I called this weeks ago, but as a joke amongst friends. I didn't really think that they would try to somehow tie Amy Coney Barrett to rape!? The left (found an accuser) and went after Brett Kavanaugh with sexual assault allegations as well. Is it just me, or is there a pattern here?

A number of high-profile sexual assault survivors released a statement Friday accusing Judge Amy Coney Barrett of “siding with powerful abusers” and urging lawmakers to vote against her confirmation.

“Our society now demands we hold people who abuse their power accountable for sexual harassment and assault, no matter how important those people are,” actresses Michelle Hurd, Padma Lakshmi and Mira Sorvino wrote in a statement.

"Yet multiple times, Judge Barrett ruled against survivors of rape, instead siding with powerful abusers and the powerful institutions that enable them,” the statement continued.

“We know painfully well that the systems for survivors to pursue justice are broken. They cannot be repaired and must be rebuilt. But Judge Barrett’s record shows she’d reshape the law to make it even harder for survivors to be heard and for justice to be achieved.”

At this point, nothing surprises me. Sexual assault allegations are all the left has anymore. They know that there are no legit reasons to disqualify these judicial appointments.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

I believe this has been the plan all along. After all, Democrats can't count on the American public to vote the "right way." They need to give everyone a little push. Or a little burning or looting, then you might understand which way you should vote. But when that doesn't work. There's always the courts. I believe the plan is rather genius, but in an evil sense.

I believe the plan is as follows:

Stuff the ballot boxes for both sides. Consider; what if the Democrat operatives were to accomplish this. They would turn in more Biden ballots than there are registered voters in a district, but they would also turn in more Trump ballots than there are registered voters district. This would cause complete chaos. It might also cause a complete lack of confidence on the part of the electorate as a whole.

If there is rampant fraud on both sides, or the impression thereof, it would definitely end up in the courts. The courts are where the Democrats have a perceived advantage. Not because they are on the right side of the law, but because they have the Supreme Court wrapped up. If they can come up with an excuse to keep Amy Coney Barrett from being able to rule with regards to the election, they just might be able to get away with something. I believe that Justice Roberts is on their side (the Democrats) or they wouldn't push the issue.

Remember, Cory Booker let the cat out of the bag last week. Democrats won't do, or say anything unless there is some angle that might benefit them. People like Booker are very rarely off script. Why else would Booker mention Barrett? Then right after he mentions it news stories start popping up about how Barrett should recuse herself in relation to the election. Barrett would keep the decision from being swayed by Roberts.

That's what I think is going to play out.

What do you think!?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

Amy Coney Barrett needs to recuse herself!

New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, a Democrat who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told NBC's Meet the Press that he would be willing to meet with Barrett ahead of the committee hearings for her confirmation that will start next month.

"I think you know my spirit, which is to sit down and meet with people and talk to them. And I'm going to make it very clear, one of the things I want to ask her is will she recuse herself ... in terms of any election issues that come before us, because if she does not recuse herself, I fear that the court will be further delegitimized," Booker said on Sunday.

The Democrats could not be more predictable. The left aren't going to be able to stop her nomination in the Senate, so they have to grasp at the next straw! This was the first think that came to mind, as soon as I heard that Trump had nominated a woman.

It didn't take long.

There is no legal precedent for Amy Conney Barrett to recuse herself either.

“A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned," the Code of Conduct reads.

The code of conduct then proceeds to list off the many reasons one might be required to recuse themselves, including the following:

* If the judge has "a personal bias or prejudice" concerning the case.
* If the judge "served as a lawyer in the matter."
* If the judge has a "financial interest" in the subject matter.
* If the judge or the judge's family member is involved in the case
* If the judge "has served in governmental employment and in that capacity participated as a judge (in a previous judicial position), counsel, advisor, or material witness concerning the proceeding..."

Our legal experts emphasized that these rules are not constitutionally binding. While judges in lower courts can be reprimanded by a committee on ethics if they fail to follow these rules, there is nobody policing Supreme Court ethics.

“The ethical rules do not apply to the Supreme Court of the United States," said Nourse. "They help administer these rules.”

Nourse said that justices will often recuse themselves, but this is a personal decision. Recusals are not mandated for these justices.

"They do it as a matter of grace (as) they call it," she said. "Or a matter of wisdom.”

Within political and legal circles, there's still considerable debate as to whether Barrett should recuse herself in such a situation. But there is a consensus that she would not be required to recuse herself by the Constitution, if the Supreme Court were to hear a case, regarding a disputed 2020 election.

This is just wishful thinking on the part of Democrats. There is absolutely no possibility that a Democrat appointed SCOTUS member would EVER recuse themselves for any reason.

To put the icing on the cake. Biden last night in the debate, wouldn't answer as to whether or not he would stack the court. Increasing the number of justices to offset a conservative legal presence.

Biden declined to tell debate moderator Chris Wallace of Fox News whether he would support adding justices to the court if Trump’s conservative pick, Amy Coney Barrett, is confirmed to replace liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

“Whatever position I take on that, that’ll 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 strongly you feel. But vote now,” Biden said.

Democrats are floundering. They won't answer questions that are very much a reason to vote or not vote for a presidential candidate. Then Joe goes a step further and tells people to, "Go out and vote." He's been speaking out about how it's not safe to vote in public since the COVID-19 issue started. Biden is even talking about shutting down the country again!? But not before you go vote!

As I stated in my previous posts about vote buying and ballot stuffing; courts are making these methods increasingly hard for Democrat operatives to accomplish. Pair that with Project Veritas and the actual audio and video evidence of vote buying and fraud.

Democrats are now pushing for people to get to the polls. Even a stacked court might not help them.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

This further backs up what I was saying in an earlier post, the virus could have been here much longer than is being reported.

The CDC COVID-19 fatality numbers show that the number of people who have actually died from the virus are extremely low.

Pay close attention to Scenario 5 as it is the current best estimate.

In order to get the percentages representative of the number of people who were infected and survived, just multiply the Infection Fatality Ratio by 100 to make it a percentage, then subtract the value from 100. You can do the math in a spreadsheet and you end up with:

= 100 - (Fatality Ratio*100)

This is one of the best examples of why very few people trust the media these days. The original estimates were incredibly high. Then when the real numbers come out, the media is nowhere to be seen.

In Florida they are entering phase 3 of reopening, meaning that bars and restaurants are opening back up. This is long overdue as the numbers now prove. The threat was GROSSLY overestimated.

Now that mail-in voting is not going to benefit the Democrats as much, how long will it be before this comes out in the media? It's going to be widely reported very soon. Then there will be no need for the masks, and they will be pushing for people to get to the polls. It will happen very quickly.

Soon you'll see "experts" claiming that the threat was real, and it's never a bad thing to be cautious. But now we know that it's nowhere near as deadly as was purported. Then you'll see stories about how polling booths that are hypoallergenic with Micoban surfaces. This is so predictable!

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

I found this interesting, but it gets to a larger point. Why DON'T leftists believe that leftists will actually do what they say they will do?

One adviser’s left-leaning clients don’t think a Biden win will negatively affect their finances, but the adviser’s right-leaning ones think a Biden win could send their portfolio to ‘hell in a hand basket.’

Here is where this gets interesting. The only way that you can believe that Biden won't negatively affect your finances, is if you don't believe that a Biden administration is going to do the things they have campaigned on.

What these people don't understand is that this isn't the same Democrat party from years past. They aren't the Democrats who say radical things, but govern from the center. These bunch ARE the radicals. The Black Lives Matter website's donation page links to ActBlue, which is a Democrat website. They donate exclusively to Democrat and far left candidates all across the US.

Click the image below to view in full size.

*** UPDATE ***
The BLM website has removed their donate button -- which linked to ActBlue a Democrat political action committee.

No one appears to have been in charge at Black Lives Matter for months. The address it lists on tax forms is wrong, and the charity's two board members won't say who controls its $60 million bankroll, a Washington Examiner investigation has found.

BLM's shocking lack of transparency surrounding its finances and operations raises major legal and ethical red flags, multiple charity experts told the Washington Examiner.

This man's clients aren't really leftists, or at least they don't think that the leftists are really leftists. Notice they didn't say that they were worried about Trump winning. But they said that they didn't think that Harris/Biden would negatively affect their finances. Meaning that they admit that there's concern there, they just don't buy into it.

The other school of thought on this, is that Congress will most likely go to the Republicans. Stopping Harris/Biden from being able to effect too much change due to gridlock. However, this scenario is another win for Democrats. Democrats can and will make small incremental changes, they are winning because they keep moving the pendulum farther to the left each time.

Republicans have to be careful with the sky is falling scenario, I think that the Democrats are smart enough to keep the ball moving ever so slightly. Even if they gain power, I don't think they'll go too far too fast. And that is a problem because it will discredit those who are pointing out what the Democrats end game is. They just have the timeline a little too accelerated.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!