davidl on July 17th, 2018

Article III, Section 3: from Legal Information Institute:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

The British had a rather low definition of treason.  For example, if you denied that God gave King George the right to rule over you, you were guilty of Treason.  The Founding Fathers did not approve of such a whimsical definition, and codified a much higher definition, see above.

Evidently, if media/liberal complex ever read the Constitution, they don’t remember it.  Note one John Brennan. a man who admitted to voting for a communist for President, from Investor’s Business Daily:

Former CIA Director John Brennan, in particular, sounded like someone in need of intervention in his tweet: “Donald Trump’s press performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors. It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump’s comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???”

So maybe the Brennan standard, such as it is, holds that while it is permissible to vote for a communist it is treasonous to actually talk to one.

Now how do you suppose this happened?

At least 21 papers were duped last week, including big-market brands like the Dallas Morning News and The Washington Times. They ran identical letters over a four-day period, each signed by a different person.

The effort is an example of public-relations ‘astroturfing,’ a technique meant to simulate genuine grassroots support for an idea or cause.

The form letter is one small piece of the message minefield erupting around Kavanaugh as he prepares for a brutal confirmation process that will end with scant support from Democrats.

Well, first of all, I suppose it should be noted that the claim in the AstroTurf letter is that the appointee to the Supreme Court will supposedly work against everything America stands for. Only in the mind of a rabid leftist is actually holding to the original intent of the Constitution anti-American.

davidl on July 15th, 2018

It used be universally held that a national leader’s primary goal was to act in his nation’s best interest.   Not so anymore, from Clarice Feldman, American Thinker:

It’s all Alice in Wonderland stuff, isn’t it?  Democrats and anti-Trumpers think it’s perfectly fine for European leaders to put their own national interests first while criticizing the president for promoting and defending ours while calling out our allies’ hypocrisy.  For them, it’s fine for the special counsel to waste time and money by indicting foreign nationals, over whom he lacks jurisdiction, for hacking unsecured communications made in violation of national security regulations, while he’s never going after the perpetrators here, including Hillary Clinton, who made such hacking possible and likely.

If the dolt’s of National Review think it is important to maintain NATO to protect Europe, why don’t they all profess that it is important for our so-called European allies to contribute their own share to their own self-defenss?

davidl on July 14th, 2018

Eric questioned Fearless Leader’s, b/k/a Special Counsel Robert Mueller timing   Mark Tapscott questions Fearless Leader’s motives, from Lifezette:

The point of the indictment is to set the predicate for Mueller’s forthcoming case that Trump’s campaign knew in advance about the staged releases and prepared campaign strategy accordingly. And that will be called “collusion.”

Can anybody explain how “attempted hacking” can be established without ever having access to the computer systems alleged to be targeted?  Might be time to start a Go Fund me page to bring over the twelve Boris Badinoff’s?

Eric Florack on July 13th, 2018

So now, Muller comes up with 12 more indictments against Russians.

It’s the “now’ part that gets me.

Does anybody suppose that this wasn’t specifically time to draw attention away from Strzok, and the link to uranium, Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama?

Here’s another interesting little tidbit… these 12 Russians are charged with hacking into DNC servers and Hillary Clinton’s private email server when, so far, no government official involved in this investigation has dared even look at those servers.

Go ahead. Tell me this whole thing hasn’t been staged as a part of a cover-up of immense proportions.

Eric Florack on July 13th, 2018

Let’s start with Billy Beck:

#Strzok: A performance that would make Alger Hiss take professional notice.

Then, Roger Simon:

Watch #PeterStrozk testify is like watching a Soviet apparatchik testify at a Stalin purge trial.

Yeah, pretty much. But let’s take this a step farther.

It strikes me as absolutely true that the smirk you see here is that of a made man… Someone who believes at the center of his being that he’s not going to be seeing the inside of a jail cell. Let’s examine why.

It turns out that six of Strzok’s family, are involved in uranium.

Unless you’re absolutely brain-dead that immediately brings to mind the uranium one deal, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama.

Oh… there’s another connection of course. It turns out that on his last day in office Barack Obama pardoned one of Strzok’s family, and Obama has had a good relationship with that family since 1988.

Add all of this up and one gets the decided impression that there is something major on the verge of being exposed here… Beyond even what has been exposed already. Between the uranium one thing, Strzok, his girlfriend, and the faked Russia collusion investigation somebody is desperately covering their tracks… and it apparently goes right to the Obama White House and to the Democrat Party.

I personally think that our country would be far better off with Trey Gowdy as Attorney General. The man was absolutely on fire at the hearing and his “take no prisoners’ attitude is precisely what is needed for finally getting to the bottom of all this.

Whatever, the bit with uranium is the key here. The linchpin that holds all of this together. The Democrats have been very sensitive indeed to any investigation going down that particular road and I think it’s about time we were ripped the cover off of it. And I think Trey Gowdy is the man to do that.

This Uranium One thing, and our government handling of it subsequently, has the bouquet of an Aborigines armpit. These links between Clinton Obama and Strzok are not accidental.

Does anyone seriously believe that there was no bias in this FBI investigation?

Ann Coulter:

Peter Strzok’s wife threatened to leave until he explained that not once did he let his affair with Lisa Page affect any specific actions he took in their marriage.

One gets the impression that if the American people ever really understood all of this, we would see demands for jail time. This is a level of corruption that most people can’t even imagine happening in our government, and it has happened.

Let me be the first. I want people in jail over all this… For the rest of their natural lives… and then dig them up and put them in jail again.

There is no trusting our government until such time as we put these people in jail, permanently. That message needs to be sent to Washington, now.

davidl on July 12th, 2018

Little Andy, b/k/a New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo, may new have never opened a law book, but he never passes up a chances to lead a parade or to make an ass out of himself, the Washington Times:

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is warning the Supreme Court: We’ll sue you.

Mr. Cuomo made the odd threat Wednesday, pushing for a bill in the state legislature that would establish abortion as a right under New York state law.

That bill is being sold as preparation for the possibility that the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that made abortion a national constitutional right and a ruling that liberals believe to be in jeopardy from the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the high court.

Where is Little Andy going to find a lower court willing to sue the Supreme Court of the United States? Even if he could, what standing would Little Andy have? Roe v. Wade did not legalize abortion. Rather the decision made it illegal for the several states to ban abortion, in theory before the third trimester. Abortion was already legal in several states to include New York State. In fact New York City was called the Abortion Capital of the Nation. Reversing Roe would not make abortion illegal. Rather it would return to the several states their rightful constitutional power to regulate, or ban, the procedure. Little Andy spend more time with the Law and less on publicity stunts.

First thing on the agenda here is going to be a destruction of the Democrats and their call for a moderate u. S. Supreme Court judge. We can best to do that with the words of Antonin Scalia who I still insist died under less than above-board circumstances…

And and that’s precisely the problem that the Democrats are having with Trump and his Supreme Court appointee. And mind you, I’m writing this before he’s even told us who it is.

(Edit… Though I posted it afterward. it seems fair, the Democrats were ready to protest whatever nominee Trump offered up. It’s amazing how many pre-printed protest signs got tossed away… But Mr Soros won’t have to worry. He’s got enough to cover it.)

The Democrats are screaming about Roe v Wade and how it’s going to be overturned. Well, let’s be honest about this. First of all it’s probably not going to be overturned in the near future. Justice Roberts is far too enamored with Stare decisis for that to occur in his lifetime. Roberts has far more of a history of respecting legal ground that’s already been established that he has been in tearing it down.

That said, if Roe v Wade had actually been decided on law as opposed to pretending that the constitution contain something that wasn’t there, the left wouldn’t be making all this noise about it being overturned.

I think the truth is they know it isn’t going to be overturned as well. But they’ve got to have something to playcate their base with.

Taking it one step further if, the government wasn’t so powerful it wouldn’t matter anyway. That’s the Fatal flaw of the left, governmental power has a tendency to get away from people who think they can control it.

And control is the word.

Democrats believe that the constitution is a document that must bend to the will of their policy ideas and preferences rather than it acting as a limitation on government, and in support of individual liberty. There is after all very little that ruins the aspirations of the loony left than a limitation on the power of government… A limitation that the constitution was expressly written to provide. In other words, the Constitution was written so as to keep the government from growing too large and too powerful, and if the left actually followed the Constitution they wouldn’t be so worried about who was controlling courts now.

I can’t point to anything specific for the future, except Ruth Bader Ginsburg is going to be departing the court soon one way or another, and that Trumps next nominee, particularly if it happens within the next year, will be giving the left fits again because he or she will be another originalist.

The United States Supreme Court has been the Battleground for the left for years because it is the easiest and fastest way to get big government enshrined in constitutional law. It’s my sense that that’s going to come to a crashing halt, as will the respect of the left for the Supreme Court, who is past is prologue will tell us that the Supreme Court is outdated and useless to their causes, because it will no longer be the relativistic and easily malleable body then it has been since the 50s.

Thing is, that’s precisely as it should be. It isn’t Trump that they fear, nor is it the Supreme Court as such. What the left fears Above All Else is the original meaning and intent of the Constitution.

We are about to spend the next 30 Years seeing that fear exemplified.

davidl on July 10th, 2018

You are what you are, not what you think you are, even in the United Kingdom, from Legal Insurrection:

Doctor David Mackereth worked for the NHS as a medical assessor for 26 years until recently when he was “sacked” and ruled “unfit” to continue working with the Department because “he refused to identify patients as being of a sex that they did not see themselves as.”

More from Telegraph(UK):

Mackereth, who registered as a doctor in 1989 and spent most of his career working in Accident & Emergency wards, said: “I’m not attacking the transgender movement. But, I’m defending my right to freedom of speech, and freedom of belief.

“I don’t believe I should be compelled to use a specific pronoun. I am not setting out to upset anyone. But, if upsetting someone can lead to doctors being sacked then, as a society we have to examine where we are going.”

Dr Mackereth, a Reformed Baptist, started a training course in May to become a health and disability assessor for the DWP. His role would have meant interviewing and then writing independent reports about the health of those claiming disability benefits.

However, when his instructor stated that reports must only refer to the patient – or “client” – by the sex that person identified themselves as, a discussion took place among the medics about the “fluid” nature of gender, Dr Mackereth claims.

“I said that I had a problem with this. I believe that gender is defined by biology and genetics. And that as a Christian the Bible teaches us that God made humans male or female. I could have kept my mouth shut. But, it was the right time to raise it.

“The tutor took me aside and said he had passed my comments up the chain to the DWP.”

To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, calling a dog a horse, will not make Rover like to eat oats.  Calling a biological man a woman, will not make his a woman.  So why does the state insist of substituting delusion for reality?

Passing thought, can Mrs. Clinton become President Clinton is just really believes she is the President? Film at Eleven.

File under: Social Justice

The silence on this one will be deafening;

>“And we will say, ‘I will give you a million dollars, paid for by Trump, to your favorite charity if you take the test and it shows you’re an Indian,” Trump said. “And we’ll see what she does. I have a feeling she will say no but we will hold it for the debates.”

We both know she’s never going to go for that.

Remember guys, this is the guy that was chosen by Barack Hussein Obama to lead the Democrat Party.

WASHINGTON – “Socialist” appears to be the new “Democrat,” according to the leader of the Democratic National Committee.

DNC Chairman Tom Perez has declared a self-proclaimed Democratic socialist, who recently won a primary for Congress, “the future of our party.”

Basically basically what he has succeeded in doing it’s confirming what Americans have known about the Democrat Party All Along.

Well this didn’t quite work out the way the naysayers told us it would.

Germany’s chancellor said Thursday she’s willing to back lower tariffs on U.S. auto imports as a potential European Union (EU) concession to the Trump administration – just one day after CEOs of Germany’s biggest carmakers reportedly voiced support for eliminating such tariffs entirely.

Maybe it’s time to just sit back and observe what happens as opposed to making dire predictions about the consequences of tariffs in this case.

Eric Florack on July 4th, 2018

I’ll just leave this here…

“In its great era of capitalism, the United States was the freest country on earth—and the best refutation of racist theories. Men of all races came here, some from obscure, culturally undistinguished countries, and accomplished feats of productive ability which would have remained stillborn in their control-ridden native lands. Men of racial groups that had been slaughtering one another for centuries, learned to live together in harmony and peaceful cooperation. America had been called ‘the melting pot,’ with good reason. But few people realized that America did not melt men into the gray conformity of a collective: she united them by means of protecting their right to individuality.

The major victims of such race prejudice as did exist in America were the Negroes. It was a problem originated and perpetuated by the non-capitalist South, though not confined to its boundaries. The persecution of Negroes in the South was and is truly disgraceful. But in the rest of the country, so long as men were free, even that problem was slowly giving way under the pressure of enlightenment and of the white men’s own economic interests.

Today, that problem is growing worse—and so is every other form of racism. America has become race-conscious in a manner reminiscent of the worst days in the most backward countries of nineteenth-century Europe. The cause is the same: the growth of collectivism and statism.”

(Ayn Rand — “Racism”, The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 30)

davidl on July 3rd, 2018

Color Susan Collins(Senator – Maine) as confused. She thinks judicial fiat from five or more Justices in Black Robes something akin to Moses’s proclamation from the Mount, from American Spectator:

Declares Sen. Susan Collins, the Republican moderate from Maine, whose vote could prove essential to confirmation of whatever nominee the White House puts forward: “A candidate for this important post who would overturn Roe v. Wade would not be acceptable to me. That would indicate an activist agenda that I don’t want to see a judge have. And that would indicate to me a failure to respect precedent.”

[…]

In any case, how useful to note Sen. Collins’ confusion between the abiding principles of law and the politics of the moment. It is a very modern kind of confusion, making the stakes in Supreme Court confirmation hard to discern. It is enough to know the present stakes are altitudinous: far, far less about Roe vs. Wade than about prospects for the survival of American freedoms.

Mark Levin, from Conservative Review:

“Look at the cases of Dred Scott v. Sanford, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Korematsu v. the United States. They were abominations,” Levin argued. “The Supreme Court has done some horrific things that have led to horrific outcomes, and yet the Left wants you to believe the Court is better than the other branches of government.”

Colins has decided to draw and defend her line on stare decisis. Her problems are twofold. One a blind acceptance of precedence would endorse so the Supreme Court’s great judicial travesties of all time, to include Franklin Roosevelt’s interment of over one hundred thousands citizens and residents of Japanese descent. Two, a nuanced defense would require Collins to find a constitutional basis for the Supreme Court’s invention of the Right of Privacy. Good luck Susan.

Eric Florack on July 3rd, 2018

How did the new socialist “it girl”, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, win the nomination for the congressional seat in New York City?

Easy… A lack of voter Engagement.

Dan Greenfield digs in:

Crowley, who is paler than birch trees, had no shot at the new 7th. But he settled down comfortably in the 14th, winning 70% of the vote by just showing up, without the fuss of a primary challenge. While representing a Hispanic district in Queens, he was allegedly living comfortably in Arlington, Virginia.

That was never going to last.

New York City’s working class white population is an endangered species. If you’re not on welfare or earning well in the six figures, you can’t afford to live there. Crowley’s district was 46% Hispanic. It had the second highest share of Latino voters in New York. The machine pol was living on borrowed time.

It’s hard to imagine a more vulnerable politician than doughy Joe, the echo of a 19th century political establishment of barstools and crony government jobs, used to winning ¾ of the vote in safe districts and who had forgotten how to compete in an election (if he ever knew how) facing a Hispanic district.

Of course the woman dubbed by the leftist media as “the girl from the Bronx”, is nothing of the sort, having grown up in well-to-do Westchester. It also turns out that there are charges of anti-Semitism floating around about her campaign staff at the least and possibly with her directly. There are signs that’s not going over well.

Also as Daniel points out, this is hardly the stunning Victory the leftist Press would have us believe. Rather, this is the direct result of the congressional representative having absolutely no connection whatsoever with the people that he supposedly represented, and in particular the Democrats in that District…

At least, the ones that decided to show up to the primary. Democrats tend to turn out less for midterm elections, much less so for primaries, particularly those that are perceived as being uncontested as this one was. It’s been pointed out repeatedly that the turnout for the primary was extremely low even by those standards.

So now the question becomes what happens in the general election. will the rank-and-file Democrats in that District vote for the Socialist? Will they even bother to show up?

This is certainly not over, but one gets the impression that this is most certainly not going to fall out the way the leftist Democrats would have you believe.