Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON Lara Trump, the presidents daughter-in-law who emerged during the 2020 presidential campaign as a defender of President Trumps basest political instincts, is now eyeing a political future of her own in her home state of North Carolina.

As Mr. Trump attempts to subvert the election to remain in power, Ms. Trump, three allies said, has been telling associates she is considering a run for Senate in 2022, in what is expected to be a competitive race for the first open Senate seat in a very swingy swing state in a generation. Senator Richard Burr, an unobtrusive Republican legislator who was thrust into the spotlight as chairman of a committee investigating the presidents ties to Russia, has said he will retire at the end of his term. Despite expanded turnout in rural areas, Mr. Trump won North Carolina by a smaller margin than he did four years ago, just 1.3 percentage points, a sign that overall the state is trending blue and that the race for the Senate seat will be tightly contested by both parties in the first post-Donald Trump election.

But not, perhaps, an entirely post-Trump election, if Ms. Trump proceeds.

Ms. Trump, 38, a former personal trainer and television producer for Inside Edition, wed Eric Trump at the familys Mar-a-Lago estate in 2014 and worked as a senior adviser on the 2020 Trump campaign. Now, the daughter-in-law whom Mr. Trump had often joked to donors that he couldnt pick out of a lineup is floating herself as the first test of the enduring power of the Trump name.

Shes very charismatic, she understands retail politics well, and has a natural instinct for politics, said Mercedes Schlapp, a Trump campaign adviser who traveled the country as a surrogate alongside Ms. Trump. In North Carolina, in particular, shes a household name and people know her. She worked really hard on the campaign and was very involved in a lot of decisions throughout.

Ms. Trump declined to comment about her plans.

Much of the speculation about who might inherit the Trump mantle has focused on his eldest children, who have cultivated their own niche followings. Donald Trump Jr., the presidents eldest son, has the deepest connection with the online disinformation system that has fueled support for his father as well as with the Trump base that supports protecting the Second Amendment.

Ivanka Trump, the presidents eldest daughter and a White House official who focused on work force development, was deployed on the campaign trail to make the president more palatable to the suburban women who were turned off by his tone and his tweets. She generally steered clear of repeating her fathers ad hominem attacks on President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr., or his son Hunter, or casting doubt on the integrity of the election.

But Ivanka Trump, people familiar with her plans said, is still deciding on whether to settle her family in New Jersey or Florida and has no immediate intention to pursue elected office herself. Donald Trump Jr., meanwhile, despite his talent for channeling his fathers id, may choose to forgo a run for office all together.

Eric Trump, the most low profile of the Trump siblings, has never cultivated a political spotlight, leaving the way clear for his wife.

Eric and Lara Trump currently live in Westchester, New York, with their two young children (their daughter, Carolina, is named after the state Ms. Trump is now eyeing). Its not apparent that simply having the family backing would empty, or even diminish, the field in what is expected to be one of the most targeted seats in the nation where Republican candidates with experience in the state are already lining up.

Theres Representative Mark Walker, a Trump ally whom the president has encouraged to run for Mr. Burrs seat, and indicated he would support. Theres Pat McCrory, the former governor, who has said he is eyeing the seat. Tim Moore, the North Carolina Speaker of the House, is said to be in the mix. And Dan Forest, who just lost a race for governor against the Democratic incumbent, Roy Cooper, is expected to be in the field.

And then there is another contender from the presidents inner circle, at least as it stands at the moment: Mark Meadows, the former North Carolina representative and White House chief of staff, is widely expected to move back home and run for the seat as well. Aides to Mr. Meadows declined to comment about his political future.

None of those more experienced candidates have the name recognition and the ability to raise big online cash that the presidents daughter-in-law, who has been cultivating her own profile with a campaign YouTube show and events across the country, has. She would be formidable, said Kellyanne Conway, a former White House official and the 2016 Trump campaign manager. She has the trifecta: She can raise money, raise awareness of key issues and raise attention to her race. Unlike many typical politicians, she connects with people and is a compelling messenger.

Michael Watley, the chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party, predicted that the race would draw significant interest from a wide range of people.

I think youre going to need a dance card to keep everything straight, he said.

Put more bluntly, Morgan Jackson, a Democratic strategist based in North Carolina said, There are a lot of people ahead of Lara Trump in line. Given how rare it is that theres an open seat, I dont believe any of the folks who actually live in North Carolina and have been here will get out of the way for someone else.

Ms. Trump, who spoke at the Republican National Convention, made many campaign stops in North Carolina this year. On the trail, she has been willing to go where surrogates like Ivanka Trump, seeking to soften the president, have not. Speaking on behalf of her father-in-law in her hometown of Wilmington, she echoed the presidents baseless attempts to undermine confidence in the election results. She said the system was ripe with fraud, and claimed that universal vote by mail is not a good system, its never been tested.

On CNN in October, she accused Mr. Biden of suffering from a severe cognitive decline and batted away questions about Mr. Trump encouraging violence on Michigans governor, Gretchen Whitmer, who the F.B.I. had recently said had been targeted by a kidnapping plot. Ms. Trump chalked up her father-in-laws behavior as an example of someone simply having fun at a Trump rally.

Since Election Day, she has actively elevated conspiracy theories online about the election-equipment maker Dominion Voting Systems Inc., which the president has claimed, with no evidence, switched Trump votes to Mr. Bidens column.

A former Trump aide, Omarosa Manigault Newman, claimed in a 2018 memoir that Ms. Trump had offered her a $15,000-a-month contract in exchange for silence about her time in the White House, and subsequently released a secret recording that Ms. Manigault Newman said supported that claim.

While the idea of another Trump testing the political waters was anathema to Republicans who wanted the party to move away from its current Trumpian identity, others have been trying to lure the next generation in.

The Club for Growth, an influential conservative anti-tax group, earlier this year commissioned a poll with Ms. Trump as a candidate for Congress representing New Yorks second district.

David McIntosh, the president of Club for Growth, said at the time that the group simply polled her name to show there was a well of support and lure her into an open race.

In a hypothetical primary, the poll showed her winning by 30 points.

More:
Will Lara Trump Be the Next Trump on a Ballot? - The New York Times

This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Just in time for Christmas holiday gift-giving, the San Diego County Gun Owners PAC (SDCGO), a nonprofit, political action committee promoting Second Amendment rights in San Diego County, is hosting an online auction through Nov. 20 of more than 50 items, including firearms and ammo. The auction items were previously donated by SDCGO members for a silent auction that was planned to be part of SDCGO's 2020 Second Amendment Celebration Dinner, which was cancelled due to Covid-19 restrictions. The items can be reviewed and instructions about bidding are available at http://www.sdcgo.org/auction. The auction is open to the public.

SDCGO said proceeds from the auction will benefit its advocacy efforts to support pro-gun elected officials who will defend the fundamental right to self defense for law-abiding citizens and stand strong in support of the Second Amendment. The PAC also said proceeds also will help provide services and resources for SDCGO volunteers involved in local-level activism.

Available auction items include a Remington shotgun, Colt Frontier single-action revolver, 1,000 9mm rounds, a dove hunting trip to Uruguay and a full day of firearms training for four people. Other items include vacation getaways to Mexico and the Caribbean. A variety of sports, music and movie memorabilia is available, including a Lebron James autographed jersey, Shaquille O'Neal autographed Reebok shoe (size 22) and Patrick Mahomes autographed helmet, as well as a Tom Petty autographed guitar, Rolling Stones tour poster and autographed movie posters.

Subscribe

Additional auction items are expected to be added throughout the month, according to Michael Schwartz, executive director, SDCGO.

"We're grateful to our members for their support and theirs generous donations of auction items that are available to the general public," said Schwartz. "Auction proceeds will help our efforts to restore and preserve our Constitutional Second Amendment rights. Activism, outreach and electing the right leaders is the only way to protect our rights in California, oppose an extremist gun-control agenda and make a difference because together we will win."

Subscribe

Founded in 2015, the San Diego County Gun Owners is a registered political action committee (FPPC ID #1379388) and advocacy organization focused on organizing the gun industry and community and protecting the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment right to bear arms. With a membership of about 2,500 individuals, the PAC provides news and information on new gun laws and Second Amendment advocacy. Its sponsored events include gun safety classes, small gun shows, sporting clay shoots, social gatherings and pistol, rifle and shotgun experiences taught by professional instructors. SDCGO features a diverse and inclusive membership with representatives the LGBT, Latino, African American, Asian and Pacific Islander communities. While every U.S. state has a Second Amendment PAC, along with several nationwide gun rights PACs, the SDCGO is believed to be the America's first, strictly local, countywide Second Amendment advocacy organization. For more information, visit http://www.sandiegocountygunowners.com.

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch? Register for a user account.

Reply to this articleReply

Read more from the original source:
You Can Bid On Silent Auction Items for Covid-Cancelled 2A Dinner - Patch.com

A Fairfax County Circuit Court judge on Thursday shot down a lawsuit filed by hosts of one of the nations biggest gun shows, who claimed that cancelling this weekends event due to coronavirus restrictions violated the Second Amendment.

Judge Brett Kassabian ruled that it is not in the public interest to exempt The Nations Gun Show from virus restrictions. The three-day event scheduled to start Friday was expected to bring up to 25,000 attendees to the Dulles Expo Center in Chantilly, where it has been held a few times a year.

I find that it is in the private interest of the plaintiffs, said Judge Kassabian, according to a press release from Virginia Attorney General Mark Herrings office. To allow thousands to roam unchecked during the middle of the most serious health crisis this county has suffered in the past one hundred years is not in the public interest.

The judge disagreed with the gun show hosts argument that rules to limit their attendees are an overreach of authority and a violation of the Second Amendment. He also criticized a recent show in August that drew nearly 13,000 people, which the hosts said was safely and successfully executed even while being severely limited by pandemic restrictions.

[J]ust judging on what occurred in August, tens of thousands are allowed to gather over the course of three days and then leave, the risk of an unprecedented superspreader event infecting not only those persons but third parties that those persons come into contact with is substantial, Judge Kassabian said.

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam and Health Commissioner M. Norman Oliver were named as the defendants in the 57-page complaint filed by state resident John Crump and Showmasters Inc., which is conducting business as Showmasters Guns Shows and Sonnys Guns and Transfers, and .

The three plaintiffs claimed that state officials do not have the authority to order the complete cancellation of one of the single largest economic events in the Commonwealth, at which thousands of persons gather together to engage in millions of dollars of lawful commerce, and activity expressly protected by multiple provisions of the Constitution.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that the show should be classified as a brick and mortar retail business, which has no capacity limit under current emergency restrictions.

State health officials, however, have said that any event at the expo center is considered entertainment and amusement business, which currently is restricted to 30% of the lowest capacity limit or 250 people.

The hosts claimed that exhibitors and event staff would far exceed the 250 person capacity even before including attendees and called the emergency restrictions the very definition of tyranny due to the lack of clarity and vagueness.

The gun show presumably would have been particularly profitable as the recent demand for firearms, ammunition, and related products and services has skyrocketed, fueled by intersecting scares over COVID-19 and interruptions in government-related services including policing, fears of demonstrations, rioting and social unrest purportedly in response to various police shootings, and a general sense of apprehension about the November 2020 presidential election and the future for gun rights in this country.

The plaintiffs, represented by lawyers from William Olson P.C. and Spiro & Browne PLC, can appeal the judges decision.

Mr. Herring filed a reply brief Wednesday regarding the potential superspreader event, and applauded the ruling in a press release Thursday.

Im pleased that the judge agreed that putting thousands of Virginians at risk for contracting COVID just so people could buy and sell guns at a gun show was not worth it and could have led to disastrous consequences, said Mr. Herring.

See the original post here:
Va. judge rejects indoor gun show event expected to draw up to 25,000 - Washington Times

Everywhere one looks there are warning signs, from labels on cigarette packs warning that smoking causes cancer, to ridiculous labels on thermometers that read, "Once used rectally, the thermometer should not be used orally."

Associate Justice Samuel Alito has delivered some serious warnings that too often are ignored by many who believe the freedoms we enjoy are inviolable.

In an address last week to the Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention, Alito touched on several subjects, including COVID-19, religious liberty, the Second Amendment, free speech and "bullying" of the Supreme Court by U.S. senators.

Alito made a case for how each issue contains elements that contribute to a slow erosion of our liberties.

On tolerance, preached but not often practiced by the left, Alito said: "...tolerance for opposing views is now in short supply in many law schools, and in the broader academic community. When I speak with recent law school graduates, what I hear over and over is that they face harassment and retaliation if they say anything that departs from the law school orthodoxy."

This is not a new revelation, but it bears repeating.

While acknowledging the deaths, hospitalizations and unemployment caused by COVID-19, Alito warned: "The pandemic has resulted in previously unimaginable restrictions on individual liberty. Now, notice what I am not saying or even implying, I am not diminishing the severity of the virus's threat to public health. ... I'm not saying anything about the legality of COVID restrictions. Nor am I saying anything about whether any of these restrictions represent good public policy. I'm a judge, not a policymaker. All that I'm saying is this. And I think it is an indisputable statement of fact, we have never before seen restrictions as severe, extensive and prolonged as those experienced, for most of 2020."

Where does this lead? Alito answered when he spoke of "...the dominance of lawmaking by executive fiat rather than legislation. The vision of early 20th-century progressives and the new dealers of the 1930s was the policymaking would shift from narrow-minded elected legislators, to an elite group of appointed experts, in a word, the policymaking would become more scientific. That dream has been realized to a large extent. Every year administrative agencies acting under broad delegations of 'authority' churn out huge volumes of regulations that dwarfs the statutes enacted by the people's elected representatives. And what have we seen in the pandemic? Sweeping restrictions imposed for the most part, under statutes that confer enormous executive discretion."

Alito cited a Nevada case that came before the court: "Under that law, if the governor finds that there is, quote, 'A natural technological or manmade emergency, or disaster of major proportions,' the governor can perform and exercise such functions, powers and duties as are necessary to promote and secure the safety and protection of the civilian population. To say that this provision confers broad discretion would be an understatement."

Restrictions on how we are told to celebrate Thanksgiving would be another example.

On the erosion of religious liberty, he said: "It pains me to say this, but in certain quarters, religious liberty is fast becoming a disfavored, right."

As evidence, he mentioned how we have moved from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed by Congress in 1993 to the recent persecution by the Obama administration of The Little Sisters of the Poor for their refusal to include contraceptives in their health insurance. The Catholic nuns prevailed in a 7-2 court ruling, but Alito believes the threat to the free exercise of religion remains all too real.

There is much more in his address that should be read in its entirety. Alito's warnings ring true, but are we listening?

Cal Thomas is a columnist for the Tribune Content Agency.

Read the original:
Freedoms are eroding, warns Justice Alito - News from southeastern Connecticut - theday.com

Ive changed my vote.

No, not that vote.

Ive changed my vote for the most reactionary and dangerous member of the U.S. Supreme Court. The distinction no longer belongs to Clarence Thomas. Nor should it be reserved for any of the three conservatives appointed by President Donald TrumpNeil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, or Amy Coney Barrett.

The honor belongs to Samuel Alito. Hes earned it.

A long-time member of the ultraconservative Federalist Society, Alito has been a featured speaker at several of the groups functions, voicing support for rightwing causes and regressive social values.

Nicknamed in progressive legal circles as Strip-Search Sammy for a dissenting opinion he wrote in 2004 as a Circuit Court of Appeals judge in Washington, D.C., in which he approved of the body search of an innocent ten-year-old girl, Alito was nominated to the Supreme Court by George W. Bush in 2005.

Alitos selection was widely opposed by civil rights and civil liberties organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, which warned of his troubling decisions on race, religion, and reproductive rights while sitting on the federal appeals court. In its long and storied history, the ACLU has opposed only three other high-court nomineesWilliam Rehnquist, Robert Bork, and Kavanaugh.

Despite these warnings, the Senate confirmed Alitos appointment in January 2006. Since then, Alito has been everything the ACLU feared, endearing himself to the radical right by writing a series of contentious and controversial majority opinions, including:

Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 2007, dismissing a pay discrimination lawsuit brought by equality activist Lilly Ledbetter because it was not filed within 180 days. (The decision was effectively overturned by the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which was signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2009, following prodding by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.)

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 2010, extending individual gun rights under the Second Amendment to the states.

Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 2013, holding that American human rights activists had no standing to challenge government surveillance of their communications with persons located abroad.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, 2014, exempting closely held corporations with religious objections from Obamacares provisions requiring employers to provide workers with health care insurance coverage of contraceptives.

Glossip v. Gross, 2015, ruling that the Eighth Amendments ban on cruel and unusual punishment does not prohibit statesfrom using asedative in lethal injection protocols that causes severe pain.

Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, 2018, upholding Ohios vast 2016 purge of voting rolls.

Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, 2018, invoking the First Amendment to prohibit public-sector unions from collecting fees from non-union members to support collective bargaining activities.

Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 2019, upholding a warrantless blood alcohol sobriety test administered to an unconscious driver.

Hernandez v. Mesa, 2019, declaring that the family of a Mexican teenager shot and killed by a Border Patrol agent while standing in a culvert on the U.S. side of the border could not sue for damages in a U.S. court.

Alitos arch-conservatism has also found its way into his dissenting opinions on the Supreme Court. In 2013, for example, he crafted a breathtakingly homophobic dissent in United States v. Windsor, which struck down key provisions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. And this past July, he and Thomas displayed their fealty to President Trump, penning separate dissents in Trump v. Vance, the landmark 7-2 ruling that held the Constitution does not categorically block state criminal subpoenas issued to a sitting President.

As awful as his official court opinions have been, it is Alitos behavior off the bench that has set him apart from his fellow jurists. In January 2010, shortly after the court issued its Citizens United decision (in which he, of course, concurred), he was infamously caught on national television sneering during Obamas State of the Union address, mouthing the words not true as the President decried the ruling and the effect it wouldand didhave on future elections.

A long-time member of the ultraconservative Federalist Society, Alito has been a featured speaker at several of the groups functions, voicing support for rightwing causes and regressive social values. Although it is not unusual for Supreme Court Justices to participate in bar association meetings or academic conferences, Alito discarded all pretense of judicial impartiality in his most recent Federalist Society appearance in a Zoom webinar speech, delivered on November 12, keynoting the societys prestigious annual national lawyers convention.

Sounding like a Fox News host spouting the familiar and incendiary talking points of conservative victimhood, Alito called the Second Amendment the ultimate second-tier Constitutional right.

In a similar fashion, Alito blasted federal regulatory agencies for churning out huge volumes of regulations that, he insisted, shifted policymaking from elected legislators to an elite group of appointed experts. And he went even further into the nether reaches on the subject of same-sex marriage, charging that you cant say that marriage is the union between one man and one woman. Until very recently, that's what the vast majority of Americans thought. Now its considered bigotry.

But it was on the subject of COVID-19 that Alito reached his apogee. He said the recent restrictions imposed in some states on the size of religious gatherings has resulted in previously unimaginable restrictions on individual liberty. There was nary a nod to slavery, the internment of Japanese Americans, or segregation.

If Alito were still sitting on a lower court, his unhinged commentary could be grounds for disqualification. Supreme Court Justices, however, are not subject to the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. They are beyond the reach of sanctions for conflicts of interest or bias. In a very real sense, they are above the law they are tasked with interpreting and upholding. That is what makes them supreme.

Alito understands the awesome power that his lifetime appointment has given him. More than any other member of the high tribunal, he has opted to abuse that power for nakedly partisan ends, making him little more than a political firebrand draped in a black robe.

The rest is here:
Unequal Justice: The Treachery of Samuel Alito - Progressive.org