A Cashless Society Enslaves You to the System

November 17, 2016

WRITER

Less than a week after India's surprise move to scrap its highest demonstration cash notes, another war on cash has intensified in Australia. Yesterday, the banking giant UBS proposed that eliminating Australia's $150 bill would be good for the economy, eliminate black market money and strengthen banks so they only have to deal in digits, not actual money.

"You want to talk about true power? True power comes from everyone knowing exactly where you've spent your money, every penny, you not having the ability to make any transaction at all in cash. So somebody wants to stop you, all they have to do is freeze your funds. All they have to do is wipe out your bank account," Glenn said Thursday on his radio program.

Cash is one of the few remaining options for financial privacy that doesn't create a permanent record of every purchase or transaction you make. It's also an easy way to reduce your exposure to risk in the broader financial system. Without cash, you are an absolute slave to the system.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these valuable questions:

• What happens in the event of a catastrophic failure if everything is digitized?

• Will every transaction require approval, like selling a car or gun?

• Will purchasing with cash become illegal?

• Can banks use your money to pay off their debt?

• What would be the biggest heist in human history?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: This is absolutely incredible. Less than a week after India's surprise move to scrap its highest demonstration cash notes, another war on cash has intensified now in Australia. Yesterday, the banking giant UBS proposed that eliminating Australia's 150-dollar bills would be good for the economy and good for the banks.

Now, here in America, we've been hearing -- and nobody in the mainstream media is talking about this. And I'm telling you, there's going to come a time -- I promise you this: There's going to come a time that no one will be talking about this. And within two weeks, it will be the only thing that anyone is talking about: America going cashless.

Yesterday, they said that -- UBS said that it would be good for the economy and good for the banks. The reason why they say it will be good for the economy is because you'll stop any black market. You'll stop the, you know, drug trade, et cetera, et cetera. And good for the banks, because the banks won't have to handle all that money. It will all be digits.

This is the real reason -- I'm sorry. No. This is one of the real reasons why this is happening, is because it will save the banks a lot of money.

And, remember, the banks are the ones who are ruling the world. But you want to talk about true power -- true power comes from everyone knowing exactly where you've spent your money, every penny, you not having the ability to make any transaction at all in cash.

So somebody wants to stop you, all they have to do is freeze your funds. All they have to do is wipe out your bank account.

In a time where our Pentagon is being hacked by the Russians, the banks are saying, "Let's digitize everything."

You want to wipe out the debt? You want to wipe out the trillion dollars of debt? Digitize everything, and then have some catastrophic failure. Well, I guess we all have to start over again. Well, I guess everything's been equalized now.

In -- yes.

STU: Isn't that the plot from Mr. Robot?

GLENN: Yes, it is.

STU: Essentially.

(laughter)

GLENN: In September 2015, Australian bank Westpac published its free credit report -- its cash-free credit report, suggesting that the country would become cashless by 2022.

In July 2016, Australian payments from Tyro published an enormously self-serving blog touting the benefits of a cashless society, saying, quote, it's only a matter of time. The media and the political establishments have now chimed in as well.

Two days ago, Citibank -- yes, the Citibank that we have -- announced it was going cashless at its Australian branches.

In February of this year, Sydney Morning Herald released a series of articles, some of which were written by officials from Australia's Department of Treasury, suggesting that eliminating cash will save billions of dollars and moving to a cashless society is the next step -- is the next step for the Australian dollar.

The government, media, and banks and academia now have formed a single unified chorus to push the idea to consumers that cashless is good for everyone.

It's happening across the planet now: Australia, India, Europe, and in North America, partially right. Going cashless will save a lot of money. Paper currency is costly to transport in large quantities, due to the need of security. But it is also accurate to suggest that going cashless will be good for the banks.

As UBS pointed out yesterday, demonetizing Australia's 50 and 100-dollar bills would force anyone holding those notes to deposit them back into the banking system.

So bank deposits would rise as a result. So would bank profits. Now, let me think: If we're going to negative interest rates, which means that I would want to pull my money out of the bank because it's costing me money to put it in the bank. And that's the only way the bank survives, is by bleeding me dry, what could the bank possibly do?

Well, if I'm taking my money out because they're giving me a haircut -- they're just taking two -- one, two, three percent -- or if the government so deems it, 10 percent of whatever I have in my bank, I could either take my money out, or the banks could make it so I couldn't take my money out.

Now, they're already doing that by saying you can't make a big deposit -- or, a large withdrawal. They're already trying to make it impossible. But this traps the money because your money won't have any value on the street.

It's not like if you have the money, I can still go out and buy things. I take it out of the bank. No, no. They will outlaw all cash transactions. So no one will take cash, and cash will have zero meaning.

So it would be like trading in toilet paper. That way, I have to do business with the bank. They are able then to give all of us a haircut because all of us have to have our money in the bank.

PAT: And every transaction you ever make will be tracked. So if you ever wanted to be off the grid for whatever reason, you can't be. You just can't be.

GLENN: You can't.

If you want to let's say close the loophole on I want to sell my gun to my friend Steve for $200 -- that's totally legal to do. The gun show loophole. I'm just a private citizen, and I'm selling my private -- I'm selling like a chair. And I'm selling it to this guy. You don't have to worry about that gun show loophole anymore. Because I won't be able to sell even my car on the street with a sign that says, "For sale, call this number."

I can't say it's $800. Just give me $800, and I'll give you the title of the car and go drive away. He won't have the $800. I will have to go to a bank, who will then be paid to make that transaction for me.

Even policy wonk academics would have the rare opportunity to take their lousy theories and PHD dissertations for a test-drive. This means, your politicians have more control over your savings and fewer obstacles to impose capital controls and engage in civil asset forfeiture.

Remember what we were fighting against a year ago or so? Civil asset forfeiture, where already the government is just taking it?

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And saying, "Well, we don't know where this money came from." Oh, well, you have been charged with a crime, so we're just going to take it from you.

And then you're guilty. They don't give it back. You have to go to court to get it back from them.

JEFFY: Prove that you're not a criminal.

GLENN: Prove that you're not a criminal. Prove that that money -- prove that that asset was yours. And we've been railing on this saying, "This is a really dangerous precedent." Well, what happens when somebody wants to stop you and nothing -- nothing is of value except a digital? You are an absolute slave to the system. Boy, you want to talk about bitcoin becoming through the roof and gold.

STU: It is up, by the way.

GLENN: Bitcoin is up?

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Cash is one of the few remaining options for financial privacy that doesn't create a permanent record of every purchase or transaction you make. It's also an easy way to reduce your exposure to risk in the broader financial system.

Think about this: The banking system is full of institutions that never miss an opportunity to demonstrate they can't be trusted with our money.

Hardly a month goes by without some major baking scandal. They're caught colluding on exchange rates, manipulating interest rates, fraudulently establishing fraudulent accounts. It's disgraceful.

In many banking systems across the world, especially in Europe right now, banks have precariously low levels of capital and already suffering the effects of negative interest rates. In the United States, banks routinely employ very clever accounting tricks to conceal their true financial condition.

You won't have a say in the matter. Here's what could happen, and all of these things are contingent on a thousand different things. And it doesn't have to be this way. But what could happen is a major global financial disaster, where the markets all around the world are hit and hit hard. A global banking holiday, where everything has shifted so much, they've got to get a handle on the global markets because somebody hacked into the market. Somebody did something wrong. Somebody made a policy that was bad. A country collapsed. There was a terror strike. It doesn't matter what happened.

But there is a global impact on the markets. And we have a global depression. And a collapse of confidence in the banks, in the governments, and in currency.

And so the government says, "Banking holiday, okay. We're set. Two weeks later: Everybody bring all cash in. We're banning all cash. Bring it in. And we're resetting this as a global market. Global cash. It's all in digits. And, by the way, if you don't bring your cash in and you're caught trying to buy anything in cash, you're trying to buy anything without digits, you'll be thrown into jail."

It's pretty much what happened in the Great Depression. Don't think that it can't happen now. This is the kind of thing -- all you need is an excuse. What is -- you know, I just asked the financial adviser that we had on yesterday or day before. I said, "So is there another TARP?" Yeah, it's this.

What's going to save the banks? Because the minute you get scared, you're going to pull your money out, and then it all collapses. Well, they already have the right. Check your bank. Call your bank. Ask for the fine print. Almost all of the banks have changed their fine print to where a bail-in is now their right, that if the bank becomes insolvent, they can take the same percentage of everybody's account to pay off the debts that they have.

So you're the last line. You're the last creditor that they have to pay. You think that you're the first creditor. Because what you're doing is you are loaning your hard-earned money to the bank. The bank then takes that and makes more money on your money by lending that money out to somebody else.

But the bank also has made investments in the stock market, in -- in mutual funds, in treasuries, in all kinds of different things. So they've made investments.

They've also made loans to other people that they can't cover if everybody starts to default on their loans. So there's a hierarchy of who gets paid back. You are now the creditor of last resort. You are the last person the bank has to pay back. You lose your money. And that's all in the -- in writing now.

If they want to make sure the rich get richer -- if you want to see the biggest heist in human history, it's this: Force everyone to put their money into the bank, and then they'll pay off who they will. And then they'll divvy the rest out to you.

[break]

GLENN: You know, it's really amazing how this has just creeped up on the world. And what have we been doing? We have been arguing over --

PAT: Other things.

GLENN: -- nonsense.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: No, not even other -- we're not even talking -- we haven't been arguing for the last year and a half about anything important.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: We've been arguing about, you know, Miss Universe.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: We haven't been talking about anything important. And look at what happened: This week, in -- have we --

STU: Who is we?

GLENN: I know. I know. I'm saying the western world. Generally speaking, the western world. And especially North America has not been paying attention to what's happening.

STU: Yeah, that's fair.

GLENN: Really happening.

PAT: And people from Australia -- that this is happening at Citibank branches in Australia and think, "Eh, it's Australia."

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: I want to make sure it's clear. I want to clarify something. This is not all branches. I thought it was all branches.

PAT: Yeah, it's some branches.

GLENN: It's some branches. So they're just starting this now at Citibank.

PAT: But they say the government, media, banks, and even academia have formed this single unified chorus to push the idea to consumers --

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: -- cashless is good for everybody. And it's happening across the planet from Australia to India, Europe to North America.

JEFFY: Right.

PAT: This isn't limited to Australia.

GLENN: Nobody is paying attention to what's happening in India. I mean, gold prices in India shot through the roof because they didn't go cashless. They just took everything over a 50-dollar bill. And it almost stopped the country. This week, they just did it. This cashless society is closer than any of us think, and if you think somebody is not going to -- they're going to let a crisis go to waste, you're mistaken.

Featured Image: Indian people wait in a queue to withdraw money from a mobile ATM machine in New Delhi on November 15, 2016. India is to use indelible ink to prevent people from exchanging old notes more than once, the government said, a week after the withdrawal of high-value banknotes from circulation in a crackdown on 'black money'. (Photo Credit: CHANDAN KHANNA/AFP/Getty Images)

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

A Cashless Society Enslaves You to the System

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?