Here and Now in Whateverland

In asking serious questions, one has to be prepared for the inevitable: people answering those questions armed with their own opinions like stilettos. If one is really interested in what people think, it could be a rewarding even educational exercise.

Recently, Charlie Daniels had a column laying out particular grievances on impeachment fever running wild, then asked a series of questions. That is always a good format. Asking questions can be a tool on a blog. It’s nice to care what others think.

However, what it really does is open the door for naysayers and critics to offer pungent rebukes from their lofty perches. That is what happened with Charlie’s Soap Box piece. Maybe no more critics than usual though a bit more descriptive than usual. One suggested he was now a former fan.

I’m sure Charlie was ready for that reaction when he posed the questions. The questions were important and consequential. But it showed there are enough people out there who will fully embrace any criticism of Trump, and who see — in their minds anyway — lots of reasons to impeach our 45th president.

But here we are with impeachers having their way. They were eager for this moment from the beginning. It could not come fast enough for them and now it is finally here.

Trump haters will jump at any chance to express their discontent with him. Even Christmas decorations have become a symbol of their disdain for the Trump family. And they don’t despise just him but the entire family. At one impeachment hearing, a Stanford professor made a rotten joke using Trump’s son Baron’s name. She later apologized only while demanding an apology from Trump.

Congress subpoenaed all Trump family financial documents from Deutsche Bank prompting Ginsburg to slap a stay on it until SCOTUS can hold a vote. Nothing seems off limits to these critics. Hopefully SCOTUS will provide clarity on the matter and for future presidents. Should Congress have unbridled power to impound any personal documents from a sitting president it wants? That can hardly be a good thing or precedent for the future. What about Barry Soetoro having all his personal records sealed? But that was not a problem for the Democrats. Plus, Trump documents have a habit of leaking.

That deep document dive brings the issue into focus. What do Democrats care about future precedents they are setting, both on impeachment and records? They don’t. So this is what I call the politics of here and now — the only thing they care about. As if the future will take care of itself regardless what they do today, with little or no effect on the future. But that is not the case. They don’t care. Nor do they really care what effect it has.

The politics of “here an now” determine now is everything, the future is of no concern. Whatever happens as a result is of no consequence and certainly will not matter later to them. Now is where they live, in hatred, but it is also the incubator for the future. Democrats and incubators don’t get along so well. If they can believe in aborting a baby in the 9th month, then they will do just about anything out of convenience for the moment.

Instead, they will try to shift blame and the argument back on Trump. But it is not him setting the future precedent here. Democrats are oblivious to our posterity and future. Rather than impeachment being caused by a scandal, impeachment has become the scandal. And now investigating corruption becomes an impeachable offense.

Subsequently, any defense of President Trump is then seen as incompetence, even legal malpractice, such as with Professor  Jonathan Turley delivering a defense against impeaching Trump.  He was the outlier to the tar and feather scholars.

Think about the other three witnesses. All tenured professors from Ivory Towered institutions calling on impeaching and removing a president at the drop of a hat.

“Slipshod impeachment” is the tonic, but what is the illness?
 

Right Ring | Bullright

RBG Explained

In the absence of any detailed information about the health of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I’ve taken it upon myself, as explainer of all things, to provide what I’m sure is a perfectly plausible explanation. No problemo.

Here’s the report from SCOTUS

There, we have the symptoms: fever and chills sparked hospital visit. IV treatment.

1)First of all, it is now late fall and she has finally realized this. Even in DC near winter, people get chills. It’s quite natural. Chills will remain among us throughout the season.

2)Then there is the fever thing. Well, this was impeachment week, after all. Most Democrats in the country have Impeachment Fever right now. That’s no secret.

So I think we can definitely see the rational cause and effect here.

On the other hand, while we are at it, the “fear” conspiracy theories of the left, based on what SCOTUS would be like if she left, are completely unsubstantiated. I’m still looking for the source of those.

I’m glad to be of assistance.
Yours Truly

BTW: I haven’t determined a rational explanation for Epstein’s death yet.

Same Old Talking Points with Stilettos

Surf is up for socialism from Leftifornians to Leftiyorkers. Their latest stunt involves comparing Venezuela to the US economy. Right, not a lot of difference between them.

So if they can compare Venezuela’s dire situation to the “evils of capitalism,” then these people really don’t have a clue. Venezuela shows the softness of socialism?

When a Go Fund Me page appears and raises 17 million to build the wall, of course liberals or Democrats are fuming. People should only be able to raise money for lying hacks to take down a SCOTUS nominee or conservative. How dare people support border security.

Though Democrats’ talking points about the wall secures nothing, but costs us billions.

So Twitter slaps a big warning on the Wall petition and fundraiser telling everyone that Twitter and their “partners” have determined it too risky to link it. They say they are protecting their users from “potential” malicious threats by blocking the site. Now raising money to build a wall to secure the border is a huge threat. Orwellian.

However, the leftist shadow campaigns which sprung up as petitions and fundraisers in response to the Wall fundraiser have naturally not been deemed a threat. So open borders are no threat to national security either. Encouraging lawlessness is Christian compassion.

But there is a problem every time the left tries to outdo itself on talking points. They have been so far over the top for over ten years that no one could take them seriously anymore. Still they need to come up with new language and comparisons all the time, because the last stuff they shoveled out has already gotten old. So “Buyer Beware!”

In fact, if we haven’t gotten the loud and clear message yet, between media attack dogs and the rowdy fascist left, reality is that they have finally mainstreamed radicalism.

Mission complete.

In the immortal words of the colorful James Traficant, “Beam me up, Scotty.”
Or as Texas Congressman Ted Poe always said…”and that’s just the way it is.”

In Venezuela they call the organized gangs extorting conditions “the Colectivos.” By George, I think I will start calling Democrats here the Collectivos.

Right Ring | Bullright

The Stocking was hung, with a new spine intact

…in hopes that the GOP could make good use of it.

The formerly spineless Republican Party rebounds

By Bobby Eberle – – Monday, October 8, 2018 | Washington Times

ANALYSIS/OPINION:
If there is one word — one defining, all-encompassing word — that has summed up the state of the Republican Party for years (if not decades), it’s “spineless.” Whether the issue has been illegal immigration, the budget, standing up to Planned Parenthood, or even the wildly unpopular and disastrous Obamacare, Republican “leaders” have tucked their collective tails between their legs rather than stand up and fight. But something remarkable seems to be in the air, and there’s no doubt that the change in resolve has been brought about by Donald J. Trump.

Remember all the rhetoric concerning Obamacare? Analysts said it would fail. Obama officials even admitted they lied about terms. No, you can’t keep your own doctor. No, you can’t keep your own plan. No, prices will not be lower. Republican legislators said they would repeal it. They voted to repeal it. Oh, but wait. Barack Obama was still president, and the Republican votes were simply a side show next to Mr. Obama’s veto. When Donald Trump first came on the scene, he said he would sign legislation repealing Obamacare, but the GOP couldn’t get it done. They showed their complete lack of fortitude and rolled over.

That’s just one example of many, many other issues. …/

More: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/8/trump-delivers-the-gop-an-early-christmas-present-/

Times…they are a changing.

Lesson to Republicans now seems to be:

You see how you are treated when Republicans do fight back. So tell me again why you would ever want to appease and capitulate to these dishonest radicals?

Any questions?

Dem’s SCOTUS Conspiracy

From their own mouths, Dem conference call in July.

Strategy session in July
GOP War Room

In July, Ricki Seidman – a Democratic operative, former Clinton White House official and current advisor to Dr. Christine Blasey Ford – laid out a strategy to defeat the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Be sure to like, subscribe, and comment below to share your thoughts on the video.

“Over the coming days and weeks, there will be a strategy that will emerge. I think its possible that strategy might ultimately defeat the nominee.”

Straight from the up-talking source. She knew then as one of Ford’s advisers.

Plus it’s a rally the vote campaign. She seemed to forget a fundraiser for Ford and the Democrats. All dirty election politics all the time.

H/T to Gateway Pundit see here

The tactics now unfold still before our eyes. It’s a cooked up ‘by any means’ conspiracy.
Let’s not forget Kennedy chose to retire then to have Trump pick the nominee.

Democrat Campaign Rhetoric

I scanned a few “up and coming” Democrat candidates for Congress and here is what I find. Caution: it is a murky picture. Very entertaining though.

As background, you’ve heard about new Democrats being recruited to run in largely Republcan held districts. Many of them touting military careers and many of them women.

In the last few weeks, districts who were Republican are considered “toss ups”. More recently, some are being relabeled now “leaning Democrat.” Right, I believe that.

When you look at their social media campaign statements you see similarities.

Well, one after another their statements read like a book of platitudes. No, not about current hot button issues but glowing terms. My sampling were not heavily campaigning. They did not seem to have layers of popularity and comments on their posts.

But those posts themselves, claiming the reason they were running, read eerily similar too. They didn’t tell you about their stand on issues. But like this one, it was personal. Well like this: “I’m running for Congress so that our children will have a brighter future and so that all our daughters will know that they can grow up to be and do whatever they dream.”

‘Hello’…. I mean your children had no hopes or dreams without you running? Wait, children have had those ideals and goals as long as I remember. Glad yours now have a brighter future only because you are running! What does that say? Well, kids have had those rosy ideals until 2009, when dreams took a nose dive. Now they are back?

They talk about about “shared values” and “moving the country forward.” What does that mean? I prefer an ash heap, myself. All undefined, vague terms to try to appeal to voters’ emotions and inspirations without much thought to what the words mean. You are supposed to know if you are a left wing progressive Democrat. And you do: against tax cuts, raising taxes, growing spending, cutting military spending. All of which is like caviar on a cracker to Democrats. “Come get it”. Free college, socialized medicine, single payer, Medicare for all, opening up the borders. Who can be against all that?

Another lofty word they are for, “equality”. So like we Republicans are for inequality, the more unequal the better. They want “affordable” things; like we want everything unaffordable. They actually support policies that make things less affordable. “Together, we’ll bring a sea change to Congress.” What kind of change, doing what? What will be different with you in Congress? Right, your children will finally have a bright future. “We know how vital our educators are to our communities.” (pandering to teachers – unions) We don’t even like teachers or value them. In fact, we see no use for them.

“We are fighting to keep dark money out of politics.” That’s popular. Naturally, a reference to Citizens United and reversing the Supreme Court decision. Hillary touted that in her campaign along with overturning the Heller decision. They use a complete script of progressive code words for which only Dems have a decoder. Dog whistles like their talk about hatred or hate speech. We are racists while they are, well, the good racists.

No election is complete today without sympathy for illegals. Say nothing about the crimes committed by illegals which impact Americans from coast to coast. Then there is the animus for law enforcement, ICE or border control. But of course they use the right statements to frame it. So they want people afraid of law enforcement and unsympathetic to cops being killed. They want to dehumanize law enforcement, along with anyone who works for the Trump administration. Amnesty is the bomb, “a path to citizenship” is the rage, from people who don’t much value US citizenship. And we are not exceptional. In fact, NY Governor Cuomo led the charge saying “America never was that great.”

Give a shout out for “justice,” especially the more radical candidates. The rest of us must want injustice. Except that we have a lot of injustice going on coming right from the Dep of Justice, but Dems see none of it nor do they care. As long as Deep State is in control Dems are happy. And as long as they are in control of Deep State. But “justice” talk is usually the segue for Resistance — sedition. That subversive obstruction is always a good thing for Dems to run on and support, for justice’s sake, when they do not control government.

Another popular favorite is ____ is against women… “”who stand to lose access to affordable birth control.” I wish I had a nickel every time I heard that bumper sticker phrase. It was popular against Kavanaugh, too. No one is losing access. “Affordable” is now a code word for free or almost free. Losing access, a guaranteed right, to free this or that. Like I’m losing access to a Mercedes 450 SL. I declare such access a “right.” Still, loosing access to something free is a popular notion. Affordable just translates to what they think they should not pay for.

Then there is the golden altar or calf of abortion, Planned Parenthood. Useful against Kavanaugh and campaigning. But I see nothing threatening Planned Parenthood’s status or Roe v. Wade. Nothing. Yet the great scare is on to “protect women’s reproductive health, rights” from invisible harm.” Personally, I’m opposed to women’s reproductive health.

They tell us “stay out of women’s sex organs” yet march in the streets with vagina costumes, condoms and protest wearing pussy hats. They live and breathe in women’s reproductive organs, at least in campaigns, and want them exhaustively legislated. How can killing babies be a stand for women’s reproductive health, or for healthcare? Just do not not legislate that. They yell about preserving lives by preserving abortion and planned parenthood. Planned Parenthoods are saving lots of lives, aren’t they?

Another habit Dems seem to have in common, these up and coming pretenders, is that they make the entire campaign about them not the people they are running to represent. Is that telling? It is not about the issues. And the kicker is the Democrats seem to eat it up. They could not care less, only that he/she is a card carrying socialism-pushing progressive. In fact, whatever he/she says is fine, as long as they are progressive. They will vote with the Marxist left anyway, so what does it matter what they do or say?

So which is worse: the platitudes of vague ideals or what they do say about the issues? San Fran Nan called MS-13 members a spark of divinity. It contradicts her staunch support and protection for abortion. Does a spark of divinity only apply to gang-bangers? Aborted lives must be much lower on the chain than even MS-13 gang members.

But this is getting long, the hour is getting late. The contradictions and vague platitudes remain, popular only to the Left. What outcome can we expect from this soup for fools?

Right Ring | Bullright

Dem’s begin pre-election Swan Song act with Kavanaugh hearings

To make a complete mockery out of the entire process, including a clown brigade, Dems used the holiday to plan and plot disruptions for Kavanaugh hearings.

NBC’s Katie Hunt reports via Gateway Pundit

President Trump’s Supreme Court pick Judge Brett Kavanaugh testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday morning.

Democrats and screaming protesters interrupted the hearing for the first half hour.
Judge Kavanaugh has not even been sworn in yet!

It was all planned.

Democrats plotted the coordinated protest over the holiday weekend. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) led a phone call and Committee members are executing now, reported NBC’s Kasie Hunt.

Read: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/09/schumer-plotted-kavanaugh-disruptions-in-weekend-call-execution-of-mob-tactics/

What else would we expect from the theatrical band of radical leftists? They are not only attacking Kavanaugh, but making it a mockery by attacking the entire process.

I’m sure fundraising received top billing too.

Kavanaugh and the NYT editorial board

A little comparison experiment: a new commercial calls Kavanaugh a “grand slam for conservatives.” Imagine if Democrats tried doing an honest ad for their nominee. It would be like “he will stretch that Constitution into play-doh. An experienced activist. He’ll assist in rewriting the Constitution. The perfect candidate for Marxists.” No, that doesn’t work the same way. So Dems have to lie: that’s why they can’t be honest. If they told the truth people would be repulsed. Can you picture an honest ad for their agenda?

For a couple years, NYT’s editorial page has tryied to call Trump everything from racist to crazy and unfit. So now their editorial board hires a crazy racist, Sarah Jeong, as a card carrying board member. But they dig in to defend their decision. It is a good fit. No, it was not a slip or something they did not know. It is the reason they hired her.

That is how the Democrats operate. If it were not for deception, they wouldn’t be able to sell anything. So the lie is everything; it’s the bomb.

Just throw in a few more: Obama’s record on the economy. It was abysmal. But now if the Obama economy was that good as they claim, then how come Obama has been out of office for a year and half and the Democrats are still trying to sell Obama’s economic failures? Why is that? But the people would know if it was good, and Democrats wouldn’t have to sell it. It sucked and people knew it did. So now the people have become the problem because they know it. But do you think Obama actually really cared about the economy?

And then Senate intelligence darling, Diane Feinstein has a commie spy chauffeur for 20 years. And Donald Trump’s election was the problem?

While we are at it, Pastor Darrell Scott was called every name and racial slur you can think of. His crime? He went to the White House with other clergy to work on problems affecting justice and the black community, to help people. For that he was attacked. But he was not attacked by nasty Trump supporters, the president, or conservatives and Republicans. He was attacked by blacks and Democrats as an Uncle Tom and traitor to blacks.

This at the same time blacks in Chicago are calling on Rahm Emanuel to resign. Fed up is an understatement. But Democrats and blacks lash out at Scott. It makes no sense, except to the Marxist, increasingly socialist, Left and their plantation police.

Right Ring | Bullright

Dem Dumpster Fire: Radicals vs. SCOTUS

Today is June 27th, 2018, henceforth to be known as the first day of the Democrat Dumpster Fire, and the hysterical meltdown that ensued to November.

This is what happens, the Democrats become unglued when they don’t get their way.

More at Washington Free Beacon: http://freebeacon.com/politics/liberals-decry-kennedys-retirement/

Here come the tears…

Working Nazi, death camps and Kennedy into the same tweet.
But we are still working on the names for those death camps… creativity in mind.

The “democracy” is collapsing around them, to hear progs tell it. And the way I see it is the republic has been given a 2nd chance, fortunately, from an 8-year death spiral and we are making good use of it.

Now they demand we wait for 2018 elections to nominate a SCOTUS pick.

Meanwhile, we just had a primary election yesterday and Dems, or should I say Democrat Socialists, are telling you what they are about — loudly. The commies have officially cannibalized the Democrat Party. So when they lecture about ‘moderates,’ you can laugh right in their face.

This shows the other thing Democrats do, they lie and then twist everything into a Gordian Knot. They think we can only nominate a Supreme Court Justice every 2 years.

Notice what the term “norms” really means to Leftists. They get their power and way… or revolution. Well, that’s pretty much the same thing it always meant to them for the last 50 years. Just that they now openly admit it. And now some of our naive Repub brethren cannot deny it.

But it is the same thing “mainstream” means to Democrats. Sheila Jackson Lee does a post-primary interview to repeat that’s who we are as Democrats, “we are a big tent party.” No, they consolidated into the commie mainstream. Who is the Dumpster Fire?

Finally, Democrats always complain that Donald Trump is just a reality TV star.
But he completely exposed the ‘reality‘ of who Democrats and the commie Left are.

Cake Baker Dump

A major SCOTUS decision came out today about the cake baker in Colorado. But let me take this opportunity to translate and paraphrase the dissent opinion, which is from Ruth Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor.

They hold that the discrimination commission has the all powerful right to validate, or particularly invalidate a person’s religious freedom or beliefs, and its limitations.

I think we’ve seen that movie before… and know how it ends.

If not Trump

From the barge of media opinion comes one for Trump. Anyone keeping score? It comes from NY Post. Give the man a cigar.

We’re still better off with Trump than Clinton

By Michael Goodwin — NY Post — January 6, 2017 (excerpt)

The economic boom is the most obvious difference voters got by electing him. The tax law he campaigned on, fought for and signed promises to add new dimensions to the boom and should fuel growth and new opportunities for millions of people.

Generations of families will lead better lives as a result, while a Clinton presidency would have been an orgy of regulations aimed at strangling capitalism’s last animal spirits. How many thousands of points lower would the Dow be?

But the Trump effect is not limited to the economy. Think of the difference between Neil Gorsuch and a Supreme Court justice Clinton would have picked; now multiply that difference throughout the judicial food chain. …/

https://nypost.com/2018/01/06/were-still-better-off-with-trump-than-clinton/

Low and behold someone with a level-headed view, not much of that in the media. All the ugliness would be traded for phony gloating, and the dumbstruck media could continue their way of the dinosaur without passing go. They could go to sleep for another…8 years. (it pains me to say that) They would run interference for both messiahs of misery, with academia in tow. And we wouldn’t be doing anything that we’re doing now. SCOTUS would be on a glide path to doom. It would be the far left even Bill could not be, with no regrets.

What Discrimination?

How about another backwards thing? For years we’ve been lectured about discrimination by the left. I’m not sure why since it shouldn’t be a partisan thing. But they seem to think it is the right’s dream or agenda to discriminate. Well, a funny thing happens when you parse it all down to politics, which is what really drives the left.

The left is all worked up about Little Sisters of the Poor, birth control, the abortion agenda, Obamacare, and now baking wedding cakes for LGBTQXYZ’s. Tuesday is the day a case is going to the Supreme Court to decide. But you know the drill, you cannot refuse to bake them a wedding cake. Period! So there are activists going around trying to force bakers to make them a cake. If you refuse, they sue. It’s the new fad for the left.

Issue of the case: Whether applying Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel the petitioner to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment.

But who cares about any of those Constitutional rights?

Details

The agency, however, dismissed that explanation as “a distinction without a difference,” and it ruled both that Phillips’ refusal to provide the custom cake violated Colorado anti-discrimination laws and that Phillips had “no free speech right” to turn down Craig and Mullins’ request. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission upheld that ruling and told Phillips – among other things – that if he decided to create cakes for opposite-sex weddings, he would also have to create them for same-sex weddings.

The problem with their discrimination complaints is that discrimination is the business model of the left. It is their M/O. They want to force people to do whatever they want them to do and they won’t take no for an answer. Discrimination is the enforcer.

Take their boycotts, for example, which are based on discrimination. That’s how they do politics. They want anyone to refuse to do business with Trump supporters or anyone who supports the Republican tax plan. They’ll use any businesses they can in their agenda.

They look for advertisers of Fox or Fox shows and then rally their activists against them, by phone calls, twitter or Facebook campaigns. They target businesses into submission to their agenda. Then the business or corporation is to take action against a particular person, show, or program host. Have a bad decision in court they don’t like? Well, organize the people and boycott the offending parties. Beat them into submission.

They like to black list or boycott anyone or thing that does not conform to their political agenda. But that is their model. They get things done by coercion, intimidation or force, by any means necessary, bullying them to cooperate. Or else you will be barred, marginalized or retaliated against just as those who disagree with them are. That is the big stick they use against you, discrimination. The Black Caucus discriminates based on ideology.

It’s the same principle that caused Senator Schumer to single out a woman in a restaurant in NY and berated her for voting for Trump. He followed her outside to continue his verbal assault on her. When Barack Obama was in office during the government shutdown he sent word out to the departments that the public, people, needed to be made to feel its effects. Obama’s IRS targeted individuals and harassed them due to their political beliefs.

In Senate nomination hearings, Senator Feinstein told nominee Amy Barrett that “dogma lives loudly” in her. The statements caused NYT and media to then take up that mantra in media and columns. So they operate as a caliphate. But a senior Catholic scholar took issue with their discriminatory track against Barrett.

Ashley McGuire said: “An accomplished professor and legal scholar at the University of Notre Dame, the qualifications and credentials of Amy Barrett are unchallenged. That the left continues to treat her Roman Catholic faith as an impediment to office is a testament to just how beholden they are to their anti-religious bigotries.”

So true; it is a validation of Democrats own bigoted, discrimination agenda.

In another infamous hearing, Chuck Schumer was so worried about “deeply held beliefs” that would disqualify the nominee. He was determined to make that the deciding factor on nominee Bill Pryor in 2003. (just in case we think this is a new phenomena)

Charles Krauthammer, at the time, took him to task for his bigoted discrimination:

Pryor has more recently been attacked from a different quarter. Senate Democrats have blocked his nomination to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on the grounds of his personal beliefs. “His beliefs are so well-known, so deeply held,” charged his chief antagonist, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) , “that it’s very hard to believe–very hard to believe–that they’re not going to deeply influence the way he comes about saying, `I will follow the law.”‘

An amazing litmus test: deeply held beliefs are a disqualification for high judicial office. Only people of shallow beliefs (like Schumer?) need apply.

Of course, Schumer’s real concern is with the content of Pryor’s beliefs. Schumer says that he would object to “anybody who had very, very deeply held views.” Anybody? If someone had deeply held views in favor of abortion rights, you can be sure that Schumer would not be blocking his nomination. Pryor is being pilloried because he openly states (1) that Roe vs. Wade was a constitutional abomination, and (2) that abortion itself is a moral abomination. — Chicago Tribune column.

So that about covers it. You see, ‘it’s the discrimination, stupid.’ Only now it is out in the open. They use words like “so far out of the mainstream” all the time. Code talk. Who gets to define “mainstream?” Of course, they or Schumer and Feinstein do. Judging by the direction the Democrats have gone in the past few years, mainstream is now in the San Francisco Bay. Don’t agree with abortion? A litmus test is discrimination.

If you don’t follow them into the Bay, or at least to the shoreline, then you too will feel the wrath of their discrimination. It’s only a matter of when and how. Discrimination is alive.

Though the left will be the first to raise discrimination objections as a defense. Rep Conyers is rolling out a whole discrimination defense. The radical left made discrimination the basis of an anti-travel ban campaign. They discriminate against conservatives on campuses, or Trump voters in the heartland, while accusing them of discrimination.

Saul Alinsky was probably their top cleric of discrimination. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” That’s the way, uh huh-uh huh, we like it.

Right Ring | Bullright

Supreme Hubris

The case of the Trinity Lutheran Church wound its way through the Supreme Court this week. A real religious discrimination case, as opposed to a made up one.

Anyone reading here is probably familiar with it, but here is a short summary.

(Syllabus) The Trinity Lutheran Church Child Learning Center is a Missouri pre-school and daycare center. Originally established as a nonprofit organization, the Center later merged with Trinity Lutheran Church and now operates under its auspices on church property. Among thefacilities at the Center is a playground, which has a coarse pea gravel surface beneath much of the play equipment. In 2012, the Center sought to replace a large portion of the pea gravel with a pour-in-place rubber surface by participating in Missouri’s scrap Tire Program. The program, run by the State’s Department of Natural Resources, offers reimbursement grants to qualifying nonprofit organizations that install playground surfaces made from recycled tires.

The Department had a strict and express policy of denying grants to any applicant owned or controlled by a church, sect, or other religious entity. Pursuant to that policy, the Department denied the Center’s application. In a letter rejecting that application, the Department explained that under Article I, Section 7 of the Missouri Constitution, the Department could not provide financial assistance directly to a church

What happened was a 7-2 decision in favor of the church. Then the thing that gets me is the 2 dissenters. Sotomayor is a stinging dissent, with Ginsburg and her ACLU ties.

Does that mean, in her view, that she’s okay with the government discriminating against a church? Should we ask? She seems to be the one most aligned with Obama’s zealous worldview than even Kagan. His bigotry against Christians knew no boundaries.

Nevertheless, here are some particulars from the decision:

“(b) The Department’s policy expressly discriminates against otherwise eligible recipients by disqualifying them from a public benefit solely because of their religious character. Like the disqualification statute in McDaniel, the Department’s policy puts Trinity Lutheran to a choice: It may participate in an otherwise available benefit program or remain a religious institution. When the State conditions a benefit in this way, McDaniel says plainly that the State has imposed a penalty on the free exercise of religion that must withstand the most exacting scrutiny. 435 U. S., at 626, 628.”


A difference with the government’s precedent arguments.

“[In Locke vs. Davey] Davey was not denied a scholarship because of who he was; he was denied a scholarship because of what he proposed to do. Here there is no question that Trinity Lutheran was denied a grant simply because of what it is—a church.”

“The Court in Locke also stated that Washington’s restriction on the use of its funds was in keeping with the State’s anti-establishment interest in not using taxpayer funds to pay for the training of clergy, an “essentially religious endeavor,” id., at 721.

Here, nothing of the sort can be said about a program to use recycled tires to resurface playgrounds. At any rate, [in Locke] the Court took account of Washington’s anti-establishment interest only after determining that the scholarship program did not “require students to choose between their religious beliefs and receiving a government benefit.” Id., at 720–721″

There is no dispute that Trinity Lutheran is put to the choice between being a church and receiving a government benefit. Pp. 11–14.

Yet the Department offers nothing more than Missouri’s preference for skating as far as possible from religious establishment concerns.”

But there is no doubt, in my mind, that the left (anti-Christian zealots) will have their own spin why this is a terrible thing — a bad decision which needs to be overturned. Again, why the dissent in this case is what baffles me?

Justice Sotomayor in her dissent opening said:

“The Court today profoundly changes that relationship by holding, for the first time, that the Constitution requires the government to provide public funds directly to a church. Its decision slights both our precedents and our history, and its reasoning weakens this country’s longstanding commitment to a separation of church and state beneficial to both.”

Then she proceeded to dig into the mission statement of the Luthran church to use as disqualifiers against Trinity, based on their expressed purpose as a church. Done in a way that only Obama and likely Ginsburg would approve of.

Sotomayor went on down her path by finally summarizing:

“The Church uses “preaching, teaching, worship, witness, service, and fellowship according to the Word of God” to carry out its mission “to ‘make disciples.’”

So she went straight to the church’s doctrine to use against them. Why not put the mission purpose of the church under the spotlight in order to discriminate against it? Basically, Sotomayor’s litmus is based on ‘what it is‘ not what it is doing, or proposing to do. Thus, Sotomayor wants to discrimiate against them solely because of their religious character.

See decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-577_khlp.pdf

The long and windy Never Trump road

I have a few thoughts for Never Trumpers. Let’s just try a little logic. It’s pretty basic and simple. It is not exhaustive but take some highlights.

There are two scenarios. One is Trump wins, which leaves Never Trumpers gasping for air. The other is that Trump loses, which makes them complicit in the loss.

On its face you may think they are betting on Trump’s loss. Well, if he loses, then NTs will be a big factor in the cause of defeat. Sure they blame Trump but the reality is Dems have been using all the statements from these people for campaign ads. Often the worst critics of Trump have been these and establishment type people. So there is that blame.

Then if he wins, Never Trumpers are his greatest foe, they have a lot invested already.

Sooner or later there will be an end to this Never Trumperism. Even the Tea Parties had a shelf life. And what when the novelty wears off? They are reallly left out in the cold either way — either for being de facto Democrat operatives or being the stuck in the mud that do not or cannot get along with anyone.

If Hillary wins and Trump loses, the NTs bought the agenda. whether they actively voted for her or not. They did not stand up to stop her. They sat there as pundits in media and on shows as if the cat had their tongues, unwilling or afraid to form the simplest defense for Trump. They were useful Hillary pawns — dupes. And stopping her after a win will be almost impossible. Then there is the big question. Will they even actively work to stop her, being they did little to stop her from getting into office? Better to just do nothing.

Where does it all lead? I can’t tell you that .. but it is going to leave a mark.

RightRing | Bullright

Democrats racist judicial trail

Seven times Democrats were overtly racist on judges before Donald Trump

June 7, 2016 Biz Pac

By Casey Harper | Daily Caller News Foundation

Donald Trump has taken heavy fire for saying the judge presiding over his Trump University lawsuit is biased because of his Mexican heritage, but Democrats have a long history of invoking race on judicial issues.

Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had “an absolute conflict” in the case because of his Mexican heritage, calling him “a hater of Donald Trump.” In the case, former students of Trump University are suing Trump alleging the school, which was supposed to teach real estate, was a ripoff. Trump has firmly denied their allegations.

In an interview, CNN’s Jake Tapper repeatedly questioned Trump about invoking the judge’s race saying “is that not the definition of racism?”

“But I don’t care if you criticize him,” Tapper told Trump in the interview. “That’s fine. You can criticize every decision. What I’m saying is if you invoke his race as a reason why he can’t do his job …” The problem is, a judge’s race is often a major factor and is acknowledged as such by the media, especially in Supreme Court appointments.

The Daily Caller News Foundation has compiled a list of seven times liberals invoked a judge’s race.

1-Justice Sonia Sotomayor famously invoked her identity as a “wise Latina” who could outdo a white man. “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” she said in an October, 2001 speech that became a point of criticism for Republicans.

2-When Donald Trump released his list of potential Supreme Court nominees, the left was quick to point out they were all white. Think Progress published an article titled “Your Ultimate Guide To The 11 White People Donald Trump Will Consider For The Supreme Court,” which pointed out that “Only three are women. All are white.”

3-George Takei, Star Trek actor and gay rights activist, called Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas a “clown in black face” after his vote against the recognition of same-sex marriage. “I mean, doesn’t he know that slaves were in chains?” Takei said. “That they were whipped on the back. If he saw the movie 12 Years a Slave, you know, they were raped.”

4-Liberal Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson blasted Thomas for his stance against affirmative action. “I believe in affirmative action, but I have to acknowledge there are arguments against it,” Robinson wrote. “One of the more cogent is the presence of Justice Clarence Thomas on the U.S. Supreme Court.”

5-Anna Quindlen, a liberal writer for Newsweek, clearly invoked Thomas’ race in her criticism of him, saying “His judicial resume was mediocre; he was chosen because he was conservative and black, an affirmative-action hire by an administration that eschewed affirmative action.”

6-Liberal writers and activists Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon wrote an article in the Seattle Times saying Thomas was unseemly as a “beneficiary of affirmative-action programs who climbs the ladder of success by attacking affirmative action.”

7-To defend itself from criticism over nominating a white Supreme Court  Justice, the White House was quick to invoke race. In a post titled, “White House Defends Diversity Record In Judicial Appointments,” the New York Times points out that Josh Earnest was eager to tell reporters that Obama had appointed a Hispanic justice to the Supreme Court and therefore, had previously embraced diversity. The defense came after attacks from the leftover nominee Merrick Garland, who is white.

Follow Casey on Twitter and like him on Facebook.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Read more: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/06/07/seven-times-democrats-were-overtly-racist-on-judges-before-donald-trump-349340#ixzz4AxRcueLK

On the Oath of Litmus Tests

April 16, 2016

Something happened on the way to 2016. It became a lesson in contradictions.

For years the Democrats have turned Roe into a litmus test for nominees, particularly for the Supreme Court. By now that is just a sigh to Americans. So they force people to swear on the ‘altar of abortion,’ or Roe v Wade. There are no exceptions for Leftists.

Then the Republicans have allowed and went along with the absurd Roe litmus test, and accepted it as the way it is. The new inhumane “normal.” Over the years, it has been the central tenant in Liberals’ nomination orthodoxy. Roe is “settled law” – litmus that.

Now there is a new litmus test. In Democrats’ NY debate, Hillary announced that she would only consider a SCOTUS nominee if he/she supported abortion as settled law, and that he/she believes in overturning Citizens United. Note the contradiction in those. At any rate, they have yet another litmus test — debate is over, opposition is irrelevant.

So now, reading between the lines, they have set up another mythical litmus test.(the authority on litmus) But now one must swear that Citizens United is not “settled law.” Another sacred altar has been errected. Ignore the contradiction. On one hand, the settled law is what SCOTUS said. On the other, how wrong the High Court’s decision is. We now have a litmus test against the Court’s decision, rendering it anything but “settled law.”

I have to hand it to Hillary for making this all crystal clear. She once declared, even on the anniversary of Roe, which liberals celebrate as sacred tradition, that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.” Gasp, it was the last part that caused tremors through liberaldom. How could she dare say something so offensively outrageous as “rare”?

Now we find out how unsettled law really is in Liberaldom. It must depend on the meaning of is. Even worse is how unsettled liberals seem to be on a SCOTUS decision, when it doesn’t suit their agenda. Many have become squeamish about Citizens United, but the alternative is limiting free speech. Some are more comfortable with the latter.

Hypersensitivities are reserved for Citizens United, not Roe. Liberals have the same visceral reaction to the Heller decision. Roe remains sacred orthodoxy — the golden calf, worshiped in perpetuity and sacrificed to nothing – while others are expendable.

RightRing | Bullright

Loretta Lynch helped America

Loretta Lynch has done the country a big service today, by withdrawing her name from the short list as a SCOTUS nominee.

[CNN]”The Attorney General determined that the limitations inherent in the nomination process would curtail her effectiveness in her current role,” DOJ spokeswoman Melanie Newman said.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/08/politics/loretta-lynch-supreme-court-nomination/index.html

So that’s one relief. Though it was a knife in America’s back to have her on a list as a Scalia replacement, in the first place. One down. I can’t imagine who else is on it. Holder?

Resident Arrogance protests gimmickry marketing

Sadly, it never ends with our serpentine President. Obama takes aim at SCOTUS and the election. Did we think he could restrain himself?

In an attempt to criticize politicizing the Supreme Court nomination process, he politicizes the process. The Republicans are at it again, as he demands their cooperation.

Then he ticks off a list of job requirements of the President to attack Trump’s suitability for office. He worked down the list of candidates injecting his Climate Change gimmickry. Too bad Obama never had real competition in his races. Obama said he still believes in hope and change. We can only hope it changes.

“I continue to believe Mr. Trump will not be president. And the reason is that I have a lot of faith in the American people. Being president is a serious job. It’s not hosting a talk show, or a reality show” — live from somewhere near a California golf course… it’s Obama.

Resident Obnoxious is working on getting into the 2016 race any way he can. Imagine that, playing politics from the office. Who’d have thunk it? More lectures coming from Captain Chaos on the finer points of American’s desires — which he knows nothing about.

“It’s not promotion, it’s not marketing. It’s hard. And a lot of people count on us getting it right,” Obama said.

That’s four fingers pointing back at him…. and maybe a forefinger, too!

Red day for Trump and eminent abuse

Today is a red-letter day for me with the 2016 race. I saw the interview of Trump on Fox that set me off. In it, Trump showed his exuberance for ’eminent domain’ — which includes all the modern uses and abuses of it. This might be a surprise to some people.

I know people have mentioned this before but when he was asked point blank on his position on it, he called it “wonderful.” And he implied that conservatives don’t understand the issue. Here is a video link to the entire Bret Baier interview.

Trump Eminent DomainTrump cited the example of “wonderful if you are building a highway.” Right, that’s always been there but we are talking the evolution of eminent domain. No, they don’t always get a lot of money as Trump claimed and he referred to people as “hold outs” for not going along. What they get is little choice on their own property, for other interests.

Of course he tries to cite the benign use of it but then branched into developments and factories, etc. In which he said “it is fine.” I also detect he is very vulnerable on this issue. Let’s admit there is a difference between “public use,” such as a bridge or highway, and private or corporate use. Been there done that. (For example, see Castle Coalition)

The Donald then went on to say he agreed with Kelo decision, in 2005, 100%. So, now he isn’t talking the eminent domain, historically, but the hybrid. (and hyper use of it) The decision which coincidentally caused states to scramble, and public outrage, to legislate various fixes to try to plug the dam that was already breached.

I won’t go on at length now on it, I’ve been writing about this issue since it popped out of the SCOTUS rectum. I regard it as one of the worst decisions in the Court. I haven’t been negative on Trump before although not a Trump supporter. I appreciated the vigor, and anti-establishment voice he brought. I regarded his candidacy as a good thing. Thanks!

There is so much wrong with E/D, in its current inception, but there is a whole lot wrong with Trump standing on this hill. He’s unapologetic about it and so am I. He fully understands the conservatives’ approach? Then he complains it was not explained to most conservatives. Trust me on this, we got the message alright — and they understand.

While Trumpmania may have some mileage left, I can’t look the other way. I’m swearing off the juice in favor of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. It’s a hell of a hill he is standing on and littered with victims. I’ll stand with Hamiilton, Locke, the Declaration and the Constitution, and original interpretation. I’ll stand on that real estate.

To others, you may or not support him, that’s your bag. I don’t care, and don’t hold it against anyone that does. I’m just saying he lost me on that hilltop.