World News

Biden enters final stretch with large cash advantage over Trump

Dem strategist: Biden’s big fundraising numbers counter his low number of in-person events

Democratic strategist Kevin Walling tells ‘America’s Newsroom’ Joe Biden’s fundraising numbers show his voter enthusiasm

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden had nearly three times as much cash in his campaign coffers than President Trump at the start of this month, according to the latest fundraising filings from both major party nominees.

The former vice president’s campaign had more than $177 million cash on hand as of Sept. 30, according to a filing with the Federal Election Commission on Tuesday evening. Trump’s reelection campaign reported $63.1 million in the bank.


Biden’s large fundraising advantage the past couple of months is fueling the disparity. Biden hauled in $281 million in September, more than three times the $81 million raised by the president. And Trump’s report indicates that his campaign spent more money than it raised in September.

Spotlighting the president’s cash disadvantage, Trump took a few hours out of his busy campaigning schedule over the weekend to headline a top-dollar fundraising event in California that aides told Fox News brought in roughly $11 million for his reelection bid.

President Donald Trump arrives for a campaign rally at Erie International Airport, Tom Ridge Field in Erie, Pa, Tuesday, Oct. 20, 2020. (AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar)

But the president’s campaign emphasizes that they’ve got enough in their coffers to win the election.

"The Trump campaign has all the resources we need going into the home stretch of this election," campaign spokeswoman Samantha Zager highlighted in a statement on Tuesday night.


And Trump campaign communications director Tim Murtaugh tweeted late Thursday, after the campaign and the Republican National Committee (RNC) released their combined fundraising figures, that “President Trump hits final stretch with strength, resources, record & huge ground game needed to spread message and secure re-election.”

Those numbers showed the Trump campaign and the RNC with a combined $251 million in the bank as of the end of September. A day earlier the Biden campaign and the Democratic National Committee reported a combined $432 million cash on hand.

Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden arrives to speak during a campaign event at Riverside High School in Durham, N.C., Sunday, Oct. 18, 2020. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

The financial advantage has allowed Biden’s campaign to vastly outspend the Trump team last month in the ad wars. Biden’s campaign spent nearly $148 million in September compared to $56 million for Trump’s team, according to figures from Advertising Analytics, a top ad tracking firm.

While campaign cash is a crucial metric, money isn’t everything. Four years ago, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton outraised and outspent Trump, and still lost the race for the White House.

“As Hillary Clinton proved when she outspent us 2-to-1 in 2016, no amount of money can buy the presidency – voters have to be enthusiastic about casting their ballot for a candidate, and that’s only happening for President Trump,” Zager noted.

And she emphasized that the Trump campaign is “running a comprehensive campaign that incorporates our massive ground game, travel to key states, and ads on digital, TV, and radio.”

The Trump campaign has spotlighted in recent months that their large ground organization in the key battlegrounds – which was assembled over the last couple of years – is light-years ahead of the organization built by the Biden team the past seven months.

The president earlier this week appeared to downplay the fundraising deficit. Trump told supporters at a campaign rally on Monday in Arizona that he could be “the greatest fundraiser in history” if he tapped into the business sector. The president explained that he’s avoided doing so because, he says, he would be “totally compromised” by the donors.


The president told his supporters, “All I have to do is call up the head of every Wall Street firm, head of every major company, the head of every major energy company, ‘Do me a favor, send me $10 million for my campaign.’ ‘Yes, sir.’ They say the only thing is, ‘Why didn't you ask for more, sir?’”

Fox News’ Thomas Barrabi contributed to this report.

Source: Read Full Article

World News

Hannity sends cameras to Biden home, urges Dem nominee to 'come outside' and address Hunter scandal

Hannity urges Joe Biden to break his silence on Hunter’s emails

Fox News host sends cameras to Biden’s home, urges nominee to ‘come outside’ and address scandal

Fox News host Sean Hannity called on Joe Biden to break his silence Tuesday as developments continue to emerge surrounding his son Hunter and his questionable foreign business dealings.

"Joe Biden, you have a lot of questions to answer, and It's time for you to answer them," Hannity said. "What did you know? When did you know it? Did you take a cut of your son's seedy international pay-for-play schemes?"

The "Hannity" host revealed that he had dispatched a camera crew to Biden's Delaware home late Tuesday, hoping to persuade the Democratic presidential nominee to "walk outside of your house, leave your basement bunker, step out and answer these pressing questions. 

"I know it's 9 p.m. Eastern, Joe, but if you are awake, we have a camera right outside of your house right now," Hannity said. "We will be more than happy to hear you out."

Biden announced earlier this week that he would be taking a break from the campaign trail in preparation for Thursday's debate, while President Trump continues to hold rallies in battleground states across the country.

"Clearly, questions need to be answered," Hannity argued. "His campaign, Joe Biden's campaign, has made what are unprecedented decisions, unusual political calculations and top Democrats believe that keeping Joe Biden, their own candidate, away from the public eye for six of seven days in two weeks leading up to an election is better for the campaign. 

"This raises real serious concerns. Why on Earth is this happening? What is wrong with Joe Biden? What are they trying to hide from we, the American people? "

Hannity again called on the former vice president to answer whether he profited "in any way" from Hunter's business connections, and questioned whether the elder Biden lied "when he said he knew nothing about it? Was U.S. foreign policy compromised? 


"Joe, if this is a really big smear campaign, as you suggested over the weekend when you got one hard question … come out and tell us why," he said.

"You [can] have a full hour of the show. It's all yours."

Source: Read Full Article

World News

Biden mum on Hunter Biden emails, alleged knowledge of son's overseas business dealings

Eric Shawn: The Hunter Biden Saga

The Wall Street Journal’s John Bussey says ‘this feels like a deflection from the mismanagement of the coronavirus.’

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has remained mum on questions about his knowledge of his son Hunter’s overseas business dealings, which were discussed in a series of emails purportedly found on a laptop belonging to his son.

The New York Post last week published the controversial emails, which were later obtained by Fox News, related to Hunter Biden’s work with Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings, as well as his work with a Chinese energy firm.

While the Biden campaign has hit back at the New York Post report, the former vice president himself has not given a sustantive answer on the emails.

Biden, over the weekend, was asked about the Post report by a CBS News reporter, to which he replied: “I have no response.”

It's "another smear campaign," he said.

One email, dated May 13, 2017, and obtained by Fox News, includes a discussion of “remuneration packages” for six people in a business deal with a Chinese energy firm. The email appeared to identify Hunter Biden as “Chair/ Vice Chair depending on an agreement with CEFC,” in an apparent reference to now-bankrupt CEFC China Energy Co. 

The email includes a note that “Hunter has some office expectations he will elaborate.” A proposed equity split references “20” for “H” and “10 held by H for the big guy?” with no further details. 

Fox News spoke to one of the people who was copied on the email, who confirmed its authenticity. Sources also told Fox News that “the big guy” was a reference to the former vice president.

While Biden has not commented on that email or his alleged involvement in any deals with the Chinese Energy firm, his campaign said it released the former vice president’s tax documents and returns, which show no involvement with Chinese investments.

Fox News also obtained an email last week that revealed an adviser of Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings, Vadym Pozharskyi, wrote an email to Hunter Biden on May 12, 2014, requesting “advice” on how he could use his “influence to convey a message” to “stop” what the company considers to be “politically motivated actions.”


“We urgently need your advice on how you could use your influence to convey a message / signal, etc .to stop what we consider to be politically motivated actions,” Pozharskyi wrote.

The email, part of a longer email chain obtained by Fox News, appeared to be referencing the firm’s founder, Mykola Zlochevsky, being under investigation.

Another email revealed that then-Vice President Biden, at his son’s request, allegedly met with Pozharskyi in April 2015 in Washington, D.C. The meeting was mentioned in an email of appreciation that Pozharskyi sent to Hunter Biden on April 17, 2015 — a year after Hunter took the position on the board of Burisma, and a year prior to Biden pushing to have Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin – who was investigating Burisma – removed from his post. Both the Obama administration and a number of Western European governments were pressuring Ukraine to remove Shokin over his failure to root out corruption in the former Soviet republic.

“Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spend some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure,” the email read. 

But Biden campaign spokesman Andrew Bates last week hit back against the New York Post story, saying: “Investigations by the press, during impeachment, and even by two Republican-led Senate committees whose work was decried as 'not legitimate' and political by a GOP colleague have all reached the same conclusion: that Joe Biden carried out official U.S. policy toward Ukraine and engaged in no wrongdoing. Trump administration officials have attested to these facts under oath.”

The Biden campaign also told Fox News Sunday that the former vice president “never had a meeting” with Pozharskyi.

Biden, prior to the emails surfacing, repeatedly has claimed he’s “never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.”

Hunter Biden’s business dealings, and role on the board of Burisma, emerged during Trump’s impeachment inquiry in 2019. 

Meanwhile, the Post reported Wednesday the emails were part of a trove of data recovered from a laptop which was dropped off at a repair shop in Delaware in April 2019.

The Post reported that other material turned up on the laptop, including a video, which they described as allegedly showing Hunter Biden smoking crack while engaged in a sexual act with an unidentified woman, as well as other sexually explicit images.

The FBI reportedly seized the computer and hard drive in December 2019. The shop owner, though, said he made a copy of the hard drive and later gave it to former Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s lawyer, Robert Costello.

The Post reported that the FBI referred questions about the hard drive and laptop to the Delaware U.S. Attorney’s Office, where a spokesperson told the outlet that the office “can neither confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation.”

A lawyer for Hunter Biden did not comment on specifics, but instead told the Post that Giuliani “has been pushing widely discredited conspiracy theories about the Biden family, openly relying on actors tied to Russian intelligence.”

Giuliani did not respond to Fox News’ requests for comment. 

The former vice president is not expected to host or attend any public events until Thursday — the date of the final presidential debate, where President Trump is expected to bring up allegations stemming from the emails.


"If Kristen Welker, the moderator, doesn't bring it up, I think you're pretty safe to assume that the president will," Trump campaign senior adviser Jason Miller said Monday on FOX Business' "Mornings with Maria." "Again, these are real simple questions."

Meanwhile, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., over the weekend described the emails as being part of a smear coming "from the Kremlin."

“We know that this whole smear on Joe Biden comes from the Kremlin,” Schiff said on CNN. “That’s been clear for well over a year now that they’ve been pushing this false narrative about this vice president and his son.” 

Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe on Monday said Hunter Biden’s laptop “is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign." 

“Let me be clear: the intelligence community doesn’t believe that because there is no intelligence that supports that," Ratcliffe said. "And we have shared no intelligence with Adam Schiff, or any member of Congress.”

Ratcliffe went on to say that it is “simply not true" and that the laptop is “in the jurisdiction of the FBI.”

“The FBI has had possession of this,” he said. “Without commenting on any investigation that they may or may not have, their investigation is not centered around Russian disinformation and the intelligence community is not playing any role with respect to that.”

He added: “The intelligence community has not been involved in Hunter Biden’s laptop.”


A senior Trump administration official, however, told Fox News that the FBI was not investigating the emails as Russian disinformation.

The FBI declined to confirm or deny the existence of an investigation, as is standard practice.

Meanwhile, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is investigating Hunter Biden’s emails which reveal that he introduced his father, the former vice president, to a top executive at Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings in 2015.

Fox News' Mike Emanuel and Sam Dorman contributed to this report. 

Source: Read Full Article

World News

Trump and Biden court crucial senior voters in the biggest battleground

Trump brings reelection campaign to seniors in battleground Florida

National Journal politics editor Josh Kraushaar joins ‘The Daily Briefing’ with analysis

A new TV commercial by President Trump’s reelection campaign touts that the president is “the clear choice” for seniors, who are a key voting bloc in many of the battleground states that will decide the winner of the presidential election.

The ads running on the airwaves in Florida and other crucial swing states as the president courted voters 65 and older on Friday during a stop in Fort Myers in southwest Florida.

"I am honored to be here in Fort Myers to reaffirm my solemn pledge to America’s Seniors: I will protect you, I will defend you, and I will fight for you with every ounce of energy and conviction that I have," the president told the crowd.

And he vowed to keep seniors safe from the coronavirus pandemic, promising that he was "working as hard as I can" so that they "can kiss and hug your children and grandchildren very soon."

Senoirs make up roughtly 20% of the population in Florida, which with 29 electoral votes up for grabs is the largest of the traditional battlegrounds.

The president’s stop came three days after Democratic nominee Joe Biden visited Florida and told a crowd of seniors that Trump views them as “expendable, forgettable.”

And the president’s trip comes as Trump is trying to avoid becoming the first Republican presidential nominee in two decades to lose the 65 and older vote.

Former Vice President Al Gore – who in the 2000 election repeatedly emphasized that he would keep Social Security “in a lockbox” – was the last Democratic presidential nominee to win the senior vote.

President Donald Trump speaks during an event on "Protecting America’s Seniors," Friday, Oct. 16, 2020, in Fort Myers, Fla. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Four years ago Trump captured the national vote of those 65 and older by a 52%-45% margin over Clinton, according to exit polls. But fast forward four years and the latest Fox News national poll indicates Biden with a slight 49%-47% edge over the president among seniors. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News national poll released this week showed a larger 54%-44% margin for Biden among voters 65 and older.

One key reason may be the coronavirus pandemic, which is tied to the deaths of nearly 220,000 Americans and has hit seniors particularly hard.

“Seniors are much more impacted by the coronavirus, by their concern about getting it, their concern about what happens if they do get. They’re much more sensitive to it because they’re in the population is most at risk,” noted longtime Republican pollster Neil Newhouse. “They’re focused on coronavirus and the president’s numbers on coronavirus are not strong. Voters generally disapprove of the job he’s doing handling the issue.”

Biden, during a stop Tuesday in heavily populated Broward County in southeast Florida, pointed to comments Trump made last month in Swanton, Ohio, when he argued that the coronavirus "affects virtually nobody" except seniors.

"It affects elderly people, elderly people with heart problems and other problems. If they have other problems, that's what it really affects, that's it," the president said at the time.

“Nobody,” Biden said on Tuesday. “Think about that. Who was he talking about when he said it affects virtually nobody. He was talking about America’s seniors. He was talking about you.”

And speaking directly to voters age 65 and older, the former vice president argued that Trump thinks “you’re expendable, 'forgettable, you’re virtually nobody. That’s how he sees seniors. … The only senior that Donald Trump cares about … is the senior Donald Trump."

Biden also claimed the president will “undermine the Medicare trust fund and increase overall out of pocket costs for seniors.” And he charged that Trump “says he wants to lower drug prices, but he hasn’t done a single thing to do it.”

The Trump campaign fired back, arguing that “Biden resorted to his worn tactic of lying about President Trump, who has steadfastly protected Social Security and Medicare and who has pledged to always do so.”

Last week, as he was recovering at the White House after being diagnosed and hospitalized for COVID-19, tweeted that seniors are “MY FAVORITE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD!” 

And the announcer in the new Trump campaign commercial highlights that “President Trump protected Social Security and Medicare” and that Trump “lowered drug costs and during his first term Medicare Advantage premiums fell 34%.”

Four years ago Trump narrowly edged out 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in Florida. An average of some of the most recent polling in the state shows Biden holding a single-digit lead over the president. In a sign of how important the state is to the president’s reelection, Trump’s spent three days campaigning in the state this week.

“Seniors in Florida are critical to winning the state,” noted Newhouse, who was Republican nominee Mitt Romney’s pollster in the 2012 presidential campaign. “The key voter groups in the state would be seniors and Hispanics. A strong performance among seniors would go a long way towards giving the president an edge in the state.”

And it’s not just Florida. Seniors make up at least 17% of the population in the battleground states of Arizona, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa and New Hampshire.

The concentration by the two standard-bearers on seniors this week is welcome news to many.

With America dealing with the most devastating pandemic in a century, the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression more than 80 years ago, the most intense and widespread protests and unrest over racial inequity in decades, and arguably the most bitter U.S. Supreme Court confirmation battle in recent history, it’s little wonder that some issues critical to seniors that usually dominate presidential elections have been pushed to the side in recent months.

 “We’re certainly concerned that our issues have been overshadowed because when these things pass – and they will pass – the fundamental bedrock issues for Americans- things like their health, taking care of aging parents, Medicare, prescription drug prices, Social Security – those things are still going to be with us,” AARP New Hampshire state director Todd Fahey told Fox News.

 “It’s really important that the voters understand where each candidate stands on these singularly important issues,” Fahey emphasized. “They are of great important to the nation and the candidates need to speak to all of them.”

Source: Read Full Article

World News

Trump says Biden family 'protected' by Big Tech, threatens platforms 'unless they shape up'

Trump: Choice between socialism vs. American dream

Fox Business Network’s Stuart Varney weighs in on 2020 election’s impact on the economy.

President Trump said that the Biden family has been “protected” by Big Tech after Twitter and Facebook censored a damning New York Post report about Hunter Biden's purported emails.

“He and his family are crooked, and they got caught. And now they are being protected by Big Tech,” the president told North Carolinians at the Pitt-Greenville airport. 

“We must immediately strip them of their Section 230 protection," Trump added about the tech giants. 

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 states "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

The section has been pivotal in the rise of today's social media giants by allowing not only Internet service providers –­ but also Google, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and others –­ to be shielded from liability from content posted on their platforms by third parties, in most cases. But some critics on the right feel that tech giants should no longer benefit from protections of Section 230 if they censor conservative viewpoints, including controversial postings by Trump.

“Big Tech got something years ago that let them become Big Tech,” Trump said of social media platform’s liability protections. “We’re going to take away their Section 230 unless they shape up.”

“Believe it or not, Democrats agree,” Trump continued. Democrats on the Hill have threatened to break up Big Tech, questioning whether the companies violated U.S. antitrust laws and stole from competitors.

On Wednesday, the Post released a report on purported emails they’d obtained from a whistleblower that claim to show that Biden’s son introduced the then-vice president to a top executive at Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings less than a year before the Obama administration pressured government officials in Ukraine to fire prosecutor Viktor Shokin, who was investigating the company.

The emails were found in a stash of data on a computer left at a repair shop in Biden’s home state of Delaware, according to the store’s owner. The customer who brought in the laptop, who store owner John Paul Mac Isaac said he 'can't be 100% sure' was Hunter Biden, never came to retrieve it.  He said he contacted the FBI out of concern for the computer’s content. 

Isaac told the Post he believed it to be Hunter Biden's laptop because the laptop had a sticker from the Beau Biden Foundation, which is named after his late older brother.

“Big tech is censoring these stories to get Biden out of an impossible jam," Trump said. "Hunter Biden left his laptop somewhere… the guy that had his laptop said 'wow this is criminal stuff.' He brought it to the FBI.”

Facebook admitted to limiting distribution of the article until “independent fact-checkers” could review it. Twitter blocked users from tweeting the story link or sending it via direct message to other users. Users who tried to tweet the story’s link were locked out of their accounts, while Twitter pointed to its “hacked materials” policy for censoring the story. 

The Post report revealed that Biden, at Hunter’s request, allegedly met with Vadym Pozharskyi in April 2015 in Washington, D.C.

The meeting was mentioned in an email of appreciation, according to the Post, that Pozharskyi sent to Hunter Biden on April 17, 2015 — a year after Hunter took on his position on the board of Burisma.

“Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure,” the email read.

An earlier email from May 2014 also showed Pozharskyi, a top Burisma executive, reportedly asking Hunter for “advice on how you could use your influence” on the company’s behalf, the Post reported.

The alleged meeting took place less than a year before the former vice president purportedly pressured government officials in Ukraine to fire prosecutor Viktor Shokin.

Republican Sens. Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham and Josh Hawley on Thursday called on the heads of Twitter and Facebook to testify, and said a subpoena was in the works, as critics claimed the social media platforms have been censoring reporting critical of Democrats.

The Senate Judiciary Committee leaders announced they will vote on a subpoena Tuesday for Jack Dorsey, the CEO of Twitter, to testify before the committee on Friday, Oct. 23. Hawley said he hoped the committee would vote to subpoena Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, too. 

Biden and Biden's allies have maintained, though, that his intervention prompting the firing of Shokin had nothing to do with his son, but rather was tied to corruption concerns.


Biden repeatedly has claimed he’s “never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.”

Fox News' Brooke Singman and Marisa Schultz contributed to this report. 

Source: Read Full Article

World News

David Bossie: Biden wants to pack Supreme Court to put America on road to socialism — he just won’t admit it

Cruz rails against Dems over court packing

Sen. Ted Cruz speaks out against the idea of increasing the size of the Supreme Court.

It has become abundantly clear — despite former Vice President’s Joe Biden’s repeated refusals to give an honest answer — that he’s planning to expand the size of the Supreme Court to add liberal justices if he’s elected president. He knows his radical agenda can’t become reality any other way.

Following in the footsteps of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Biden knows that many of the far-left proposals he wants to become law if Democrats control both houses of Congress and the White House won’t pass constitutional muster. So like Roosevelt in 1937, Biden wants to pack the Supreme Court with justices who will support a radical restructuring of our nation — regardless of whether the restructuring is constitutional.

This is a dangerous step that even Democrats refused to support when Roosevelt tried it 83 years ago. But today’s Democrats — following the lead of democratic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and fellow socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , D-N.Y. — only care about remaking America into a socialist nation.


Adding new justices to the Supreme Court is like adding referees who will change the rules in the middle of a football game. This would allow laws that are clearly unconstitutional to be upheld by the expanded radical majority on the high court.

The Democrats deny they want to put America on the road to socialism, of course, because they know most Americans don’t support a socialist revolution. But make no mistake: a President Biden would become a tool of radical socialists. And an expanded Supreme Court with a radical majority handpicked by Biden would put our nation on a dangerous path toward socialism.

A mantra of the Obama-Biden administration was “never let a crisis go to waste.” President Barack Obama and Vice President Biden adopted this strategy while formulating their response to the 2008 financial collapse, which has become known as the Great Recession. The strategy is designed to take advantage of an extraordinary circumstance in order to ram through parts of an agenda that are politically impossible to pass otherwise.

President Roosevelt adopted a similar strategy to push through his New Deal agenda — which was a massive expansion of government — in response to the Great Depression.                                                          

While much of Roosevelt’s agenda was passed by Democrats in Congress, some of these new laws were overturned by the Supreme Court on constitutional grounds. Roosevelt’s response to our tried and tested system of checks and balances was his attempt to pack the Supreme Court with like-minded justices who would rubberstamp his agenda wholesale.

Thankfully, the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 went down in flames because lawmakers from both parties largely agreed that politicizing the judicial branch of our federal government would be deadly for our republic.

Court packing would promote dangerous instability and turn the Supreme Court into another branch of government controlled by politics — rather than impartial jurists deciding whether new laws are faithful to the original intent of our nation’s founders who approved our Constitution.

Fast-forward to today. As President Trump boldly navigates us through the COVID-19 pandemic in the midst of the 2020 presidential election, Biden regularly makes comparisons between FDR’s agenda in the 1930s with his own far-left agenda.

Biden is making it clear that he wants to use the Chinese coronavirus crisis to fundamentally change America. All you have to do is listen to his words.

Biden has said that he “won’t just rebuild this nation — we’ll transform it” and argued that “we need revolutionary institutional changes” in our country. These are alarming statements that every American should worry about before voting in the election now underway.  

Biden has said: “I do think we’ve reached a point, a real inflection in American history. And I don’t believe it’s unlike what Roosevelt was met with.” Pay attention and you will start to understand why Biden is refusing to tell the American people his position on court packing.

Biden tried to hide his true intentions when he said this week that “I'm not a fan of court packing … the president will love nothing better than to fight about whether or not I would in fact pack the court or not pack the court.”

But only a person who has spent more than four decades in Washington could come up with a ridiculous response like this to a straightforward question about whether he would expand the Supreme Court by adding more justices.   

Biden knows that even if Democrats control both the House and Senate, they must first abolish the Senate filibuster in order to ensure passage of their extremist legislation. That’s a country-altering measure that Biden has stated he’s open to. “I think you’re going to just have to take a look at it,” Biden said in July.

Here’s the truth: If the filibuster becomes a thing of the past and court packing becomes a reality, the radical left is coming for the America you love. I’ve been saying for 10 years that ObamaCare is just a steppingstone to a complete government takeover of our health care system. That prediction is on the ballot Nov. 3.

Unlike his running mate Sen. Kamala Harris, Biden says he doesn’t support the socialist “Medicare-for-all” program, but rather wants to build on ObamaCare instead. I don’t believe him — and you shouldn’t either. Incrementally expanding ObamaCare doesn’t match Biden’s “go big” Roosevelt-like rhetoric.     

The reason Bernie Sanders introduced “Medicare-for-all” in the first place was because ObamaCare didn’t work. Even The New York Times recently noted: “For many Americans, the ‘Affordable’ part of the Affordable Care Act has seemed like an empty promise, as premiums, deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs continue to be an extraordinary burden on millions of households.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats are attempting to prop up ObamaCare at the Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court confirmation hearing, but it’s just a political stunt. Anyone who thinks the left would just trim around the edges of our health care system if they seize power next year is not paying attention to what’s going on in our country.

The bottom line is that if you’re one of the 180 million Americans who like your private health insurance coverage, the radicals are going to try to take it away from you.


Socialized medicine isn’t the only thing coming down the pike in 2021 if Democrats prevail in November. Once Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., extinguishes the filibuster and the Supreme Court is packed with partisan leftists, the dominos will begin to fall one by one.

Do you like free speech and religious liberty? The left is coming for you. Do you think you have a right to own guns and ammo? The left is coming for them. Do you like President Trump’s border wall? The left is coming to reverse the policy.

Do you rely on the police for safety? Many on the left wants to defund them. Do you like your job in fracking or elsewhere in the fossil fuel industry? Those jobs would come to an end in Joe Biden’s America.


President Franklin Roosevelt didn’t try to pack the Supreme Court because he just wanted incremental change. Neither does Joe Biden. Americans shouldn’t accept Biden’s dodging of questions about enormously consequential issues like packing the Supreme Court and ending the filibuster in the Senate.

Biden’s deceptive maneuvering speaks volumes — and Americans should weigh it heavily as they head to the polls. Creating a constitutional crisis is no way to respond to COVID-19.


Source: Read Full Article

World News

Biden once again shatters fundraising record with eyepopping $383 million haul last month

WSJ poll: Biden holds 14-point lead over Trump

Byron York, Fox News contributor, on Biden’s national lead in a new NBC News/WSJ poll.

Joe Biden shattered the monthly record for fundraising during a presidential campaign when he hauled in a massive $364.5 million in August.

Fast forward a month and the Democratic presidential nominee broke his own record, with the former vice president announcing Wednesday night on Twitter that the Biden campaign, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and their joint fundraising committees hauled in $383 million in September.

“To every person who chipped in a few dollars last month — thank you. Because of your support, we raised an astounding $383 million. I'm incredibly humbled,” Biden wrote.

“That’s more than I’ve ever raised in my whole life… I’m really humbled by it,” Biden added in a video in which he announced the news to one of his supporters, a special education teacher who lives in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Biden campaign manager Jen O’Malley Dillon announced on Twitter that the Biden campaign and the DNC entered October with an eyepopping $432 million cash on hand. That’s down slightly from the $466 million they had in the bank at the beginning of September, as the Biden campaign continues to spend tens of millions of dollars each week to run ads on TV, radio, and digital in the key general election battleground states and on national broadcast and cable networks.

Touting the campaign’s low dollar donations, Dillon said that “Our success has been driven by our grassroots supporters. $203 million came from online donors. We had 1.1 million new donors last month — bringing the total to 5.5 million donors throughout this campaign.”

Biden, who declared his candidacy in April of last year, struggled to fundraise for much of his campaign. He raised just $8.9 million in January and $18 million in February.

But Biden saw his fundraising spike starting in the late winter and early spring, as he became the clear front-runner for the Democratic nomination and much of the party coalesced around his White House bid. Biden became the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee in April as his last remaining primary rival – Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont – dropped out of the race and backed the former vice president.

Biden and the DNC outraised Trump and the RNC in May and June and spent money at a much slower rate than the president's team during the spring and early summer. Biden’s fundraising surged even further in August after naming Sen. Kamala Harris of California as his running mate. The infusion of cash has allowed the Biden campaign to vastly outspend Trump’s team to run TV ads since the beginning of August.

The president has been raising money for his reelection bid since entering the White House nearly four years ago. And the reelection effort’s hauled in an unprecedented $1.2 billion the past two years.

Campaign cash can be used by candidates to produce and run ads, build staff, boost grassroots outreach and get out the vote efforts. But while it’s a crucial element in campaign politics, the candidate that spends the most money doesn’t always win. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton dramatically outspent Trump in the 2016 election. Clinton ended up winning the national popular vote by 2 points, but Trump edged Clinton in a number of the key battleground states, giving him an Electoral College rout over Clinton to win the White House.

Source: Read Full Article


Biden or Trump? Survey reveals Americans' views on future of Social Security

Kudlow: No plan to eliminate social security taxes

Chief actuary warns cutting payroll taxes could permanently deplete Social Security; White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow reacts.

Just in case it may have somehow slipped your mind amid the barrage of news coverage, ads, and tweets, there's a political election coming up this November. The differences between the candidates have been well documented, but how are those differences perceived by the voting public?

Continue Reading Below

In the case of how Americans view the candidates' respective views on Social Security, a new survey by Simplywise, a fintech that provides technology to help people plan and save for retirement, sheds some light. The company's most recent Retirement Confidence Index, released in September, revealed that 63% of Americans feel confident in the future of Social Security if the Democratic challenger, former Vice president Joe Biden, is elected, while only 44% feel confident if President Donald Trump is reelected. Among people age 60 and over, 59% feel confident in the future of Social Security if Biden wins compared to 43% for Trump.


Trump and the payroll tax

The major reason for the perceived lack of confidence in President Trump, according to the survey, seems to be his recent actions and statements related to the payroll tax, which is the primary funding source for Social Security. Trump signed an executive order (EO) in August calling for a four-month deferral of the payroll tax for workers earning less than $4,000 per biweekly pay period. This was done to help people through tough times by giving them a little extra cash in their paychecks.

However, the Simplywise survey, a random survey of 1,154 Americans, said that 86% are concerned that the payroll tax deferral will hurt Social Security in the long run. But to be clear, the deferral laid out in the EO would be temporary, as the taxes would be paid back starting in January. But the EO did say that the Treasury Secretary "shall explore avenues, including legislation, to eliminate the obligation to pay the taxes deferred pursuant to the implementation of this memorandum." Also, it should be noted that employers could opt out of this, and many of them have.


But there have been mixed messages from the Trump administration on the future of the payroll tax, which funds about 89% of Social Security. Right after his EO was issued on Aug. 8, Trump said at a press briefing on that same day: "If I'm victorious on November 3rd, I plan to forgive these taxes and make permanent cuts to the payroll tax. So I'm going to make them all permanent."

Then on Aug. 12 at a COVID-19 task force press conference, Trump added, "When I win the election, I'm going to go completely and totally forgive all deferred payroll taxes without in any way, shape or form hurting social security. That money is going to come from the general fund. We're not going to touch Social Security." And in a TV interview on Sept. 12, he reiterated the idea that the money would come from the general fund, buoyed by the "tremendous growth that we're going to experience."

However, there has been no official policy proposal from the Trump Administration on this, and administration spokespeople said Trump meant permanent forgiveness of deferral, not permanent payroll tax elimination. So you can see where the confusion comes from. Also, if there were any proposal to tap the general fund, it would take legislative action, and that would be unlikely to pass, even if proposed.

Biden’s plan for the payroll tax

Biden's Social Security plan seeks to improve the solvency of Social Security by increasing the payroll tax on high-wage earners. Currently, the Social Security Trust Fund, which is often referred to as its reserves, will be depleted by 2035. After that, based on the existing payout schedule, Social Security will begin to face a funding shortfall, which would lead to benefit cuts, if the fund isn't bolstered by 2035.


Currently, the payroll tax is 12.4%, with employers and employees each contributing 6.2 percent of wages on up to $137,700 of income. The additional income beyond $137,700 is exempt from the payroll tax. As my colleague Sean Williams points out, that's about $150 billion per year that's not going into Social Security.

Biden's plan would partially correct that by taxing income earned over $400,000 at that 12.4% rate. A doughnut hole exemption would remain between $137,700 and $400,000 in income. The payroll tax increase would generate about $820 billion in revenue over 10 years, according to the Tax Foundation.

Overall, the Simplywise survey found that there's a great deal of concern about Social Security, in general. Specifically, 57% of those not receiving benefits worry about it drying up, while 54% of those receiving it have the same concern. The latter number is up from 29% in July.

It seems pretty clear by these numbers that saving Social Security should be a top priority for whoever wins in November.


Source: Read Full Article

World News

Andrew McCarthy: No, Joe Biden, it is not packing the Court for the president and Senate to fill vacancies

Friend of Amy Coney Barrett: She’s committed to the rule of law

Rick Garnett, friend and former co-worker of Amy Coney Barrett, previews what he expects to hear in her Senate confirmation hearings on ‘Fox & Friends.’

Well, we finally have the answer of Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, top Democrats and their media notetakers on the great question of whether they plan to pack the Supreme Court. No, no, they’re not providing a good-faith response to the question. They are redefining their terms.

To borrow from page-one of  Today in Torturing the Text, by Bill Clinton, “It all depends on what the definition of packing is.”

In a flourish that would have greened George Orwell with envy, the media-Democrat complex now proclaims that Democrats are merely intent on depoliticizing thice Supreme Court because Republicans have been “packing” it for four years.

This, of course, turns on its head the commonsense, historical understanding of court-packing that has been universally accepted – and, indeed, invoked by such Democrats as [checks notes] Joe Biden – for decades.


To “pack” the Supreme Court means to enact legislation to expand the size of the tribunal in order to achieve constitutionally dubious political outcomes that the Court’s legal rulings are frustrating.

The concept arises out of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s threat to pack the Court because its decisions were invalidating New Deal legislation. This was during the Great Depression. Notwithstanding that FDR had won a historic landslide victory in 1936 and enjoyed super-majority Democratic support in Congress, his own party slapped his proposal down, forcing the 20th Century’s most powerful president to beat a hasty retreat.

That happened because Depression-era Democrats, unlike today’s Democrats, not only grasped but feared the implications.

Expanding the Court and filling the new slots with progressive ideological allies, as FDR intended to do, would irrevocably convert the non-political judiciary into a politicized super-legislature. It would eviscerate the rule of law, which courts are presumed to enforce without partisanship, substituting the ideological preferences – the brute political will – of the party that happened to be dominating the political branches at that point in time.

Those Democrats understood that times change. If they packed the Court, the Republicans at their next opportunity would expand the number of seats and array their own politically-driven lawyers in judicial robes.

The Court would have become a super-legislature. That would destroy the Court as an institution. The legitimacy of the tribunal’s rulings – the reason its decisions are accepted by the public as law – is that they are presumed to be driven by the remorseless logic of jurisprudence, not the wheeling-and-dealing of politics.

The destruction of the judiciary as a non-political institution would inexorably destroy our framework of government. The Constitution sets up a system based on separation-of-powers: The division of authority that prevents any actor in the system from accumulating too much power. The Framers, as students of Locke and Montesquieu, believed would lead to tyranny.

Among the system’s key checks and balances is the judiciary’s insulation from politics. This enables it to preserve the Constitution and statutes as written, pushing back against majoritarian political impulses that would otherwise overrun minority rights and individual liberty – our system’s ideal.


If the Supreme Court became a nakedly political institution, then it would be the tool of the majority party in power. In sum, it could no longer perform the function for which it was created: To serve as a bulwark between Americans and government oppression, protecting the former’s rights to free speech, worship, self-defense, property, privacy, due process and equal protection under the law.

To be clear, it is not packing the Court for the elected president and Senate to fill vacancies that arise under existing law.

As a matter of constitutional law, there are only two rules for filling a vacancy: The president must appoint, and the Senate must consent. Historically, when the presidency and Senate are controlled by the same party, the president’s nominees (assuming they are professionally and ethically qualified) get confirmed. If they are controlled by different parties, the Senate often does not consent and thus nominations are defeated.

Contrary to media-Democrat talking points, The Republicans have not packed the Court these last four years. They have controlled the filling of vacancies that arose in the tribunal, which has had nine members since 1869.

When Justice Antonin Scalia died in 2016, the last year of President Obama’s term, the White House and Senate were in control of different parties, and the Senate did not consent to Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland. An election intervened, Donald Trump won the presidency, and with the same party now in control on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, the Senate consented to Trump’s nominees, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, to fill, respectively, the vacancies caused by Justice Scalia’s death and Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently passed away while Trump was still president, which he will lawfully be until at least January 20; and while Republicans still controlled the Senate, which they will lawfully do until at least January 3. Trump has thus nominated the highly qualified Judge Amy Coney Barrett, and the Senate is poised to confirm her.

That is not “court-packing.” It is the Constitution in action.

And don’t kid yourself: If a Supreme Court justice had died a week – maybe even a day – before President Obama’s term ended, and if Democrats had controlled the Senate, they would have raced to fill the vacancy. They would have moved heaven and earth not to leave it for Republicans to fill. You know that as sure as you’re reading this.

There is nothing magic about the number nine. The Constitution makes Congress the master of the Supreme Court’s size. It started out with six members after the Judiciary Act of 1789. Over the next 80 years, the number varied between five and ten justices. Since 1868, it has been set at nine. That has proved a prudent number for resolving tough issues while making sure all legitimate legal positions are effectively considered.


It was one thing to vary the Court’s size when the nation was growing, the Court’s role was evolving, and the work of the federal judiciary was expanding. As FDR found, however, it would be a very different thing, a ruinous thing, to expand the court to achieve political outcomes.

That would not only destroy the Court as an institution; it could be a mortal blow to our constitutional system.


Source: Read Full Article

World News

Biden: Reporters should ‘focus’ on Republicans after pressed on court packing stance

Biden: The only court packing going on right now is by Republicans

Former Vice President Joe Biden speaks to the press about the Supreme Court and President Trump hosting in-person events.

Democratic nominee Joe Biden said reporters should be focused on Republicans pushing through a Supreme Court nomination, rather than his opinion on court packing. 

“The only court packing going on right now is going on with Republicans… It's not constitutional what they’re doing,” Biden told reporters on Saturday. 

“We should be focused on what's happening right now; the only packing going on is this country is being packed now by the Republicans, after the vote has already begun,” the former vice president continued. 

“I’m going to stay focused on it so we don't take our eye off the ball.”

Biden sidestepped questions about his opinion on packing the Supreme Court on Friday again, saying voters don’t “deserve” to know his opinion on the matter before the election.

Biden was asked in Las Vegas about his position on packing the court with extra justices — something that has seen support from a number of Democrats, particularly since President Trump announced his intention to confirm Barrett to the seat left vacant by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Biden, who opposed court packing in the primary, refused to answer the question on Thursday, saying “you’ll know my position on court-packing the day after the election.”

On Friday, a KTNV reporter asked him again about whether he backs court packing and said: "This is the number one thing that I've been asked about from viewers in the past couple of days.”

“Well, you’ve been asked by the viewers who are probably Republicans who don't want me continuing to talk about what they’re doing to the court right now,” Biden responded

“Well, sir don’t the voters deserve to know…?” reporter Ross DiMattei asked.

“No they don’t…. I'm not gonna play his game, he’d love me to talk about, and I’ve already said something on court packing, he’d love that to be the discussion instead of what he’s doing now,” Biden said, likely referring to President Trump.

“He’s about to make a pick in the middle of an election, first time it’s ever been done, first time in history it’s ever been done,” he said.

During the Democratic presidential primaries, Biden said he opposed a move to expand – or pack – the high court. But with Democrats virtually powerless to stop the president and Senate Republicans from pushing through Barrett’s nomination ahead of the Nov. 3 election, and tilting the court’s conservative majority to 6-3, many on the left are now calling for an expansion of the court to rebalance its ideology.

Biden first refused to answer questions on court packing when pressed on the matter by President Trump and moderator Chris Wallace during last week’s debate. 


"Whatever position I take on that that will become the issue. The issue is, the American people should speak. You should go out and vote. You're in voting now. Vote and let your senators know how you strongly you feel," Biden said.

Fox News' Adam Shaw and Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report. 

Source: Read Full Article