Unsurprising Story

September 22, 2020

In a shocking but somehow unsurprising story, a professor at Marshall University in West Virginia is on suspension pending an investigation after allegedly telling students during an online class that she hoped all of Trump’s supporters would get the coronavirus and die before the election. I thought universities were supposed to create “safe spaces” for students. How safe would a Trump-supporting student feel in her class?

I say it’s unsurprising because this is the kind of nasty, dehumanizing, violent, radical left rhetoric that’s become all too common among university faculty who fancy themselves smarter and better than the rest of us. At least this one is still clinging to enough shards of self-awareness to say she’s sorry she’s “become the type of person” who wishes death on people who disagree with her politically.

That prompted this interesting blog post on how apparently intelligent and well-educated people who live in a bubble where only one view is ever expressed can let a steady diet of political hatred turn them into soulless tyrants with no regard for human life.

What is missing from these people’s lives that has left such a huge hole in their souls that they would prioritize ideology over human life? I think I know what it is, but she works in a university so I assume I wouldn’t be allowed to give her a Bible.

Leftists want us to take them very seriously, up until the point they’re held responsible for what they say or do, and then they become like Gene Wilder in “Young Frankenstein”: “I was JOKING! Don’t you know a JOKE when you hear one?!!”

One delicious example came last week when Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruber decided to engage in some fashionable virtue signaling by releasing an open letter declaring that "racism and the damage it does to people of color persist at Princeton" and that "racist assumptions" are "embedded in structures of the University itself." This came after hundreds of Princeton faculty members released an open letter claiming that "anti-Black racism has a visible bearing upon Princeton’s campus makeup."

So, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos (hooray!) sent a letter to Princeton, announcing a federal investigation into the school’s admitted racist practices. It points out that since Eisgruber became president in 2013, Princeton has received over $75 million in federal funds by repeatedly representing to the government that it was in compliance with the ban on racist practices required under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The letter orders Eisgruber and a corporate representative of the university to appear under oath for questioning, to answer written questions about these admitted acts of racism, and to produce records related to them and to the school’s sworn (possibly perjurious) declarations that they do not engage in racism when they applied for grants.

Seems to me, Princeton has two options:

1. Admit they are racist and return the $75 million-plus any penalties for misrepresenting themselves on federal forms. Or…

2. Admit their president was just talking through his hat and engaging in empty public self-flagellation because that’s what liberals are expected to do these days: virtue-signal about racism, even though they don’t really mean it.

Either way, Congratulations Secretary DeVos for finally forcing these pompous phonies to put up or shut up.

"Nine seems to be a good number. It’s been that way for a long time...I’ve heard that there are some people on the Democratic side who would like to increase the number of judges. I think that was a bad idea when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to pack the Court.”

So said Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg in an NPR interview on July 24, 2019.

Democrats are now threatening to pack the Court with as many as four more justices; it seems they have no problem going against RBG on this, while using her name as a pretext for doing it.

As reported by NPR, she also dictated a statement to her granddaughter in her last days saying it was her “most fervent wish” that she “not be replaced until a new President is installed.” Ah, but this time, Democrats consider RBG’s wishes sacrosanct.

And they ignore something she’d previously said: “...the President is elected for four years, not three. So the powers that he has in year three continue into year four...and that’s how it should be.”

Never mind the confusion created by these very different versions of what she said she wanted, let alone the idea that someone’s deathbed wish should override the Constitution. And what did she mean by “new President”? “New,” as in “different”? Did she mean that if Trump is re-elected, we should hold her seat open till the “new” President takes office in 2025? That sure is a long time to struggle on with a tie-prone 8-member court. Just getting through the next few months that way would be a nightmare, given the inevitable election challenges.

Times sure have changed. As I said on Sean Hannity’s TV show Monday night, it was Sen. Harry Reid who “threw the match in the gas can” in 2013, when he killed the filibuster for judicial appointments. He was told at the time that it would come back to bite, and now it has. Thank God we have a President who won’t be intimidated and will do his duty, and I pray the Senate will do the same. I also wish we had some real journalism going on; then people would know that proceeding with nomination and confirmation of a new justice under these circumstances is constitutional and customary.

Andrew C. McCarthy, writing in NATIONAL REVIEW, makes the same point I did over the weekend --- that what happens now really all comes down to politics. One party will do what it calculates it has the power to do, given the anticipated political fallout.

As McCarthy points out, there was nothing wrong with President Obama nominating Merrick Garland for Supreme Court Justice, just as there was nothing wrong with Sen. Mitch McConnell’s Senate majority blocking that nomination. It’s all constitutional. The rest –- all the “outrage” –- is pure politics.

McCarthy worries, though, that Republicans’ push to confirm before the election may make it harder for Trump to win against enraged Democrats, as it motivates them even more. I don’t know about that. At the risk of sounding like Chandler Bing from FRIENDS, could Democrats BE more enraged? Republicans could smile and nod and confess to deep-seated racism and capitalist greed and cave to everything the left wanted, no matter how insane and unconstitutional, and they’d still move the goalposts and find more reasons to be enraged. It would never end. Republicans have the opportunity to make this appointment, it’s perfectly constitutional, and they must take advantage of it, just as the Democrats absolutely would. Case closed.

Sen. Lindsay Graham said on Hannity’s show that “we’re gonna move forward in the [Judiciary] committee, we’re gonna report the nomination out of the committee to the floor of the United States Senate, so we can vote before the election. That’s the constitutional process.”

Why so determined? “After Kavanaugh, everything changed with me,” he said. “They’re not gonna intimidate me, Mitch McConnell or anybody else...We’re gonna have a process that you’ll be proud of, a nominee who’s gonna be supported by every Republican in the Judiciary Committee, and WE’VE GOT THE VOTES TO CONFIRM THE JUDGE [emphasis mine] on the floor of the Senate before the election. And that’s what’s coming.”

Trump says he'll announce his choice on Friday or Saturday. Senators know it'll be Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who reportedly met with the President on Monday, or one of several other women on his shortlist (which he, unlike Biden, has revealed).

So this is apparently happening. Get ready to hear a lot more threats about packing the Court as “payback” for doing what the Senate absolutely has the constitutional right and, arguably, obligation to do.

REASON has a must-read (cautionary) article that outlines the various power-grabs the Democrats intend to make as soon as they are able. What everyone needs to understand is this: IF THEY GAIN POWER, THEY WILL DO THESE THINGS WHETHER TRUMP WAS ABLE TO GET HIS NOMINEE CONFIRMED OR NOT. For this reason, no matter what else happens, Biden and the Democrat ticket absolutely must not win. I cannot say this strongly enough. If they do, the America we love will be largely over. Republicans have to win in such a landslide that there’s nothing Democrats can do after November 3 to upset the process and the will of the electorate.

Author Josh Blackman agrees with Jeffrey Toobin in the NEW YORKER that these changes are not only good payback but “good policy as well.” He’s all for 1) the complete elimination of the filibuster, 2) statehood for DC and Puerto Rico, with two new senators for each (“an appropriate rejoinder”), 3) adding to the number of lower-court judges, and 4) adding to the number of SCOTUS justices (“the greatest and most appropriate form of retribution”).

"If Republicans succeed in stealing two seats,” he writes (note his choice of the word “stealing”), “the Scalia and Ginsburg vacancies, the Democrats could simply pass a law that creates two or three more seats on the Supreme Court." He likens this to playing a game of hardball.

See how the “game” is rationalized? (Again, they really don’t care what RBG would think of adding seats.) I brought up this article to get you into leftists’ heads and show you what they have planned. Clearly, they intend to do these things whether Trump gets his way on a new justice or not.

President Trump says his list of Supreme Court nominees is down to five and he’ll be naming a replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg within days. Many Democrats, from political leaders and celebrities down to Twitter keyboard warriors, are ranting that “nothing is off the table” if he and the Senate do their Constitutional duty and vote on that nominee. They’re threatening everything from violence in the streets to expanding and packing the SCOTUS with leftists when they get back into power, both things they were already doing/threatening anyway, but it’s good of them to remind voters of why they should NEVER be put back into power.

All this childish tantrum-throwing prompted some conservative commentators to start making lists of what the left has already done over the past few years, just to see what, if anything, might be left on the table that they haven’t already hurled in their mindless rage. So I decided to compile one, too. Here’s what they’ve already tried:

1. Months of rioting, looting, arson, vandalism and attacks on and even murder of police and innocent citizens in their own cities (they’ve also tried it in a few Republican areas, but that did not go well for them.)

2. Violent assaults against Republican politicians and media figures, including nearly killing Rep. Steve Scalise by shooting up a House GOP charity baseball practice; multiple assaults on Sen. Rand Paul; and attempts to assault all of us who attended Trump’s nomination speech at the White House.

3. Staging a baseless impeachment to try to undo the 2016 election.

4. Staging a Deep State coup to frame Trump and his people and undo the 2016 election. This includes falsifying evidence, perjury, setting perjury traps, sullying the reputations of the FBI and other agencies, and many other assorted offenses against the law, the Constitution and basic decency.

5. Leaking classified information to try to undermine the President.

6. Politicizing the entire news media (includes the media’s credulous promotion of countless anti-Trump books and stories based on anonymous sources refuted by people who were actually there.)

7. Destroying late-night comedy, movies and professional sports with endless leftist propaganda.

8. Shutting down their own economies and public schools, ostensibly because of a virus they baselessly blame on Trump, even when they knew the painful shutdowns weren’t necessary (see “Nashville.”)

9. Mailing deadly ricin to the White House (this comes after years of liberals “normalizing” the idea of assassinating the President.)

10. Setting up the apparatus for mass voter fraud and announcing in advance that they will refuse to accept the results of the election unless they win.

11. And to take their insanity to a whole new level, Antifa jerks smashed up a car that they thought belonged to a “Nazi” (i.e., anyone who disagrees with them), but which actually belonged to one of their own, in total disregard of the fact that there was a poor, terrified dog in the back seat. Put this in the “How low can you go?” category.

And now – after assaults, murders, riots, arson, looting, lying, ripping up the Constitution, assassination attempts and even terrifying a dog -- they’re threatening even worse unless we install them back into power over us and give them a Supreme Court seat that they have no right to fill. I think they’re making the mistake that many toddlers do of thinking that just because the adults have thus far shown remarkable patience and restraint, we’re going to let this public tantrum go on forever and keep rewarding it.

Personally, I sense that many Americans are fed up with the Dr. Spock approach of remaining patient while the child screams his or her lungs out. They’re about ready for the Captain Kirk approach: “I have had…enough…of YOU!” But I hope they express it at the polls by simply kicking them out of office.

PS to number 11 above: If the car owner wasn't really a "Nazi," what was he doing owning a dog? Doesn’t he know that the latest thing that’s “racist” is being white and having a dog? That’s “cultural appropriation,” stolen from the ancient people of color who domesticated wolves! No, I'm serious.

According to this loon, white people should give their dogs to people of color, so they can live in a perfect, non-racist home. It’s obvious, in many ways, that he’s never read Southern humorist Lewis Grizzard. I believe he was the one who observed that dogs are natural racists: a black family’s dog will always bark at a white person and vice versa.

Restoring “Honesty” to the White House: Joe Biden went to the Constitution Center and told lie after lie about the Constitution, the Supreme Court and his own past statements.

To sum up the major whoppers:

No, Trump did not wait until after Ruth Bader Ginsburg died to demand that Biden release his list of potential SCOTUS nominees. He’s been doing that since he released his own list on September 9th. (Some pundits noted that since Biden has pledged to nominate a woman of color, which restricts his potential candidates to liberal, female, minority, top-level federal judges, his list should be very short and quite easy to compile -- or to guess.)

No, Constitutional norms don’t bar the Senate from confirming a SCOTUS nominee in an election year. That argument against an Obama nominee was called the “Biden rule” in 2016, and Biden insisted that it didn’t exist.

Biden also claimed that the SCOTUS doesn’t meet again until after the election. Its next session starts October 5th.

But to give him credit, Biden did say one thing that’s true: "We can't keep rewriting history, scrambling norms, ignoring our cherished system of checks and balances."

It would have been nice, though, if everything else he says wasn’t an attempt to do just that.

If you thought the left had gone insane over the coming election (and its results-be-damned aftermath), you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

With the sudden vacancy on the Supreme Court, they have completely lost their minds. On Sunday, Nancy Pelosi threatened to impeach Trump if he dared to do his constitutional duty and nominate a new justice. She described impeachment as “one of the arrows in our quiver.” Good grief.

Interestingly, in a Sunday evening presser, Sen. Chuck Schumer was joined not by Pelosi but by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, which should tell you who is really running the show among the Democrats.

The media are nuts, too. To cite one of many incendiary comments, Reza Aslan tweeted, “If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire (bleeping) thing down.”

To his credit, President Trump says he’s going to go ahead with his obligation (his word) to make the nomination.

Schumer said, “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.” That’s hilarious; we all know what he said in 2016 (the opposite), and what he’d do now if positions were reversed (fill the vacancy immediately).

He knows, of course, that if Trump DOESN’T nominate someone before the election, the chance of us having a “new President” rises exponentially, as nothing would make Trump’s supporters stay home in fury like his failure to do this. Republicans would burn their OWN party to the ground.

Sunday on FOX News’ MEDIABUZZ, I addressed the political reality by citing Harry Reid, recalling that he “blew up the filibuster” on judicial nominees when Republicans had warned it would come back to haunt him. “So,” I said, “when the Republicans have an opportunity to put a Supreme Court justice on, they’re gonna do it, because they have the Senate and they’ve got the White House. I think there’s plenty of, sort of, double-talk going around...Both parties have taken the position that they’re going to do what they CAN do when they’re in power...That’s politics; that’s how it works.”

In an appearance on SUNDAY MORNING FUTURES, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan said that “Trump is “following the historic norm. Nine out of ten times, when the party in the White House is the same party that’s controlling the Senate [NOTE: that is key]...during an election year, you put someone forward, they get confirmed.”

Indeed, in 2016, the WASHINGTON POST noted that “one-third of all U.S. Presidents appointed a Supreme Court Justice in an election year” --- including six lame-duck Presidents!

The critical issue here is getting someone on the Court who will respect the law and the Constitution. But the left has given us a preview of coming attractions on what we can expect from them, as they don't respect the Bill of Rights one whit (a whit being smaller than a coronavirus).

As for Pelosi’s threat to impeach the President (also AG Barr) if Trump moves forward, Jordan said, “I don’t think the American people like to be threatened.”

So at this point, the question isn’t whether Trump will nominate a new justice (he will), but rather if the Senate will vote soon and not wait till after the election. House Judiciary chair Jerrold Nadler also has issued a threat: that if the GOP Senate confirms before the election, but in November it goes Democrat, that'll mean payback time, as Democrats “pack” the Court the way Franklin D. Roosevelt hoped to during his administration.

What should the current Senate do? Delay voting in hopes that Democrats won’t try to pack to Court later if they get the chance? Or stop acting like Charlie Brown does every time Lucy promises not to take away the football if he’ll just kick, and take the doggone vote?


The threat to pack SCOTUS is serious, indeed; that’s why Republicans MUST keep the Senate this November. Mark this, if they take the Senate and have a new President to appoint leftist justices, they’ll pack the Court faster than you can say “Ruth Bader Ginsberg.”

As I said on MEDIABUZZ, Democrats have “walked away from everything the President has laid on the table that they said they wanted: DACA, infrastructure, tax reform, dealing with COVID...They don’t want solutions; they want control.” They detest Trump because he won’t play their game. Senators had better not play it, either. has a great new column about why Republican senators must reject any “grand bargain” on this with Democrats. It sounds a lot like me, so, of course, it’s a must-read.

"Bonchie” says, “...I think it’s one of the dumbest suggestions I’ve ever seen in my life. It’s basically negotiating with a person threatening to blow your brains out with a gun that has no bullets." He means Democrats have no power now on this and don’t know that it would change after the election.

"Further,” he says, the idea that giving into Democrats here will somehow heal the nation’s divide is ludicrous and naive. If the GOP doesn’t replace Ginsburg before the election...the riots won’t stop and Antifa isn’t going away. You cannot fix what ails this nation with political olive branches.”

That the GOP Senate would press forward in this scenario should surprise no one. Mitch McConnell told FOX News’ Bret Baier in February, “If you’re asking me a hypothetical, whether this Republican Senate would confirm a member of the Supreme Court, to a vacancy created this year [before November]...we would fill it.”

Of course, the media will NOT do their duty, which is to report this accurately. There is nothing unconstitutional or unusual about confirming a SCOTUS nominee this close to an election when the President and Senate are of the same party. Doesn’t matter; the media are already saying this is OUTRAGEOUS!! But that's just another lie, another false narrative –- an extremely inflammatory one, but they don’t care.

They’ll do anything to pressure the few reachable Republican Senators to waver.

Steve Hilton, on his FOX News show THE NEXT REVOLUTION, had a spectacular opening monologue about madness from the left that is a must-watch! He says pretty much everything else I’d like to say --- with one glaring exception: he did say the Senate should vote after the election. On the other hand, his guest, Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn, pointed out that the process generally takes about 30 days from nomination to hearings and another 30 days to the vote.

On the OTHER hand --- I’m sounding like Tevye in FIDDLER ON THE ROOF --- there’s something else to consider: we desperately need a full-court to rule on the various election challenges that are inevitable after Nov. 3. That could be the most important consideration of all.