cambridge, Maryland (my native state) to march for equal rights for blacks, nor that I had briefly been jailed for it. (Very briefly.)

It’s sickening that the struggle of Goodman, Chaney, and Schwerner was for an integrated America, and now many blacks (not all) want a segregated America, blacks separate from whites.

She did not know that I had, at Yale Law School, helped to fund the Free Breakfast Program of the Black Panther Party on “the Hill” in New Haven. She did not know that I, along with the dozen or so other members of the Yale Law School Film Society, had given up most of our wages and profits to the Free Breakfast Program of the Black Panther Party. (I am sorry to say that in 1969–70 we had little idea of just how violent the Black Panthers were and how the Free Breakfast Program was just a diversion from their real, far less idealistic enterprises.)

And she did not know something that I had myself forgotten. To remember it, we have to cast our memories back to 1964. That was right in the middle of the most intense Civil Rights struggles of the century. There had been many rural black church burnings, some murders, chronic illegal blocking of blacks from theaters, restaurants, neighborhoods, and mostly from the ballot box.

In rural Mississippi, black people were kept in miserable shackles of poverty and powerlessness. A welter of college students from the Northeast, especially New York, had organized groups, especially the Congress of Federated Organizations (COFO), to send white students from the north to Mississippi for what were called “Freedom Schools,” where illiterate blacks would be taught to read and write so they could pass literacy tests (then widespread in the South) and get to vote.

One such student was Mickey Schwerner, a Jewish man from New York, who came down to Meridian, Mississippi, with his wife, Rita, to start a Freedom School. All of this was part of “Freedom Summer” whose goal was to get as many blacks as possible registered to vote that summer.

Mr. Schwerner was not greeted warmly by some of the local blacks, many of whom considered him condescending. He was met with extreme hatred by many of the local whites, especially youths, who considered him an “interloper Jew boy” and pointed out to him that New York City had plenty of problems and no one saw Mississippians driving up to there to stir things up. (A point I had frankly not considered at the time.)

Rita Schwerner was threatened with sexual violence and promptly left Meridian.

At a training session for “Freedom Summer,” Schwerner met another New York college student, also a Jew, who wanted to join in the “Freedom Summer” in Mississippi. Schwerner sought to persuade him that it was far too dangerous for him to go, but Andrew Goodman insisted on going and indeed went.

Three intrepid souls, Mickey Schwerner, Andrew Goodman, and a local young black man from Meridian, James Chaney, who had been working with COFO in Meridian for months, set out from Oxford, Ohio, to Meridian to do good works.

They did not get far. They were warned over and over that their work was extremely dangerous and that the local segregationists would stop at nothing to balk them. They went anyway. In particular, very soon after arriving in Meridian, they went to the burned-out hulk of the black Mount Zion Church. It had been burned by the Klan 1) to express the Klan’s anger at its use as a “Freedom School” and 2) to lure Andrew Goodman back to Meridian to hurt him. They hated him especially because he was Jewish, had a beard, and had stirred up the local, previously mostly quiescent blacks.

Their scheme worked evilly well. Goodman, Chaney, and Schwerner drove to the Mount Zion Church hulk and reassured the black minister that they would set up a new “Freedom School” there. On their way back to Meridian, they were pulled over by the Neshoba County sheriff, Mr. Rainey. They were jailed and released late at night. Then they were headed off by a posse of Klansmen and yanked out of their car and murdered.

They were buried in an earthen dam and their bodies not found for well over six weeks. The case was only “busted” by the FBI with the help of an informant for a nearby Ku Klux Klan. Not surprisingly, none of the killers was ever found guilty of homicide by local Neshoba County jurors or of any crime at all. (This was, in a horrible way, similar to the “jury nullification” by an all-black jury of the charges against O.J. Simpson for the murder of his ex-wife, Nicole, and Ron Goldman despite the incredible fact that a drop of Nicole’s blood was found in O.J.’s bedroom right after the murders by knife.)

Some of the killers were subsequently found guilty of civil rights violations under federal law and served light sentences.

However, the murders greatly aroused the conscience of the nation. The president, LBJ, proposed and shepherded to passage powerful civil rights laws that enfranchised blacks and other minorities and radically lessened racial discrimination in many ways.

Almost every Republican in Congress voted for those laws. Almost every Democrat voted against them.

Anyway, guess who wrote the outline for the movie, Murder in Mississippi, brought it to Warner Brothers, got it moving, and then was cheated out of full credit for my efforts? You guessed it. Ben Stein.

Now, when I watch it, I feel sick. First of all, I did not, repeat not, write the script, which is in some ways a viciously un-factual anti-Christian diatribe. Second, it was heartbreaking that blacks had been murdered and tortured in the Deep South forever and nothing much was done about it. But when two white college boys were murdered, the country turned inside out. Third, it’s sickening that the struggle of Goodman, Chaney, and Schwerner was for an integrated America, and now many blacks (not all) want a segregated America, blacks separate from whites. The leading and most nauseating example is the Congressional Black Caucus, which will not allow white congressmen to join and which has had a court rule its way. (How can that be?)

Finally, how can it be that after such incredible sacrifice by blacks and whites, madmen and madwomen say America is a “systemically racist” society? How can it be that when almost all violent deaths of blacks are caused by other blacks, that white and black police are accused of race murder?

And, wait a minute, this should be final: How can it be that when Jews led the struggle for equal rights for blacks in this glorious America, that the leading Jew-haters in the USA are black?

It all just breaks my heart. God bless this great America and keep it great.


P.S. I your humble servant, Ben Stein, have decided to dip my toes into the social media “thing” the kids seem so fond of these days. You can find me now on the Parler app @benstein. I will soon be sharing a new project I am working on called “The World According to Ben Stein.” Stay tuned or follow, please.

Go to Source
Author: Ben Stein

Hysterical Precedent and the Supreme Court

When President Trump announced his intention to quickly nominate a successor to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and requested an expeditious confirmation vote in the Senate, the Democrats responded with predictable hysteria. They loudly protested Trump’s alleged violation of historical precedent and all but pronounced the republic dead if the GOP Senate supports his pernicious plot. Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden brayed, “That’s the cycle Republican senators will continue to perpetuate if they go down this dangerous path … a constitutional crisis that plunges us deeper into the abyss.” In reality, neither prompt nominations nor quick confirmations are unprecedented or even unusual.

For all their caterwauling about precedent, the Democrats are already threatening to destroy the democratic “norms” they claim to cherish.

The first woman to sit on the Supreme Court, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was nominated by President Ronald Reagan on August 19, 1981, and confirmed by the Senate 33 days later. The second woman to sit on the Court, Justice Ginsburg, was nominated by President Bill Clinton June 22, 1993, and confirmed 42 days later. And these are by no means the fastest Senate confirmation votes on record. As Thomas Jipping of the Heritage Foundation points out, “The Senate confirmed James Byrnes in 1941 on the same day that President Franklin Roosevelt nominated him. Four years later, Roosevelt’s nomination of Harold Burton languished longer (for a single day).” In fact, dozens of Supreme Court nominees have been confirmed within 30 days of their nominations.

Nor is there any rational basis for the claim that Trump is violating historical precedent by nominating Ginsburg’s successor so near the end of his first term with no assurance that he will be reelected. University of Virginia’s Professor Barbara A. Perry has pointed out in the Washington Post, six lame duck presidents (Harrison, Hayes, Tyler, Van Buren, Jackson and Adams) nominated justices shortly before leaving office. Note that this list includes the father of the Democratic Party, Andrew Jackson, who nominated two justices on his last full day in office, including one John Catron (no relation), who served 28 years. In addition to the “hasty confirmation” and “lame duck” talking points, the Democrats have resorted to this kind of balderdash from Joe Biden:

To jam this nomination through the Senate is just an exercise in raw political power, and I don’t believe that the people of this nation will stand for it. President Trump has already made it clear, this is about power, pure and simple.… I appeal to those few Senate Republicans, the handful who really will decide what happens.… Don’t vote to confirm anyone nominated under the circumstances President Trump and Senator McConnell have created.… If we go down this path, I predict it will cause irreversible damage. The infection this president has unleashed on our democracy can be fatal.

If Biden seems to be pleading, it isn’t an illusion. As the Wall Street Journal puts it, “Senate Democrats conceded they have few tools to slow a Republican push to confirm President Trump’s expected nominee to the Supreme Court this year.” Republican support has quickly consolidated around Trump’s position  on confirming his nominee to succeed Ginsburg. GOP Senators whom the Democrats hoped would join them in their effort to derail the President’s  nominee — Utah’s Mitt Romney, Colorado’s Cory Gardner, Iowa’s Chuck Grassley, and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski — have said they will support Trump’s nominee. The GOP Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham, explained exactly why in a letter to the Democrats:

After the treatment of Justice Kavanaugh I now have a different view of the judicial-confirmation process. Compare the treatment of Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh to that of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, and it’s clear that there is one set of rules for a Republican president and one set of rules for a Democrat president.… I therefore think it is important that we proceed expeditiously to process any nomination made by President Trump to fill this vacancy. I am certain if the shoe were on the other foot, you would do the same.

Indeed they would. For all their caterwauling about precedent, the Democrats are already threatening to destroy the democratic “norms” they claim to cherish. If Trump and the Senate honor their obligation to fill the vacant Supreme Court seat with a jurist whose constitutional views conform to those of the framers, the Democrats will do everything in their power to wreck the checks and balances that have preserved our unique form of government. Thus, they can’t be trusted with power. They would create new states in order to seize permanent power in the Senate. They would pack the Court in order to keep originalists from insisting that the text of the Constitution means what it says. They would eagerly shred the social contract in the name of “social justice.”

This why they melted down when President Trump announced his intention to nominate an  originalist successor to Justice Ginsburg that he wants confirmed by Election Day. It is the hysterical precedent. They must respond to every promise fulfilled by the President, every achievement of the Republican Party as another dangerous step in the direction of autocracy. It is why the Democratic presidential candidate solemnly warns us that the mere nomination of a Supreme Court justice represents “a constitutional crisis that plunges us deeper into the abyss.” The proper response to such hysterical nonsense is to ask, “Who do you mean by ‘us’?” The answer, of course, is the Democratic Party. It isn’t Democracy they’re worried about. It’s their moribund party.

Go to Source
Author: David Catron

The Hunter Biden Problem

Joe Biden likes to say that Donald Trump’s intemperate behavior is “corrupting” America’s children. It is a curious charge coming from a pol whose own son, Hunter, is a walking display of corruption. Lost on Biden is the irony that while he worried about the bad “example” Trump might set for America’s children, his own child was self-destructing.

Biden casts the Obama years as scandal-free, even as his son’s scandal from those years continues to erupt.

It appears that Joe and his lobbyist brothers James and Frank didn’t set a particularly good example for Hunter. They taught him early in his career that he could make easy money off the family’s political connections. Long before Hunter cashed in on his father’s last name in China and Ukraine, he was profiting off it in Delaware. Joe Biden arranged gigs for him, shortly after he left law school, with MBNA, the credit card company in Delaware. While Joe Biden was pushing legislation beneficial to MBNA, Hunter was picking up mysterious checks from it for unspecified “consulting” work.

“A son of Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden was paid an undisclosed amount of money as a consultant by MBNA, the largest employer in Delaware, during the years the senator supported legislation that was promoted by the credit card industry and opposed by consumer groups,” reported CBS in 2008.

This was shrugged off at the time, but it foreshadowed Hunter’s ride on the Biden gravy train during the Obama years. Thanks to Sen. Ron Johnson’s report released this week, we now know that included a $3.5 million payment to Hunter from the richest woman in Russia, Elena Baturina. “The report described her involvement with Biden as ‘a financial relationship,’ but declined to delve deeper into why the wire transfer was made,” says the New York Post.

In light of his son’s shameless dealings, Joe Biden’s pledge to remove “dark money” from politics looks absurd. He should have begun his lectures on this subject with his own son.

Biden has excoriated the Trump family for supposedly enriching themselves off the government while pretending that his own family is guiltless of that charge. In fact, Biden knew his son was cashing in on his last name and did nothing. As the Sen. Johnson report makes clear, skittish Obama administration officials raised the Hunter Biden problem with Joe. They saw Hunter’s profiteering in Ukraine as a blatant conflict of interest for a vice president in charge of Ukraine policy. But Joe Biden didn’t care.

Biden casts the Obama years as scandal-free, even as his son’s scandal from those years continues to erupt. He allows himself such musings as

For the eight years of the Obama-Biden administration, there was not a hint of scandal. The administration established the most stringent ethics code ever adopted by any White House. Its procedures ensured that all decisions were made on the merits, without bias, favoritism or undue influence…. The Trump administration has shredded those standards. Trump is accepting foreign emoluments, and has disregarded his pledge not to expand his business overseas. And, Trump is using the federal government to prop up his resorts with countless tax dollars.

Some stringent ethics code. It obviously didn’t stop Hunter from traveling with his father to China to set up sweetheart deals for himself.

Had the media been less besotted with Obama, it would have highlighted Hunter’s scandals. Instead, it barely reported on them. His ejection from the Navy reserve for cocaine use got little coverage. The media also showed little interest in Hunter’s name turning up in the hacked subscriber data for the dating site for adulterers Ashley Madison. But in retrospect, that too was foreshadowing. As the New York Post reports:

Hunter Biden allegedly sent “thousands of dollars” to people who appear to be involved in the sex industry, according to Wednesday’s report released by Senate Republicans.

The report claims unspecified records show that Biden “has sent funds to non-resident alien women in the United States who are citizens of Russia and Ukraine and who have subsequently wired funds they have received from Hunter Biden to individuals located in Russia and Ukraine.”

“The records also note that some of these transactions are linked to what ‘appears to be an Eastern European prostitution or human trafficking ring.’ ”

The allegations are contained in a footnote to a section of the report that details potential “criminal concerns and extortion threats” involving Hunter Biden and other members of the Biden family.

Try as he might, Biden can’t erase his son’s scandals. They remain a blot on him and a weapon in the hands of Trump. If Biden foolishly attempts in the upcoming debates to pontificate about “foreign emoluments” and the like, all Trump has to do is raise the name of Hunter and ask, Why, Joe, didn’t you get his dirty money out of politics?

George Neumayr is author of The Biden Deception.

Go to Source
Author: George Neumayr

Louisville: ‘Burn It Down!’

Organized hatred is a frightening thing to behold, and no one can blame Americans for being terrified by what happened Wednesday in Louisville. After it was announced that a grand jury had indicted only one of the police officers involved in the death of Breonna Taylor, an angry mob began shouting threats punctuated with obscenities. “We didn’t get it! Burn it down!” was one of the threats. Another voice in the protest mob was still more specific, shouting at police: “All y’all get ready to f***ing die!”

This is simply terrorism, and Democratic politicians like Joe Biden are complicit in this when they parrot BLM’s rhetoric about “systemic racism.”

There followed the inevitable confrontations between police and the “mostly peaceful” protesters, who engaged in vandalism and arson. By 8:30 p.m., Louisville police reported that one officer had been shot in a confusing scene on East Broadway near the Interstate 65 overpass. Subsequently, it was reported that two officers had been shot, which perhaps the #BlackLivesMatter (BLM) movement will consider adequate to satisfy their slogan of “Justice for Breonna.”

What this is about is not justice, but a primitive sense of vengeance. BLM rhetoric about “systemic racism,” amplified by the media and echoed by Joe Biden and other politicians, has inflamed hatred to the point where some people consider violent reprisals necessary to even the score. The deliberately radical tone of BLM pronouncements about the Taylor case (e.g., their repeated use of the word “murder”) was intended to produce such a violent reaction. Anyone who still believes that BLM is about peaceful protests simply hasn’t been paying attention.

There was never any rational justification for the rage that erupted in violence Wednesday. The facts of the Taylor case, which I described in detail two months ago (“Who Is to Blame for the Death of Breonna Taylor?”), provided no support for claims of racist motivation. To summarize the case as briefly as possible: Louisville police were investigating Taylor’s ex-boyfriend, a drug dealer named Jamarcus Glover. He had listed her apartment as his mailing address; detectives saw him visit her apartment several times, and believed Glover had stashed drugs and/or money at Taylor’s apartment. On the night of March 13, police executed search warrants on three addresses in Louisville, including the so-called “trap house” on Elliott Avenue where Glover conducted his retail drug traffic, and Taylor’s apartment 10 miles away on Springfield Drive. Glover was arrested at the Elliott Avenue address. When police raided Taylor’s apartment, however, they did not realize she had her new boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, spending the night. Walker, who understandably feared Glover, had legally armed himself with a pistol. Although police had a so-called “no-knock” warrant, they actually did knock on the door and announce themselves as police, but when no one answered, Police Sgt. Jonathan Mattingly ordered officers to use a battering ram to break down the door:

The next thing that happened, in Walker’s description of the incident, is the door “comes off its hinges” — the police are busting in, but he doesn’t know it’s the police. If you’re dating a drug dealer’s ex-girlfriend and somebody busts through your door at 12:30 in the morning, what do you do?

Walker fired a shot, hitting Sgt. Mattingly in the thigh, and Sgt. Mattingly immediately returned fire, getting off six shots. Two other officers also opened fire. In total, police fired at least 22 shots, none of which hit Walker, but Taylor was struck eight times and died on the scene. Although a grand jury indicted Walker on a charge of attempted murder of a police officer, that charge was dismissed in May at the request of Commonwealth’s Attorney Tom Wine.

[In June], Louisville Police Chief Robert Schroeder announced the firing of Officer Brett Hankison, who he said “blindly” shot 10 rounds into Taylor’s apartment through “a patio door and window which were covered with material that completely prevented you from verifying any person as an immediate threat or more importantly any innocent persons present.” The department has placed Detective [Joshua] Jaynes, Sgt. Mattingly, and Officer Myles Cosgrove, who also fired shots during the incident, on “administrative reassignment.”

This was all a tragic miscalculation. No drugs or money were found in Taylor’s apartment, but there was probable cause for the warrant and, once Walker fired the shot that wounded Sgt. Mattingly, officers were legally justified in returning fire. That was the finding of the Louisville grand jury on Wednesday, which indicted Hankison on three felony charges of reckless endangerment, but made no charges against either of the other two officers who fired their weapon that night.

Last week, the city of Louisville announced it would pay $12 million to settle a wrongful death lawsuit brought by Taylor’s family. Yet this was not enough to satisfy the BLM radicals who repeatedly accused police of murder and engaged in irresponsible rhetoric about racism. Even last night, after two Louisville police officers were shot, CNN was still giving airtime to lawyer Ben Crump, who repeated the false accusation that Taylor was a victim of “murder” while ranting about the Louisville grand jury’s alleged “disrespect” of black women.

An attorney ought to know that the word murder has a legal definition involving “malice aforethought.” Police officers executing a search warrant cannot be accused of such malice when, without warning, they are fired upon by someone inside the residence. In such a case, returning fire is simple self-defense. Officer Hankison was charged with reckless endangerment because of the specific way in which he reacted, but Sgt. Mattingly and Officer Cosgrove both acted in accordance with the policy and training of the Louisville Metropolitan Police Department. For Crump to describe these officers’ actions as “murder” is libelous, to say nothing of the irresponsibility involved in inflaming racial hatred.

BLM has issued “demands” that Louisville disarm and defund its police department, with the implied threat of mob violence if their demands aren’t met. This is simply terrorism, and Democratic politicians like Joe Biden are complicit in this when they parrot BLM’s rhetoric about “systemic racism.” Earlier this month, Biden said that the officers involved in the Taylor shooting “need to be charged,” but after the Wednesday grand jury decision, Biden’s campaign issued a statement questioning “whether justice could be equally applied in America,” speaking of a need “to do more to deliver justice for Breonna.” Biden’s statement went on to declare: “We know what is necessary. We need to start by addressing the use of excessive force, banning chokeholds, and overhauling no-knock warrants.” All of these issues are already being addressed at a local level by police departments nationwide, but no department so far has prohibited officers from returning fire when somebody starts shooting at them, which is what happened to the cops when they raided Breonna Taylor’s apartment.

The simple facts of the Taylor case disappear in Biden’s vague emotional blather (“we mourn with her mother, family, and community”), as if the problems of crime and drugs plaguing black America could be solved with gushy sentiments plucked from a Hallmark greeting card. Last night, a source sent me transcripts of Jamarcus Glover’s jailhouse phone calls and, without going into details, just trust me when I say that the sentiments Jamarcus expressed about his ex-girlfriend weren’t suitable for a Hallmark card. It was her association with Glover that most directly resulted in Breonna Taylor’s death, but none of the politicians or TV pundits seem interested in talking about Jamarcus Glover. That silence is significant; suppressing knowledge about why police raided Taylor’s apartment is necessary to the BLM project of smearing Louisville cops as racist murderers.

Two of those cops were shot Wednesday night, but neither of their injuries were reported to be life-threatening. The bloodthirsty mob’s demand for vengeance — simple eye-for-an-eye reprisal motivated by crude ideas of “racial injustice” — was perhaps not satiated by this violence. We can only pray that rule of law will yet prevail over the anarchist madness that threatens to destroy our civilization.

Go to Source
Author: Robert Stacy McCain

BLM’s (Reverse) Marxist Makeover

“Communism, avowedly secularistic and materialistic, has no place for God,” noted the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. “I strongly disagreed with communism’s ethical relativism. Since for the Communist there is no divine government, no absolute moral order, there are no fixed, immutable principles; consequently almost anything — force, violence murder, lying — is a justifiable means to the ‘millennial’ end.”

Or, as Ronald Reagan put it, “They lie, they cheat.” Reagan quoted Vladimir Lenin: “The only morality that we recognize is that which furthers class interests.”

Deception is a method for Marxists. Martin Luther King Jr. saw it. Everyone saw it. It’s another reason why most people don’t like Marxism.

Apparently, the leaders of BLM have gotten the memo. They’re systematically purging from their website any material being flagged as Marxist or sympathetic to or suggestive of Marxism.

I’ve been forced to deal with that material. I’ve done at least 50 interviews on my new book, The Devil and Karl Marx, which doesn’t contain a single reference to Black Lives Matter, and yet, I get asked about BLM in nearly every interview. Interviewers ask about BLM’s founders, particularly Patrisse Cullors, who said of herself and co-founder Alicia Garza, “We actually do have an ideological frame. Myself and Alicia in particular are trained organizers. We are trained Marxists.” In an April 2018 interview, Cullors added, “I went through a year-long organizing program at the National School for Strategic Organizing…. We spent the year reading, anything from Marx, to Lenin, to Mao.” She expands on this in her memoirs, which include a foreword by America’s most famous female Marxist, Angela Davis, a mentor and inspiration for her.

I always get asked about the “What We Believe” section of BLM’s website, which underscored goals utterly unrelated to police reform, seeking (for instance) to rally “comrades” (that word was used more than once) and “cisgender” people to “disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure.”

And yet, here’s something equally eye-opening: If you click that hyperlink, it suddenly no longer works. That section of the BLM website has been scrubbed entirely. All of it has been taken down. Apparently, BLM agrees with its detractors on the right that that stuff is a red flag — and departs from its defenders on the left who denied the language was there or insisted the language didn’t say what it actually said, or meant what it meant.

Well, it’s gone. In fact, there’s no longer a “What We Believe” section at all. The Mission Statement has also disappeared.

Figuring this would happen, I took screenshots of the material months ago:

Black Lives Matter What We Believe section screenshot 1_July 17

Black Lives Matter What We Believe section screenshot 3_July 17

Black Lives Matter What We Believe section screenshot 4_July 17

Black Lives Matter What We Believe section screenshot, featuring Marxist messaging, 5_July 17

And yet, it’s striking what has not been removed from the website. What has been retained is maybe the most outrageous element of the agenda.

“We call for a national defunding of police,” candidly states Black Lives Matter under the hashtag #DefundThePolice. “If you’re with us, add your name to the petition and help us spread the word.” That statement has not been scrubbed, nor has this one, which is even more offensive: Under the tab “What Defunding the Police Really Means,” BLM leads with this awful stereotype of police officers: “We know that police don’t keep us safe.”

To repeat: “We know that police don’t keep us safe.” That’s what Black Lives Matter says.

That’s a stunning and reckless assertion that angers police — including black police. It also angers black residents in communities who feel the police do keep them safe. It angers just about everyone.

Asked about “Defunding the Police,” David Clarke, the former sheriff of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin (and African American), states emphatically, “The biggest losers in all this will be poor black people in crime-ridden ghettos. The police are the only thing standing between them and violent criminal predators. You’d have to loathe black people to do that to them.”

For the record, I’ve emailed with BLM defenders who say the call for defunding can mean different things to different people. Well, if BLM doesn’t mean defund the police but, say, reform the police, then why not change #DefundThePolice to #ReformThePolice? If you don’t want to defund the police, then don’t create slogans saying defund the police.

And yet, the likes of BLM activist Miski Noor insist that when fellow activists say they want to defund or even abolish the police, they “100%” mean they want no more police. Likewise, others double down: “Yes, we mean literally abolish the police,” states the title of a June op-ed in the New York Times. Or see this piece at Vox with a photo of a girl with the hammer-and-sickle T-shirt holding a sign that touts “abolish the police.” We could go and on with examples.

I’ve advised that BLM’s leaders abandon this language and use another hashtag such as “Reform the Police.” And yet they haven’t. Why not? Because, apparently, they really do believe it.

Police certainly interpret it that way. How do you expect police sensitive about their difficult, dangerous jobs to react to language like “Defund the Police” and “We know that police don’t keep us safe?”

I was talking this week with a friend I’ve known since we were kids. He has been a police offer for over 20 years. If he was called to a house with a BLM sign in the front yard, would he say, “Why did you call us when you support an organization that says we don’t keep you safe?” No, he would never say that. He would do his job. He would keep them safe. “Morale is at an all-time low,” he sighed.

Again, those statements have not been cleaned up, and it’s quite telling that they haven’t. But as for the stuff flagged by critics as Marxist, including repeated use of the words “comrades,” it’s gone.

“Until recently, it was very easy to debunk the idea that Black Lives Matter is a politically mainstream organization focused exclusively on the fight for racial justice,” writes Matt Walsh, who underscores the cultural-sexual material that remains on the site. “All you had to do was point in the direction of BLM’s official website, which had a tab right at the top called ‘What We Believe’ leading to a section of the site that outlined, well, what they believe.”

Well, not anymore.

This shrewd move by BLM will serve as a weapon for not only defending itself but for attacking critics. It’s a double PR coup. Previously, media marvels like PolitiFact “fact-checked” criticisms of BLM’s language to deny that BLM was saying what it was literally saying. I’ve received numerous emails from distraught parents who sent links to the “What We Believe” section to their BLM-supporting college kids who wouldn’t even click the links or who, if they did, would deny what they were reading. Now, by scrubbing the site, with all evidence nixed, leftists will be able to angrily denounce as racist liars those who claim the material was once there.

For the record, the 1619 Project is engaging in the same airbrushing of historical reality, with its defenders on the left (including CNN) protecting the process every step of the way, and denouncing those calling attention to this (including Donald Trump) as manipulative liars and, yes, naturally, as racists. (See John Nolte’s careful research.)

In sum, what BLM’s leaders believe has been removed from what BLM believes. But they’re too late. We already know what they believe. They’ve told us.

Go to Source
Author: Paul Kengor

The Legal Legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg

The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, on the occasion of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s 10th anniversary on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, referred to the diminutive jurist — who would later join him on the high court — as “the best of colleagues, as she is the best of friends. I wish her a hundred years.” The iconic Supreme Court justice fell short of that mark, passing away recently at the age of 87.

Ginsburg was as liberal as Scalia was conservative: he a constitutional originalist, she embracing the concept of a Living Constitution.

Ginsburg championed some of the most radical anti-family positions of today’s cultural revolutionaries.

Some remember Justice Ginsburg as a trailblazer and champion of women’s rights. That may be so as “women’s rights” currently is understood, but she also was a defender of judicial power who preferred that lawyers and judges, rather than democratically elected public officials, have the last word on public policy decisions.

One of her most famous Supreme Court opinions was United States v. Virginia (1996), in which the Court sounded the death knell for state-supported, single-gender educational institutions. Ginsburg’s opinion took aim at the Virginia Military Institute (VMI), which the legislature and people of Virginia had supported as an all-men’s military academy since 1839.

Rather than acknowledging the benefits to society of such a college, whose alumni include U.S. senators, Supreme Court justices, civil rights activists, Medal of Honor recipients, and countless military leaders, including Generals George Marshall and George S. Patton, Ginsburg saw VMI as a citadel of gender discrimination that could offer no “persuasive justification” for its admission policies.

Her sweeping opinion ordered the school to admit women, constitutionalizing a presumption against public, single-gender education.

Through raw judicial power and in the name of women’s rights, Ginsburg and the Court took from the people of Virginia and their elected representatives the ability to make their own decisions about the value of VMI and whether its approach to martial education was suited to women as well as men.

Although born in the Great Depression, when family cohesiveness was necessary just to survive, Ginsburg championed some of the most radical anti-family positions of today’s cultural revolutionaries. For example, in comments from the bench in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), Ginsburg derided the traditional Western concept of marriage as “a relationship of a dominant male to a subordinate female” and expressed support for rethinking the institution. And rethink it is exactly what the Court did.

Rejecting arguments that linked the right to marry with the need to channel potentially procreative activity into a stable social and legal relationship called marriage, the Court, with Ginsburg voting in the majority, found that restricting marriage to male–female couples was irrational and served only to impose a “stigma and injury” on homosexuals. Once again, democratic debate ceased as Ginsburg and other members of the Living Constitution faction nationalized marriage law, previously the prerogative of the states, by holding that the millennia-old definition of marriage was unconstitutional, thus removing another public policy decision from the people and their elected representatives.

Not surprisingly, Ginsburg also was a steadfast defender of Roe v. Wade (1973), the famed decision that constitutionalized (and thereby nationalized) abortion by divining a right to privacy that previously had gone undetected in the Constitution. In Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (2016), for example, Ginsburg voted with the majority to strike down a modest Texas requirement that doctors performing abortions have admitting privileges in local hospitals and that abortion clinics meet the same minimum standards as ambulatory surgical centers.

Writing separately, Justice Ginsburg scoffed at the notion that these requirements could have any relation to promoting women’s health, characterizing them as nothing but impediments to abortion. “So long as this Court adheres to Roe v. Wade,” Ginsburg wrote, laws such as Texas’s “cannot survive judicial inspection.” Once again, Ginsburg rejected a policy crafted by the peoples’ elected representatives for a position she and a Court majority viewed as preferable.

Ginsburg attended Ivy League institutions (Cornell, Harvard, and Columbia) and lived most of her life in the New York City–Washington, D.C., bubble. Her jurisprudence was shaped by life among the elite in this bubble.

She embraced a Living Constitution that evolved as the elites demanded additional powers, always couched as “rights,” to address their ever-changing grievances and concerns — even if it meant, as it always does, nullifying the decisions of democratically elected lawmakers. For Ginsburg, activist lawyers always knew best — especially those in robes. That’s her legal legacy.

William J. Watkins, Jr. is a research fellow with the Independent Institute, Oakland, California, and author of Crossroads for Liberty: Recovering the Anti-Federalist Values of America’s First Constitution.

Go to Source
Author: William J. Watkins Jr.

Amy Klobuchar Tries to Cut Trump Out of Supreme Court Nomination

There has been a lot of criticism about postal voting and the ease with which it can be abused. What has so far been overlooked is how it has also changed the constitution by stealth and reduced the president’s term from four years to three years, 10 and a half months.

The four-year term has stood ever since the framers deemed it to be a good idea in 1787 and placed it in Article II, Section I of the Constitution. But not anymore.

This 4 percent reduction has come to light following a couple of tweets sent out by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), concerning the process for selecting a replacement for the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court. Originally she wrote,

But soon prominent Republicans including Donald Trump Jr. pointed out that she appeared to be supporting his father’s right to nominate a successor:

An hour later, the senator thought she had found a way to dig herself out of the hole she had dug for herself. She clarified her first comment with a second tweet:

In those 60 minutes she managed to reduce the president’s term in office by almost two whole months. Or maybe the senator had been forced into revealing a possible Democrat covert op.

Could it be that alongside making it easier to “positively influence” the next election, the secondary purpose of the postal voting scheme was to delegitimize the closing months of Donald Trump’s tenure?

In an interview Joe Biden gave to Milwaukee television station TMJ 4, he said, “We’re in the middle of an election. By the time that vote (SCOTUS nomination) comes up, if it comes up, there will have been close to 40% of people who have already voted. It’s a violation of the spirit of the Constitution to suggest that it should not wait.”

According to Mr. Biden and Sen. Klobuchar, once the first postal vote was cast, which would have been from September 14 in Pennsylvania, the 45th President of the United States of America lost his right to make this key decision on the people’s behalf.

And do they feel this limitation also applies to other presidential powers, such as to sign or veto laws, command the armed forces, convene or adjourn Congress, grant reprieves and pardons, and receive ambassadors?

The Democrats couldn’t topple Trump during numerous previous attempts, including spying on his campaign team, exploiting the dodgy Russian dossier, the Mueller investigation, the impeachment, and then blaming him for COVID-19. So this might at least enable them to shorten his term a bit.

But should Joe win in November, would the newly elected President Biden and the senator for Minnesota seek to restrict all future presidential terms — including Biden’s own — to three years, 10 and a half months, through a new constitutional amendment?

I think everyone knows the answer to that. And just imagine trying to shout at re-election time, “Three years and 10 and a half more months!”

Go to Source
Author: Andrew Davies