The Revolutionary Concept of American Equality and Fairness

October 13, 2016

Writer

The American and French Revolutions can be described in very similar ways: People were tired of being squashed by a king, being told what they could and could not do, how much tax to pay and what special licenses were required to work. They were tired of having one set of rules for the privileged few and another for the majority. While nobles sat in their powdered wigs wielding absolute power and control over them, the people were out working --- and they wanted to be left alone.

But there was a key difference. The French turned equality and fairness into vengeance and anger. Americans took a different course.

"The troops were going to kill everybody in Congress. They had just defeated one tyrant [and said] let's go defeat the tyrants in Congress who didn't pay us and wronged us," Glenn recounted Thursday on his radio program.

George Washington, though, turned away from vengeance, advising his troops against replacing one dictator with another. America's version of fairness was equal justice for all. Have we lost sight of that?

"I contend that's what's happening to us now, on both sides. People of faith want to be treated fairly. People in the inner cities want to be treated fairly," Glenn said. "Remember the principles of the Bill of Rights. If we could get agreement on seven out of 10, we're an American family again."

Listen to these segments from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: So the idea of privilege and equality, that's what the French Revolution was all about. What was the American Revolution about, Pat?

If you had to boil it down...

JEFFY: Tea?

PAT: Freedom. Tea (chuckling).

GLENN: Freedom.

PAT: Freedom. I'd say liberty.

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: Self-determination. You know, obviously religious freedom was paramount.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

PAT: Taxation without representation.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Words matter. Words really matter. And the subtlety of words really matter.

And it's interesting, I'm taking a course now online about the French Revolution. And it's interesting to me how parallel things ran, but just a few changes in -- of history and a few changes of language, and the whole thing spirals out of control.

Because if you look at these -- and I would describe the American Revolution without -- without the typical buzzwords. I would say that the Americans were tired of being squashed by a king, tired of being told what they had to do, how much tax they had to pay, and having to have special licenses to do things, have somebody have absolute control over them, while they sat in their powdered wigs and the other people were out working. They just wanted to be left alone.

Well, I can describe the French Revolution exactly the same way, but let me tell you the beginning story of the French Revolution a different way.

[break]

GLENN: I told you now for a while that I'm more concerned about the day after the election, no matter who wins, than anything on the buildup of the election. Because we have to come together. And we don't want to come together right now. Nobody wants -- nobody wants to come together.

But we're going to have to come together after this election. And let me show you why. Let me take you back to the French Revolution.

The French Revolution, even Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson were fooled, they said, "This is a fight for liberty, just like our fight for liberty. This is a fight for freedom and equality, just like ours." And let me show you how similar the situation was, not to America then, but to America today.

As I said earlier, the word "privilege" actually means private laws. The reason why we didn't like guilds here and the masons and everything else had a lot to do with, A, religion, but, two, had a lot to do with the guilds of the Old World. You had to be -- to be a bricklayer, you had to be a mason. It was like a union. And that's what happens in places like New York. You have to be a union member, or you cannot change the lightbulb.

In radio, in New York, when I went to New York in 1980s, WNBC, because they made a deal with the musicians union, back in the '50s, when they got rid of live music on the radio and started playing records, the union said, you're going to put out of work too many musicians. And so they made a deal and said, we'll hire the musicians' union to go back and get the record and put it on the turntable. Then we'll hire a -- a technical union to be able to put the needle on the record and push start.

Then a disc jockey, he'll be in his own union. He'll point to the tech producer to push that button. So it took three people to do what I always did by myself in New York. And they did it because everyone was in a guild or a union.

America hated guilds. We got away from that. Every man could chart his own course. And that's because in the Old World and especially in England, there were a couple of things: There were the lords and the ladies, and they ruled with absolute power.

The king and the lords and the ladies. The lords had so much power -- now, this is, you know, hundreds of years before the French Revolution, but it left a lasting, indelible mark on the people.

The lords had such a power, that on the day of your wedding, if the Lord chose to, he got your bride on the wedding night. So she lost her virginity to the lord.

He would take her from the altar, to the castle, have sex with her, kick her out, and then you can have her. And he did this because, A, you know, he's a guy, why not?

JEFFY: Why not?

GLENN: I can grab them by the -- and do whatever I want with them, and they're not going to say anything about it.

And he did it also to show power over them. "Your life is mine." Now, that law changed, but it still was part of the psyche of the average person of France.

So you had the lords and the ladies, they were one percent. Then you had the clerics, one percent. And everything had to go through those two. You had to pay a tax to those two.

PAT: I think that ended with the Magna Carta, right?

GLENN: In England. I don't think it happened in France.

PAT: No. Yeah.

GLENN: Yeah. And then in France, then you also had the guilds start up. And if you wanted to be a bricklayer, you had to go through this guild. And they were usually started by one of the aristocrats. So that way, they got a percentage of your labor. So you were paying taxes to the lords and the ladies. You were then paying 10 percent to the church. And then you were paying a percentage to your guild.

But if you belonged in a guild, it was the only way you could get off of the farm. It was the only way you could advance and do a better job than just farming and feeding chickens.

So the person was just trapped. You had to pay your way out of everything. France loved the fact -- and they still do. They think they're the center of the universe. And they're the center of all thought and the center of all art and the center of all whatever.

It was like the fashion world in everything. You know, now, "Oh, well, if you want the latest styles, you've got to see what they're doing in France." Whatever.

(chuckling)

But they prided themselves on that on everything. And France was, if not the richest country in the world, one of the richest countries in the world. And it was generally new money because the ships and commerce were coming in from the New World into France. And you could buy and sell everything there.

Capitalism was starting to take a root in -- in England, which started -- or, in France. Which started to change everything. Because now people were working on the seas. People were working in trade. People were buying and selling. And everything started to become up for grabs with money.

So capitalism started to disrupt this little fiefdom that all the lords and the ladies had. And if you had enough money, you could buy your way in to privilege. That's what the guilds did. Privilege meant private laws.

Those are the laws for the peasants, they don't apply to me. You, as a peasant, can go take somebody on their wedding night and take them to your house and have sex with them and then kick them out and say, "Eh, go to your husband now." You'd be arrested. But because you live a life of privilege, of private laws, you could do that.

So the people said, "We want fairness, and we want equality. The top 2 percent are controlling the 98 percent, and that's not right."

Does any of this sound familiar? What the people wanted was an end to privilege. See if this sounds familiar. They don't want people to be poor. They're not trying to -- the average person does not have a problem with a rich person, with a person in power. They have a problem that the people in power, if you took six pictures on a submarine and sent them to your children, you will go to prison for a year. You destroy 33,000 documents on a private server that you shouldn't have and they're all top secret, nothing happens to you. That's privilege. A life of private laws. Laws for this class are different than laws of that class.

Nobody has a problem with -- with Clinton and what she believes or what she does. It's how she enacts them. It's the things she gets away with that is the real problem with the Clintons. They get away -- I hate to say this because so many people think this is literal. They get away with murder.

In fact, what's the number now, Pat?

PAT: 104.

GLENN: 104. One hundred and four murders. They just get away with murder. Okay?

STU: No. No.

GLENN: No, I've read that the on internet.

PAT: It's the internet.

STU: Okay.

PAT: Stu, if you'd just do a little research for a change...

GLENN: Right. Now, what's the other problem we have with the political class? The other problem we have with the political class is you don't have the same choice.

Do you think that Evan McMullin feels that he has the same chance of winning as the Republican?

PAT: No.

GLENN: Do you think Gary Johnson thinks he has the same chance? Jill Stein, does she have the same chance? Bernie Sanders, who was a Democrat, does he have the same chance? No. Why?

Because she was privileged with the superdelegates. Now, he didn't win without the superdelegates, but, still, the privilege -- the private laws for the uber insider gets the advantage.

And so all we're saying -- all Bernie Sanders people are saying is, "Make it fair. Make it fair. No special access for anybody. Make the laws apply to everyone. Give me a chance."

Why does -- why does Donald Trump or George Soros or anybody -- Hillary Clinton, anybody in that class, why do they pay less in taxes than I do?

Well, it's quite simple. Because their income isn't important to them anymore. They make income through their investments and their trust funds which are all protected. You can't do that.

And so when they argue about the rich getting richer, they don't argue about their class. Nobody is talked about the trust funds. What they're talking about is damaging those people who are not in the trust fund area. The 250,000 dollar people. Those aren't the rich people.

The billions of dollars people are the ones who are getting rich. They're gaming the system. And Donald Trump has said, "Those are the laws." And he's right, those are the laws. He's not breaking any laws.

He is doing the law as it is stated. The people are saying, "Let's make the laws fair for everybody." But you can't. Why?

Because what happened at the French Revolution that didn't happen in America, what happened in America was, we didn't want vengeance. We didn't want a king. We wanted everyone to be equal and us to be a nation of laws and not of men.

And there were times the Temple of Honor story with George Washington, where the troops were going to kill everybody in Congress, they had just defeated one tyrant, let's go defeat the tyrants in Congress who didn't pay us and wronged us. And George Washington said, "No." We didn't overthrow one dictator to have -- to replace him with another. That's not who we are. We don't hate anybody. We love the law.

It's why when the Mormons were thrown out of the country and chased out of the country, they didn't hate America. They were literally chased out of the country. Utah was not America. They were chased out of the country. Their men were killed. They were slaughtered. They buried their children. It was the first extermination order of a religion, the only one in American history.

You have the right to kill them. And it wasn't really about religion. It was about slavery and Missouri and Kansas. That's what that was really about. They were chased out. And what was the first thing they did?

When they arrived in the valley, Brigham Young said, "We're having a parade."

Now, imagine being chased out of your home, being killed by Americans. Your husband. You lost your child on the way because Americans tried to kill you because of what you believed in. And Brigham Young said, "Let's have a parade and celebrate." And what did they celebrate?

America. From outside of America, the men -- and I can't remember which carried which, but the men carried the Declaration of Independence and the women carried the Constitution. And the point of the parade was, "It is the principles that will always hold things together." The people may go bad, but we don't hate the people. We understand that they lost sight of these sacred principles.

That's the American way. The French way was to turn equality and to turn fairness into vengeance and anger.

And I contend that's what's happening to us, now on both sides. People of faith want to be treated fairly. People in the inner cities want to be treated fairly. And we each have somebody who wants power whispering or shouting in our ear, get them. They don't understand you. They'll never understand you. They're against you. Forget about them.

Remember the principles and the principles of the Bill of Rights. If we could get agreement on seven out of ten, we're an American family again.

And I don't know how we can't get there. Because those are basic, fundamental rights that every American should be able to understand.

Featured Image: Oil on canvas painting of Washington crossing the Delaware by Bingham, between circa 1856 and circa 1871. Gift of Walter P. Chrysler, Jr., in honor of Walter P. Chrysler, Sr.

Washington Post EXPOSED: How Watergate editors almost published a fake Pulitzer Prize-winning story

Episode 6 of Glenn’s new history podcast series The Beck Story releases this Saturday.

This latest installment explores the history of Left-wing bias in mainstream media. Like every episode of this series, episode 6 is jam-packed with historical detail, but you can’t squeeze in every story, so some inevitably get cut from the final version. Part of this episode involves the late Ben Bradlee, who was the legendary editor of the Washington Post. Bradlee is legendary mostly because of the Watergate investigation that was conducted on his watch by two young reporters named Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Bradlee, Woodward, and Bernstein became celebrities after the release of the book and movie based on their investigation called All the President’s Men.

But there is another true story about the Washington Post that you probably won’t see any time soon at a theater near you.

In 1980, Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee wanted to expand the Post’s readership in the black community. The paper made an effort to hire more minority journalists, like Janet Cooke, a black female reporter from Ohio. Cooke was an aggressive reporter and a good writer. She was a fast-rising star on a staff already full of stars. The Post had a very competitive environment and Cooke desperately wanted to win a Pulitzer Prize.

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

When Cooke was asked to work on a story about the D.C. area’s growing heroin problem, she saw her chance to win that Pulitzer. As she interviewed people in black neighborhoods that were hardest hit by the heroin epidemic, she was appalled to learn that even some children were heroin addicts. When she learned about an eight-year-old heroin addict named Jimmy, she knew she had her hook. His heartbreaking story would surely be her ticket to a Pulitzer.

Cooke wrote her feature story, titling it, “Jimmy’s World.” It blew away her editors at the Post, including Bob Woodward, who by then was Assistant Managing Editor. “Jimmy’s World” would be a front-page story:

'Jimmy is 8 years old and a third-generation heroin addict,' Cooke’s story began, 'a precocious little boy with sandy hair, velvety brown eyes and needle marks freckling the baby-smooth skin of his thin brown arms. He nestles in a large, beige reclining chair in the living room of his comfortably furnished home in Southeast Washington. There is an almost cherubic expression on his small, round face as he talks about life – clothes, money, the Baltimore Orioles and heroin. He has been an addict since the age of 5.'

Readers were hooked. And outraged. The mayor’s office instructed the police to immediately search for Jimmy and get him medical treatment. But no one was able to locate Jimmy. Cooke wasn’t surprised. She told her editors at the Post that she had only been able to interview Jimmy and his mother by promising them anonymity. She also revealed that the mother’s boyfriend had threatened Cooke’s life if the police discovered Jimmy’s whereabouts.

A few months later, Cooke’s hard work paid off and her dream came true – her story was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for feature writing. Cooke had to submit some autobiographical information to the Prize committee, but there was a slight snag. The committee contacted the Post when they couldn’t verify that Cooke had graduated magna cum laude from Vassar College. Turns out she only attended Vassar her freshman year. She actually graduated from the University of Toledo with a B.A. degree, not with a master’s degree as she told the Pulitzer committee.

Cooke’s editors summoned her for an explanation. Unfortunately for Cooke and the Washington Post, her resume flubs were the least of her lies. After hours of grilling, Cooke finally confessed that “Jimmy’s World” was entirely made up. Jimmy did not exist.

The Pulitzer committee withdrew its prize and Cooke resigned in shame. The Washington Post, the paper that uncovered Watergate – the biggest political scandal in American history – failed to even vet Cooke’s resume. Then it published a front-page, Pulitzer Prize-winning feature story that was 100 percent made up.

Remarkably, neither Ben Bradlee nor Bob Woodward resigned over the incident. It was a different time, but also, the halo of All the President’s Men probably saved them.

Don’t miss the first five episodes of The Beck Story, which are available now. And look for Episode 6 this Saturday, wherever you get your podcasts.

UPDATED: 5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and one who hasn't)

Zach Gibson / Stringer, Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

With Biden removed from the 2024 election and only a month to find a replacement before the DNC, Democrats continue to fall in line and back Vice President Kamala Harris to headline the party's ticket. Her proximity and familiarity with the Biden campaign along with an endorsement from Biden sets Harris up to step into Biden's shoes and preserve the momentum from his campaign.

Glenn doesn't think Kamala Harris is likely to survive as the assumed Democratic nominee, and once the DNC starts, anything could happen. Plenty of powerful and important Democrats have rallied around Harris over the last few days, but there have been some crucial exemptions. Here are five democrats that have thrown their name behind Harris, and two SHOCKING names that didn't...

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

High-ranking Senate Democrat Dick Durbin officially put in his support for Harris in a statement that came out the day after Biden stepped down: “I’m proud to endorse my former Senate colleague and good friend, Vice President Kamala Harris . . . our nation needs to continue moving forward with unity and not MAGA chaos. Vice President Harris was a critical partner in building the Biden record over the past four years . . . Count me in with Kamala Harris for President.”

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

The Monday after Biden stepped down from the presidential VP hopeful, Gretchen Whitmer released the following statement on X: “Today, I am fired up to endorse Kamala Harris for president of the United States [...] In Vice President Harris, Michigan voters have a presidential candidate they can count on to focus on lowering their costs, restoring their freedoms, bringing jobs and supply chains back home from overseas, and building an economy that works for working people.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

Mere hours after Joe Biden made his announcement, AOC hopped on X and made the following post showing her support: "Kamala Harris will be the next President of the United States. I pledge my full support to ensure her victory in November. Now more than ever, it is crucial that our party and country swiftly unite to defeat Donald Trump and the threat to American democracy. Let’s get to work."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is arguably one of the most influential democrats, backed Harris's campaign with the following statement given the day after Biden's decision: “I have full confidence she will lead us to victory in November . . . My enthusiastic support for Kamala Harris for President is official, personal, and political.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Stringer | Getty Images

Massasschesets Senator Elizabeth Warren was quick to endorse Kamala, releasing the following statement shortly after Harris placed her presidential bid: "I endorse Kamala Harris for President. She is a proven fighter who has been a national leader in safeguarding consumers and protecting access to abortion. As a former prosecutor, she can press a forceful case against allowing Donald Trump to regain the White House. We have many talented people in our party, but Vice President Harris is the person who was chosen by the voters to succeed Joe Biden if needed. She can unite our party, take on Donald Trump, and win in November."

UPDATED: Former President Barack Obama: ENDORSED

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Former President Barack Obama wasted no time releasing the following statement which glaringly omits any support for Harris or any other candidate. Instead, he suggests someone will be chosen at the DNC in August: "We will be navigating uncharted waters in the days ahead. But I have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges. I believe that Joe Biden's vision of a generous, prosperous, and united America that provides opportunity for everyone will be on full display at the Democratic Convention in August. And I expect that every single one of us are prepared to carry that message of hope and progress forward into November and beyond."

UPDATED: On Friday, July 26th Barack and Michelle Obama officially threw their support behind Harris over a phone call with the current VP:

“We called to say, Michelle and I couldn’t be prouder to endorse you and do everything we can to get you through this election and into the Oval Office.”

The fact that it took nearly a week for the former president to endorse Kamala, along with his original statement, gives the endorsement a begrudging tone.

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

AP Photo/John Raoux

Prominent and wealthy Florida lawyer and democrat donor John Morgan was clearly very pessimistic about Kamala's odds aginst Trump when he gave the following statement: “You have to be enthusiastic or hoping for a political appointment to be asking friends for money. I am neither. It’s others turn now . . . The donors holding the 90 million can release those funds in the morning. It’s all yours. You can keep my million. And good luck . . . [Harris] would not be my first choice, but it’s a done deal.”

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday was targeted in an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. It occurred just after 6:10 p.m. while Trump was delivering his speech.

Here are the details of the “official” story. The shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks. He was 20 years old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. He used an AR-15 rifle and managed to reach the rooftop of a nearby building unnoticed. The Secret Service's counter-response team responded swiftly, according to "the facts," killing Crooks and preventing further harm.

Did it though? That’s what the official story says, so far, but calling this a mere lapse in security by Secret Service doesn't add up. There are some glaring questions that need to be answered.

If Trump had been killed on Saturday, we would be in a civil war today. We would have seen for the first time the president's brains splattered on live television, and because of the details of this, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn't have been viewed as JFK 2.0.

How does someone sneak a rifle onto the rally grounds? How does someone even know that that building is there? How is it that Thomas Matthew Crooks was acting so weird and pacing in front of the metal detectors, and no one seemed to notice? People tried to follow him, but, oops, he got away.

How could the kid possibly even think that the highest ground at the venue wouldn't be watched? If I were Crooks, my first guess would be, "That’s the one place I shouldn't crawl up to with a rifle because there's most definitely going to be Secret Service there." Why wasn't anyone there? Why wasn't anyone watching it? Nobody except the shooter decided that the highest ground with the best view of the rally would be the greatest vulnerability to Trump’s safety.

Moreover, a handy ladder just happened to be there. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the Secret Service, none of the drones, none of the things we pay millions of dollars for caught him? How did he get a ladder there? If the ladder was there, was it always there? Why was the ladder there? Secret Service welds manhole covers closed when a president drives down a road. How was there a ladder sitting around, ready to climb up to the highest ground at the venue, and the Secret Service failed to take it away?

There is plenty of video of eyewitnesses yelling that there was a guy with a rifle climbing up on a ladder to the roof for at least 120 seconds before the first shot was fired. Why were the police looking for him while Secret Service wasn't? Why did the sniper have him in his sights for over a minute before he took a shot? Why did a cop climb up the ladder to look around? When Thomas Matthew Cooks pointed a gun at him, he then ducked and came down off the ladder. Did he call anyone to warn that this young man had a rifle within range of the president?

How is it the Secret Service has a female bodyguard who doesn't even reach Trump's nipples? How was she going to guard the president's body with hers? How is it another female Secret Service agent pulled her gun out a good four minutes too late, then looked around, apparently not knowing what to do? She then couldn't even get the pistol back into the holster because she's a Melissa McCarthy body double. I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa McCarthy guarding the president.

Here’s the critical question now: Who trusts the FBI with the shooter’s computer? Will his hard drive get filed with the Nashville manifesto? How is it that the Secret Service almost didn't have snipers at all but decided to supply them only one day before the rally because all the local resources were going to be put on Jill Biden? I want Jill Biden safe, of course. I want Jill Biden to have what the first lady should have for security, but you can’t hire a few extra guys to make sure our candidates are safe?

How is it that we have a Secret Service director, Kimberly Cheatle, whose experience is literally guarding two liters of Squirt and spicy Doritos? Did you know that's her background? She's in charge of the United States Secret Service, and her last job was as the head of security for Pepsi.

This is a game, and that's what makes this sick. This is a joke. There are people in our country who thought it was OK to post themselves screaming about the shooter’s incompetence: “How do you miss that shot?” Do you realize how close we came to another JFK? If the president hadn't turned his head at the exact moment he did, it would have gone into the center of his head, and we would be a different country today.

Now, Joe Biden is also saying that we shouldn't make assumptions about the motive of the shooter. Well, I think we can assume one thing: He wanted to kill the Republican presidential candidate. Can we agree on that at least? Can we assume that much?

How can the media even think of blaming Trump for the rhetoric when the Democrats and the media constantly call him literally worse than Hitler who must be stopped at all costs?

These questions need to be answered if we want to know the truth behind what could have been one of the most consequential days in U.S. history. Yet, the FBI has its hands clasped on all the sources that could point to the truth. There must be an independent investigation to get to the bottom of these glaring “mistakes.”

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Chip Somodevilla / Staff, Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Image

It feels like all of the tension that has been building over the last four years has finally burst to the surface over the past month. Many predicted 2024 was going to be one of the most important and tumultuous elections in our lifetimes, but the last two weeks will go down in the history books. And it's not over yet.

The Democratic National Convention is in August, and while Kamala seems to be the likely candidate to replace Biden, anything could happen in Chicago. And if Biden is too old to campaign, isn't he too old to be president? Glenn doesn't think he'll make it as President through January, but who knows?

There is a lot of uncertainty that surrounds the current political landscape. Trump came out of the attempted assassination, and the RNC is looking stronger than ever, but who knows what tricks the Democrats have up their sleeves? Let us know your predictions in the poll below:

Glenn's Show Prep

The Revolutionary Concept of American Equality and Fairness

Washington Post EXPOSED: How Watergate editors almost published a fake Pulitzer Prize-winning story

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

UPDATED: 5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and one who hasn't)

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

UPDATED: Former President Barack Obama: ENDORSED

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Is Trump going to win the election?

Did the assassination attempt increase Trump's chances at winning in November?

Did Trump's pick of J.D. Vance help his odds?

Did the Trump-Biden debate in June help Trump's chances?

Did Biden's resignation from the election hand Trump a victory in November?

Do the Democrats have any chance of winning this election?