https://www.facebook.com/
And:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Royal Rumble: #BlackLivesMatter vs. #MeToo
Conservatives, just grab your popcorn, sit back and watch this unfold. The revolutionaries are turning on each other. Read in browser »++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Obvious differences between Republicans and Democrats:
a) Democrats will do anything to win, Republicans are less likely.
b) Democrats approach each "designer" voter group with a single "appealing" individual message, ie. abortion, sexual abuse, rich versus poor etc, Republican approach is to message the entire person.
c) Democrats seek to divide, Republicans seek to unite. Character assassination, "deplorables' etc. whereas, Republicans embrace messages about support for military, national symbols and patriotism etc.
d) Democrats have allies among the Hollywood types, California technology leaders, mass media dolts and urban America. Republicans have appeal among "red blooded" Americans and rural types. Fascinating historical shift.
e) Democrats are generally angry and want to bring about change to everything even going to the extreme point of embracing Socialism over Capitalism. Republicans are more traditionalists, sentimentalists and comfortable with capitalism.
f) Democrats favor creating chaos as a method to bring about their goals. Republicans are less vocal and socially active.
g) Radical progressives are more emotional, whereas traditional conservatives and Republicans are more reasoned. I submit the comments by the Senator from Hawaii versus the Senator from Maine during the Kavanaugh Salem Witch Hunt Hearings.
h) Democrats favor turning virtually everything into entitlements whereas, Republicans are less supportive of increasing government's size and largess.
i) Conservatives and Republicans are slower to respond to our nation's unresolved plights and this makes them vulnerable to charges of indifference.
j) Democrats care less about secure borders,sanctuary cities and the consequences of law violations. Republicans are more concerned about secure borders, illegal immigration and resultant social consequences.
k) The differences between the two major parties have narrowed when it comes to fiscal matters because the privileges of political office have become so enticing they blur out serving in order to do what is best for the nation.
Can our nation heal as long as these stark dichotomies exist? No, because these stark differences have always been the goal of radicals and progressives who want to destroy/remake America. They may profess they care for the underprivileged, for the causes they espouse but, I submit, they are using our nation's unresolved issues to stir discord and bring about chaos in order to weaken America from within.
Note the contrast between Obama and Trump. Basically The Democrat Party has been unable to win elections when they tell the truth about what they plan to do and this is why it is getting more difficult for them.
Trump has made every effort to carry out his campaign commitments. Obama disguised his by telling us he was going to transform America and he did just that but many felt they had been hood winked and they were.
Because it is increasingly difficult for Democrats to win at the ballot box controlling The SCOTUS becomes even more critical, because they have been able to legislate from the bench not through the legislature process. This is why they have a disdain for our constitution and find ignoring due process so easy etc. (See 1 and 1a below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Getting rid of The Electoral College is another goal of radical progressives. (See 2 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) Posted By Stilton Jarlsberg
The nightmarish Kavanaugh hearings are over, Brett Kavanaugh has finally
been confirmed and was immediately sworn in as an Associate Justice of the
Supreme Court.
So why aren't we feeling happier? After all, we won and the Left lost,
right? Right...?
Well, maybe not. Oh sure, we got a great jurist on the Supreme Court, but
that should have been a given with broad bipartisan support (as has
traditionally been the case). We only got what was expected and, considering
Kavanaugh's remarkable qualifications, more or less inevitable.
But what did the Left gain from all of this? Sadly, one heck of a lot. For
starters, they permanently stained the good name and reputation of Brett
Kavanaugh, who now begins a lifetime of being called "Rapey McRapeface" and
being screamed at in public places. The Democrats have additionally sullied
the perceived legitimacy of the Supreme Court itself, as well as insuring
that in the future no sane person will submit to a similar
character-destroying gauntlet for the "privilege" of doing public service.
On top of that, the Democrats feigned outrage over allegations even they
don't believe is generating millions of dollars in campaign contributions
from sheeple who have more dollars than sense.
But wait, there's more! Utterly bereft of actual ideas for the betterment of
our nation, the Democrat machine runs on inspiring fear, hatred, and
division in their simple-minded, hyper-emotional electorate. And they've hit
the mother lode with their Salem witch trial against Justice Kavanaugh. Men
are bad! White people are despicable! And people who think it's even
possible for a woman to lie or get facts wrong are Nazier Nazis than the
original Nazis.
The Left is telling the dimmest of their followers (and their number is
legion) that those on the Right don't listen to women. But we did - and bent
over backwards to make Dr. Ford feel comfortable and unthreatened while she
delivered every jot and tittle of her "recovered memories" testimony. And
then, we listened to other women...like Ford's lifelong friend Leland Keyser
who, rather than being a witness for Dr. Ford, asserted that she had no
memory of the alleged party, nor of ever meeting Brett Kavanaugh. And this
despite heavy pressure to change her story
<https://www.dailymail.co.uk/n
t-pressured-friends-Christine-
truthful.
Another woman we listened to was Rachel Mitchell, an Arizona sex crimes
prosecutor who, presumably, is against sex crimes. She asked Dr. Ford a
number of basic questions, gently and respectfully...and concluded that her
story had unacceptable inconsistencies.
Democrats chose not to listen to those women, preferring instead to
evangelize for a purge by fire of all men, white people, and Republicans in
the November midterms.
And they are delighted with their Machiavellian mendacity, and have given
not a thought to the destruction of the lives of both Justice Kavanaugh and
the likely psychologically challenged Dr. Ford.
Still, even though we're feeling more melancholy than joy at the moment,
there is a deeper and more profound feeling of satisfaction that we'd be
remiss not to mention. Specifically, the knowledge that the Supreme Court
has just taken a huge and hopefully long-lasting step to again become a
moderate body which doesn't make laws, but rather carefully weighs the
constitutionality of the laws brought before it.
That's huge - and we hope this truth burns those on the Left like Holy Water
splashed on those who are demon possessed. Which, frankly, we think is
pretty likely to be the case here.
1a) Trump may be outside our norms. But he is succeeding for all of us.
By Hugh Hewitt
As President Trump’s first two years in office come to a close, we’ve seen two originalist justices confirmed to the Supreme Court, 26 originalist appeals court judges confirmed, 10 more nominated , and 41 new district court judges on the bench and dozens more pending. Add to that: the repeal of the sequester on defense spending and a massive military rebuild underway; a massive tax cut of unprecedented depth and structural change; a renegotiated trade deal between the United States, Mexico and Canada; withdrawals from the awful Iran deal and, in effect, the absurdist Paris accord; the rollback of job-killing and bureaucrat-empowering regulations by the hundreds; an economy surging while unemployment drops to 3.7 percent; and a new entente in the Middle East (one that arose despite U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel) that sees the United States and Israel aligned and cooperating closely with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain and now a new government in Iraq against the expansionist Iranian theocrats.
Did I mention the devastation and defeat of ISIS in its physical “caliphate”?
That’s not even the entire list of accomplishments, but it’s enough to have silenced the #NeverTrumpers who used to mock Trump-supporting conservatives by posting a street sign carrying the name “Gorsuch” above rising floodwaters. Those of us who follow the president’s often confusing, loud, extemporaneous and disruptive presidency not by his tweets but by his administration’s deeds and those of congressional Republicans are amused that the #NeverTrump rump has stopped the “but Gorsuch” nonsense.
Many of the successes, especially with regard to the judiciary, are because of the unparalleled skill of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), supported by Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and the Senate GOP caucus, which has almost always held together as a whole. McConnell is, as I’ve said before, the single most effective congressional leader the GOP has had in my lifetime. And it looks as if his majority will grow in November. The Republican House Majority may be preserved as well. Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and their caucus crafted and passed the tax bill as well as 14 Congressional Review Act resolutions and the robust military spending bills. Republican candidates should point both to the achievements outlined above and the rapidly expanding economy in their closing campaigns.
They should also dwell on the prospect of the enraged left controlling anything in government. Democrat Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), who would take the gavel of the House Judiciary Committee, has already promised a pursuit of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh to satisfy his party’s fringe. Democrat Maxine Waters (Calif.), who would gain the gavel of the House Financial Services Committee, has urged the physical pursuit of her Republican colleagues across and out of public places. The radical rump of the Democrats, led again by Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), would set out to destroy the Trump economic momentum and to paralyze the regulatory rollback with a hundred hearings and inquisitions.
Trump is as wearying today as Andrew Jackson must have been in 1829 to the people of both parties who are used to different rules sets. I am one of them. Thus my criticisms of the president are many and detailed. But my fear of the wild-eyed left is far greater than my discomfort with his bull-in-china shop politics.
The left, we saw this week and last, contrasts unfavorably with the president’s hyperbole and occasional cruelty. It is now a snarling, enraged collective scream. To give it power would be to risk fraying even further the common bonds of citizenship. Best for them to spend a long time in the wilderness, as the “San Francisco Democrats” of 1984, so very wrong about the Soviet Union, needed to endure.
After the attempted sliming of Kavanaugh, voters must not reward that outburst of the new McCarthyism in the least or it will be repeated. Review the first few paragraphs above. Vote to repeat those sorts of achievements instead of empowering the enraged mobs. Don’t just return the Republicans. Increase their majorities and increase prosperity and security, judicial restraint and free enterprise even as we collectively figure out a president who may be outside our national norms for the office, but who is succeeding for us all.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) The Democrats’ Constitution Problem
Editorial of The New York Sun
Now that Brett Kavanaugh has acceded to the Supreme Court, the time is at hand to get to the bottom of this beef. What was it that so deranged the Democrats that they were willing to try to destroy the good name of a distinguished nominee? Was it abortion, as some suggest? Or allegations of sexual assault? Or the nominee’s alleged lying about his time in President George W. Bush’s White House?
All of that malarky may have played a role in triggering the Democrats, but our own estimate is that their quarrel is something else. It is increasingly evident that the Democrats are chafing under the Constitution itself. Every one of them who holds federal, state, or local office has had to swear to the parchment (the Constitution so requires). They are, though, unhappy about it and want it changed.
Feature the New York Times editorial called “The High Court Brought Low.” It complained that of the five justices picked by Republicans, “four were nominated by presidents who first took office after losing the popular vote.” The senators who announced they’d vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh, it added, “represent tens of millions fewer Americans than the minority of senators who voted to reject him.”
It’s not just the Times, of course. The Washington Post leg Philip Bump reckons that Justice Kavanaugh has a signal honor — of being the “first justice nominated by someone who lost the popular vote to earn his seat on the bench with support from senators representing less than half of the country while having his nomination opposed by a majority of the country.”
It would be one thing if the Left, the Times in particular, had not spent the last century complaining about elected judges. No one can say that electing judges is unconstitutional; some states have been electing judges for centuries. Yet so frequently has the Times carped about campaign spending on judges and judges expressing political views that its readers could tear their hair out.
Now, when a judge the Left doesn’t like is, in Brett Kavanaugh, seated on the high bench, the complaining starts about how the senators who confirmed him didn’t represent a majority of the voters. “It’s not about Brett Kavanaugh’s alleged behavior. It’s about justices who do not represent the will of the majority,” says a column in the Times by no less a figure than Michael Tomasky.
That, of course, would be like complaining that the justices do not, say, take in home sewing. It’s not their job to take in home sewing. Their job is decide actual cases and controversies. Nor is it the job of the senators to represent the will of the majority. That is the job of the Representative House, the only house whose seats are apportioned by population. The job of the Senators is to represent the states.
That’s the Senate’s very purpose. The Left likes to suggest that the only reason for this was to protect slavery. Yet even the original Constitution anticipated an end to slavery. It still made the equal representation of the states in the Senate the only feature of the parchment that could never be amended absent the consent of the state being denied equal representation.
It is the foundation of our federalist system. Alexander Hamilton, writing, in 76 Federalist, about the president’s power to appoint judges and other officials, alluded to the danger of “an unbecoming pursuit of popularity.” We’ve always loved that phrase. No wonder it is by the states rather than the people that nominees are confirmed. The Supreme Court, which sometimes must overrule the people, is, in its own right, a check on democracy’s tendency to run away with itself.
________
Image: ‘Ballots’ by Elliott Banfield. From elliottbanfield.com. Reprinted by permission of the artist.
No comments:
Post a Comment