The reason the plan to fill Ginsburg’s seat was announced the same night as her death was never a mystery: The president explained several times over the last week that the new justice’s nomination and confirmation needed to happen in the same amount of time Barack Obama allowed the nation to mourn before even naming a replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016 because Trump needs her to weigh in on any election-related controversy on his behalf. As he put it to reporters on Monday: “We need nine justices,” he said. “You need that. With the unsolicited millions of ballots that they’re sending.” He explained that because of his (farcical, proofless) claim that mail-in ballots will be a source of rampant fraud, this ninth justice must be seated before an election challenge is mounted. That pronouncement came just prior to his claim that he could not commit to a peaceful transfer of power should he lose the election. Again: The reason a ninth justice is needed to be seated in advance of the election in which voting is already taking place is to decide whatever lawsuit is coming in his favor. Perhaps unsurprisingly, then, on Saturday Trump did not overtly ask Barrett to rule in his favor next month while detailing her biography on the White House lawn.

Trump has similarly announced on multiple occasions that he needs this vacant seat filled because Roe v. Wade cannot be allowed to stand and that any nominee of his would “automatically” overturn it. Indeed, several GOP senators are on the record saying they would refuse to vote for Judge Barrett unless she openly promises to do so.

The president of the European Council does not usually make news when addressing the UN General Assembly. In fact, the current occupant of the post, Charles Michel might be used to giving UN addresses that attract minimal attention. He is, after all, a former prime minister of Belgium.

However, today was different. Michel told the world that the European Union has made its choice in the emerging strategic contest between the United States and China:

Since I became President of the European Council, I have often been asked a question that is both simple and brutal: “In the new rivalry between the United States and China, which side is the European Union on?” My answer is the following…

We are deeply connected with the United States. We share ideals, values and a mutual affection that have been strengthened through the trials of history. They remain embodied today in a vital transatlantic alliance. This does not prevent us from occasionally having divergent approaches or interests.

We do not share the values on which the political and economic system in China is based. And we will not stop promoting respect for universal human rights. Including those of minorities such as the Uighurs. Or in Hong Kong, where international commitments guaranteeing the rule of law and democracy are being questioned.

Michel’s remarks might sound like a statement of the obvious, but the speech is noteworthy for two reasons. First, it’s actually not that obvious. It dispenses with a rhetorical trick used by top European politicians in the early years of the Trump administration. It was commonplace to hear certain leaders, such as Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron, refer, in a single breath, to the United States, China, and Russia as global challenges to be surmounted. //

That said, it’s also worth considering that China’s coronavirus-era misconduct has become an enormous factor in European diplomacy, too. U.S. popularity in Europe ebbs and flows with each administration — Republican presidents aren’t really admired on the continent. But the Chinese Communist Party has done much to help the Trump administration convince its European counterparts to take a stand on everything from 5G to Xinjiang and Hong Kong.

Reporter: how are you going to make everyone hold hands and sing Kumbayah?
Becton: I’m not going to.
Reporter: aren’t you concerned about all the really bad thoughts out there?
Becton: No. I can’t change what you believe but I can damn sure modify your behavior.

It had an elegant simplicity that has stuck with me ever since. You can’t waste your time trying to change what people think. You need to focus on what you can change, which is behavior. When Becton left VII Corps in 1981, he left a combat-ready organization that, though it still had problems, had largely vanquished the racial divisions that had made it nearly combat ineffective.

I think the people questioning Trump’s sincerity have to ask themselves three questions. First, do the Democrats act on their promises to Black America, or are they pandering? Second, if the Democrats are pandering, how is Trump’s pander more offensive? And third, if Trump delivers on his promises, even if they are a pander, are the results less valid?

Let’s take, for instance, sentencing reform. Assuming sentencing reform is just a pander, the questions that must be answered by those carping are a) were federal sentencing procedures changed, and b) are the people released from long prison sentences under the reforms actually out of prison?

We, on the right, have gone through the same thing with President Trump and abortion. Is President Trump, in his heart, pro-life? I really have no way of answering that? Are his pro-life rhetoric and acts a pander, or do they represent an actual conversion? Again, I have no way of knowing. Putting that aside, though, I can look at his actions. He has put overtly pro-life judges on the bench. He is the first president to ever speak at a March for Life. He’s defunded Planned Parenthood and defended the Mexico City rule. He’s signed an executive order that attempts to protect the lives of children who’ve survived abortion.

I hope he’s had a spiritual conversion because we should always pray for the salvation of all souls, but do I set up night worrying about it? No. I do not doubt that George W. Bush was, deep down, pro-life. I also know that Donald Trump has done more for the cause of life in less than four years than Bush, who I admired, did in eight.

My advice to the people worrying about pandering is that they are concerned with the wrong issue. There is no way they can ever truly know the answer to that question and it is not important. They should have precisely two concerns. Does Trump deliver on his promise, and is the initiative executed in good faith, that is, is it resourced and managed properly?

I don’t care about what you believe. I do care about your actions.

I find it very funny that they spent many hours four years ago mocking conspiracy theorists on the right who thought Obama might try to pull this stunt, only to themselves start believing the same conspiracy theory about Trump.

That they routinely allow Trump to tweak them is a testament to how broken they’ve become over his presidency. There is no reason to believe that he could actually pull something like this off, yet they never fail to take the bait and lose their minds simply because he won’t say he would step down peacefully.

And you know what? He shouldn’t have to say it. It shouldn’t be a question he’s asked. There is no reason to actually think he would reject the election’s results. The Democrats have spent the last four years rejecting them with no criticism from the media, but if Trump doesn’t say outright he’ll accept them, then clearly he’s planning a coup.

That’s insane.

Former national security adviser H.R. McMaster wants you to know he has not written the book you probably wanted to read — and he says it right up front.

"This is not the book that most people wanted me to write ... a tell-all about my experience in the White House to confirm their opinions of Donald Trump," the author warns in his preface.

That might have been "lucrative," he says, but it would not be "useful or satisfactory for most readers."

McMaster, who served as national security adviser to President Trump from March 2017 to April 2018, has instead written a book that he hopes "might help transcend the vitriol of partisan political discourse and help readers understand better the most significant challenges to security, freedom and prosperity."

Unlike pontificating career politicians pandering to the radical left, Trump doesn't talk at his supporters. He talks to them. //

One attendee after the next echoed similar sentiments. When asked what they consider to be the most important issue in 2020, voters didn’t reply with typical red-meat conservative talking points, such as abortion or the Second Amendment. They used big-picture words like “freedom,” “safety,” “law and order,” and “the future of the country” — big concerns on the minds of everyday citizens who truly believe America is great and want to keep it that way. //

Watching Trump at one of his rallies rounds out the profile of the enigma in the Oval and solves any remaining mysteries about how a reality TV star with little decorum became the commander in chief.

When Trump uses MAGA verbiage or tells unpresidential jokes, he isn’t “playing to his base.” He’s just talking to them in their language. When Trump jokes about the Wisconsin weather and how many TVs are on Air Force One — “I said, ‘How about giving me a coat?’ They have everything on Air Force One, that’s the great thing, got more televisions than any plane in history. They’ve got televisions in closets, on floors, on ceilings” — the people laugh and joke along because those are just the sorts of comments they would make around the dinner table about the presidential plane. //

“I made one mistake. I should have said, ‘We will not build a wall!’ Then they would have insisted that we build it. I could have saved two years of litigation,” the president declared. “‘We will not build a wall under any circumstances,’” Trump continued, imitating himself. “Then Pelosi would say, ‘We demand that you build a wall!’ These people are terrible.

For decades, foreign policy experts—the blob—assumed much about the Middle East that has turned out to be completely wrong.
By John Daniel Davidson //

Writing earlier this year in the Texas National Security Review about the Good Friday Agreement that ended Northern Ireland’s civil war, James B. Steinburg, a former deputy national security advisor and State Department official in the Clinton administration, noted the importance of what he calls “ripeness” in international diplomacy and conflict resolution. In the case of Northern Ireland, the parties adopted in 1998 what they had rejected in 1973. Changed circumstances, says Steinburg, played a major role, but so did the recognition that circumstances had changed:

While policymakers are often limited in what they can do to create the conditions that make a conflict ripe for settlement, it is a vital tool of statecraft to be able to spot an opportunity when it is emerging. It is equally important to understand when a conflict is not ripe for negotiation: It can be argued that the premature effort leading to the Sunningdale agreement in 1973 actually contributed to prolonging the conflict.

Ted Cruz
@tedcruz
On SCOTUS, Dems & GOP are arguing exact opposite of what both sides argued in 2016. Doesn’t that mean both sides are hypocrites?

Actually, no. WATCH this clip to hear the historical FACTS & constitutional checks & balances that MSM ignores.

Learn more: http://onevoteaway.com

RNC Research
@RNCResearch
.@tedcruz: “29 times there has been a vacancy in a presidential election year. Now, presidents have made nominations all 29 times. That's what presidents do. If there's a vacancy, they make a nomination”
https://youtu.be/JuZqomU5EHQ

But he also explained that of those times, when the president and the Senate are of the same party, the nominee has been confirmed 17 out of 19 times. But when the president and the Senate are of different parties, the other 10 times, they’ve only confirmed the nominee twice. //

One of the big reasons that the people voted in Donald Trump, Cruz said, was to ensure “principled Constitutionalists on the court.” For 2014, 2016, and 2018, Cruz said, what people were saying with their Senate votes is that they wanted those Constitutionalists that the GOP would bring/guarantee, that’s why they kept increasing the Republican majority in the Senate. So, the Republican position was not in fact inconsistent, but totally in keeping with history and norms.

In November 2013 Harry Reid had rewritten the Senate Rules mid-session in order to confirm appellate court judges he was not able to confirm under the old rules requiring 60 votes to end debate on a judicial nominee. The Senate Democrats had used the same rule to hold up confirmation of appeals court judges while they were in the minority during the Bush 43 Administration. And in the elections the next fall, the Democrats in the Senate paid the price.

The GOP gained 9 seats in the senate in 2015, beating 5 Democrat incumbents //

In the same three elections, the GOP had defeated 8 Democrat incumbent Senators and taken over the seats of 5 others who retired to go from a minority of 41 to a majority of 54. Harry Reid and the Democrats in the Senate went from a near filibuster proof 59 votes to only44 Democrats and 2 Independents.

THAT is the factual context surrounding the refusal in 2016 by the GOP in the Senate to grant to Barack Obama the opportunity to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court.

The voters HAD spoken AGAINST the idea of allowing Barack Obama — leader of a Democrat Party thoroughly and soundly rejected — the make the selection. That was the reason for holding the seat open until the 2016 election when the voters could decide whether it would be Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump who would make the choice and whether that choice would be confirmed by a friendly or hostile Senate Majority.

The same dynamic does not exist today.

“Ladies and gentlemen, the silent majority is ready to make some noise. If you thought that was a beating, wait ’til November 3rd when Donald Trump gets his hands on Sleep Joe. That’s gonna be a landslide.” //

Kelb Hull
@CalebJHull
Trump literally just called him while he was on the post-show ... //

“I’m gonna bring you the new belt to the Oval Office soon after you win November 3rd by a landslide.”

Tonight, at his rally in Fayetteville, NC, President Donald Trump took a moment to remember Ginsburg:

“As we meet tonight our nation mourns the loss of a legal giant, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Her landmark rulings, fierce devotion to justice, and her courageous battle against cancer inspired all Americans. You may agree, you may disagree with her, but she was an inspiration to a tremendous number of people – I say all Americans. Justice Ginsburg’s close relationship with a friend of ours, a friend of mine, Justice Scalia, is also a powerful reminder that we can disagree on fundamental issues while treating each other with decency, dignity, and respect. Our thoughts and prayers are with her family, Thank you very much.”

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
.@GOP We were put in this position of power and importance to make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us, the most important of which has long been considered to be the selection of United States Supreme Court Justices. We have this obligation, without delay!

For the longest time after the Camp David Accords, relations between Israel and Egypt could only be described as “coldly correct,” each side exactingly adhering to the terms of that particular treaty. It took the Persian threat along with that posed by Al Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood, to move both Egypt and Israel from coldly correct to active, positive, nay enthusiastic (if covert) intelligence sharing and full cooperation. This brings us to the recently changed relationships between Israel and United Arab Emirates & Bahrain—and Saudi Arabia. //

You can easily imagine how difficult it is for the Royal Family to make open and notorious gestures towards a nation that many of their religion believe has no right to exist. This new set of diplomatic advances was accompanied by the Saudi government publicly allowing (and announcing that fact) direct flights starting or ending in Israel to overfly its territory. That is a far cry from clandestine meetings between the Saudi Intelligence Service Agents and Mossad Operatives. //

There was something different about Tuesday’s event. I was watching the faces…and also the body language…especially during the part where each party had to sign multiple copies of the treaty…one in English, one in Hebrew and one in Arabic (2nd ceremony had two in Arabic). Netanyahu was asked by his Arabic counterparts where to sign on the Hebrew version, while he in turn asked them the same on the Arabic one. The same thing occurred on President Trump’s end of the table, except he needed help from both an Israeli and an Arab.

I realize that I’m not a State Department Professional, but there was something different. The vibe I was getting was almost that of 4 or 5 guys who get together regularly for poker or golf. These leaders looked happy to be there, doing what they were doing and most importantly, doing it with others they wanted to be doing it with. I credit President Trump for this.

With the Camp David Accords, President Carter was the only one who was trusted by all sides, hence the long period of coldly correct relations. In fact, one of the Egyptian demands, was that every two years, the United States must conduct military exercises in Egypt as a deterrent to possible Israeli attack. Thus was born operation BRIGHT STAR. This agreement starts at a point decades further than Camp David. //

There is important reason these are called the Abraham Accords. Christians, Jews and Muslims are all descendants of Abraham. This breakthrough, if followed by a majority of the Arab League (especially Saudi Arabia) is a giant leap towards bringing about a lasting peace between Judeo-Christianity and the Arab world.

CSPAN
@cspan
President Trump on death of Justice Ginsburg: "She just died? Wow. I didn't know that...She led an amazing life. What else can you say? She was an amazing woman, whether you agree or not. She was an amazing woman who led an amazing life. I'm actually sad to hear that."

If the election were held today, this is a very real possibility of what could happen.

In fact, 2019 was actually an historic year for ALL Americans living standards. It was the best year for household economic gains in over 50 years!

The official poverty rate fell to an all-time record low of 10.5 percent in 2019. Over 4 million people were lifted out of poverty between 2018 and 2019 for a 1.3 percentage point decrease. This was the largest reduction in poverty in over 50 years. Minority groups led the way in poverty alleviation. Compared to the overall poverty rate reduction of 1.3 percentage points, black poverty fell by 2.0 percentage points, Hispanic poverty fell by 1.8 percentage points, and Asian poverty fell by 2.8 percentage points. The poverty rate fell to an all-time record low for every race and ethnic group in 2019. Notably, the black poverty rate fell below 20 percent for the first time in history. Income gains in 2019 were largest for minority groups. Real median income grew by 7.9 percent for black Americans, 7.1 percent for Hispanic Americans, and 10.6 percent for Asian Americans. These one-year increases were all record highs, and the new income levels reached in 2019 were all record highs as well.

The gains from 2019 are significant. Real median household income increased $4,400 to a record high of $68,700. This is an almost 7% increase from 2018; the largest one year increase on record.

The Israel-United Arab Emirates deal will be felt throughout the region. //

The Israel-United Arab Emirates deal will be felt throughout the region.

Thomas L. Friedman
By Thomas L. Friedman
Opinion Columnist //

I have followed the Middle East for too long to ever write the sentence “the region will never be the same again.” The forces of sectarianism, tribalism, corruption and anti-pluralism run deep there. But there are other currents — young men and women who are just so tired of the old game, the old fights, the old wounds being stoked over and over again. You could see them demonstrating all over the streets of Beirut last week demanding good governance and a chance to realize their full potential.

The U.A.E. and Israel and the U.S. on Thursday showed — at least for one brief shining moment — that the past does not always have to bury the future, that the haters and dividers don’t always have to win.

It was a breath of fresh air. May it one day soon turn into a howling wind of change that spreads across the whole region.

"I think we gotta cheer President Trump's style.". //

During an interview on Newsmax TV, [former Director of National Intelligence Richard] Grenell told Spicer & Co. that only an outsider like Trump could change the “calculus” in the Middle East that could lead to the signing of historic deals between Israel and its Muslim neighbors, most of which at one time or another have vowed to “push Israel into the sea.”

“Today a historical agreement would not happen if not for the fact Donald Trump is an outsider. If you play by the Washington, D.C., rules, you don’t get to this point because you listen to the Europeans on, say, the JCPOA Iran deal [aka Obama’s Iran nuclear deal].

“The Iran deal was really a bad deal for America.”

Grenell told host Sean Spicer that Trump’s decision to decertify the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was misrepresented by the American media. (Try to control your shock and amazement.)

“The Europeans complained, but many Arab governments cheered, and our media really missed that. They weren’t able to get that nuance. They just immediately went with the criticism of the Europeans.” //

Omar Ghobash, who serves as the United Arab Emirates (UAE) assistant minister for public and cultural diplomacy.

In response to a question from Fox News anchor Bret Baier about how much credit he gives Trump for the historic deals, Ghobash said:

“It is a truly remarkable achievement — even for us, citizens of the Arab world looking out. It is a remarkable achievement and it comes in a particular context which is incredibly important —we in the Emirates have been trying to push an agenda of communication, engagement, dialogue, tolerance. And this in the wake of the terror that ISIS wrought right across the region.

“And so, to find a U.S. Administration that takes us up on that and assists us in coming to peace with the Israelis, this is the first peace between an Arab state and the Israelis in 26 years. It’s a remarkable achievement in itself both for the administration and the American people, and for which I think we’re very grateful.”

Nancy Pelosi unavailable for comment.

To win, all Biden has to do is stand up and say this... "I promise to leave you alone to live your life in peace." That's all.

Here is what's in it for both sides and why the time was right for a deal.