June 30, 2019

Trump Must Fight Back Against Big Tech Corporate Control—or Risk Losing a Winnable Election

Dana Mathewson

This is a very well-argued article from PJMedia. I urge you to read the whole thing!

It comes as no surprise that Trump is constantly assaulted by the media, the Democrats, desultory members of his own party, the churches, the "Deep State,” late-night comics, the entertainment industry and by those euphemistically known as the "coastal elites.” After all, he is a member of that rare breed of political personage who put the nation before themselves; in other words, he is a principled president, which is anathema to the host of ideologues and sycophants who constitute the political class and the cultural establishment.

This has been the case since his early candidacy, continuing into the present moment in which his successes concerning the economy, trade, a refractory or hostile international community and border insurgency are regarded as errors of judgment or signs of personal hubris. Notwithstanding, just as Obama is correctly perceived by the more honest and astute observers on the current scene as the worst president in the history of the republic, intent on dismantling a great nation, Trump is seen by many as the best president since Reagan and among the best since Abraham Lincoln.

I would hazard that Trump actually won the popular vote in 2016 despite the reprehensible conduct of the Democrats whose electoral numbers arguably owed much to the unscrupulous rigging of the voting process. Clearly, Trump did not win the dead vote, the multiple vote, the uncounted vote and the unreported vote, yet managed to triumph despite the odds. I have no doubt that he would succeed again, perhaps handily, in the coming election, once more proving the biased and conniving pollsters catastrophically wrong—but only assuming that he recognizes where the real threat to a second term is coming from.

The source of this threat is social media and the Big Tech conglomerates that control platforms such as Google, YouTube, Facebook, Apple, Twitter, Vimeo, Reddit, PayPal, Patreon, Amazon and others. Trump must be aware that a bald-faced campaign against conservative or populist thinkers, writers and bloggers is now in full swing. Such individuals are almost daily being demonetized, deplatformed and banned, rejected by publishers, stripped of customer reviews, and denounced as haters, bigots, racists, toxic males, agents of the "alt-right,” white supremacists and apologists for evil.

The practice of collaborative deplatforming and selective banning cannot be doubted. Witness Paul Joseph Watson, Laura Loomer, Milo Yiannopoulos, Alex Jones, Bosch Fawstin, Faith Goldy, Gavin McInnes, Stefan Molineux, Paul Elam, Steven Crowder, Ben Shapiro, Dennis Prager, James O’Keefe and Tommy Robinson, among others who have been banned or suspended, some intermittently, some permanently, by one or another of the social media giants.

The result is that the voting public is deprived of the information it needs on which to make informed, balanced and comprehensive judgments respecting the suitability of presidential contenders. The intention is to ensure that a "Trump situation” does not happen again, i.e., that Trump is not re-elected. Google executive Jen Gennai makes it clear that Google is bent on sidelining those who support Donald Trump.

If Trump does not act against this perversion of electoral justice and journalistic ethics, then there is a strong possibility that he will go down to a defeat he does not deserve. Even Elizabeth Warren, of all people, advises breaking up the tech monoliths. [emphasis mine] The president has the procedural means to frustrate this conspiracy—and make no mistake, it is a genuine conspiracy—against both the democratic process and his own legitimate prospects.

Controversial, I know! I've seen lots of pros and cons on this. Please read this article here https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/trump-must-fight-back-against-big-tech-corporate-control-or-risk-losing-a-winnable-election/ and make up your own mind.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:15 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 621 words, total size 5 kb.

Wanted: Federal Judges Who Don't Want to be President

Dana Mathewson

This by Rick Moran from PJMedia.
Another federal court decision has gone against the Trump administration and this one just might take the prize for "Most Convoluted Legal Reasoning" at the Judicial Awards Banquet for Liberal Judges this year.

What happens to these liberals once they get on the federal bench? I have come to the conclusion that all of them want to be president because they keep denying Trump what are clearly powers granted to the chief executive.

U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam granted a temporary injunction last month to groups like the Sierra Club and the ACLU to halt construction of a border wall using military funds. You might recall that the president declared a national emergency to deal with the border crisis, including the use of defense department money to build several sections of his wall.

Judge Gilliam, an Obama appointee, wrote in May, "The position that when Congress declines the Executive’s request to appropriate funds, the Executive nonetheless may simply find a way to spend those funds ‘without Congress’ does not square with fundamental separation of powers principles dating back to the earliest days of our Republic,” the judge wrote.

In fact, presidents routinely use funds not appropriated by Congress. How was Obama going to pay for making 8 million "DREAMers" legal? Congress was certainly not going to appropriate money for that. The judge is using faulty, politically biased reasoning while piously invoking the Constitution's separation of powers.

[...]

Hilariously, the judge ruled that the Sierra Club and other plaintiffs won't have any place to play if the wall is built:

The judge also found that the groups suing to block use of military funds for the wall would suffer "irreparable harm" over border wall construction because it "will harm their ability to recreate in and otherwise enjoy public land along the border."

It's clear that this is one judge who's a frustrated politician. Perhaps someone could suggest to Gilliam that he run for office to assuage his hankering to tell the presidents what to do.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/wanted-federal-judges-who-dont-want-to-be-president/

Sounds good to me! You could tell the same thing to a bunch of federal judges and maybe one of two of the Supremes.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:03 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 375 words, total size 3 kb.

Race Norming Med Schools: Reparations

Timothy Birdnow

African Americans get their reparations.

This by Mark J. Perry:

For those applicants to US medical schools last year with average GPAs (3.40 to 3.59) and average MCAT scores (27 to 29), black applicants were almost 4 times more likely to be admitted to medical school than Asians in that applicant pool (81.2% vs. 20.6%), and 2.8 times more likely than white applicants (81.2% vs. 29.0%). Likewise, Hispanic applicants to medical school with average GPAs and MCAT scores were more than twice as likely as whites in that applicant pool to be admitted to medical school (59.5% vs. 29.0%), and nearly three times more likely than Asians (59.5% vs. 20.6%). Overall, black (81.2%) and Hispanic (59.5%) applicants with average GPAs and average MCAT scores were accepted to US medical schools for the 2015-2016 academic year at rates (81.2% and 59.5% respectively) much higher than the 30.6% average acceptance rate for all students in that applicant pool (see bottom of highlighted dark blue column). For students applying to medical school with slightly below average GPAs of 3.20 to 3.39 and slightly below average MCAT scores of 24 to 26 (first data column in the table, shaded light blue), black applicants were more than 9 times more likely to be admitted to medical school than Asians (56.4% vs. 5.9%), and more than 7 times more likely than whites (56.4% vs. 8.0%). Compared to the average acceptance rate of 16.7% for all applicants with that combination of GPA and MCAT score, black and Hispanic applicants were much more likely to be accepted at rates of 56.4% and 30.5%, and white and Asian applicants were much less likely to be accepted to US medical schools at rates of only 5.9% and 8.0% respectively. We find the same pattern of acceptance rates by ethnic/racial groups for applicants with slightly above average academic credentials. For example, for applicants with MCAT scores of 30 to 32 (slightly above average) and GPAs between 3.40 to 3.59 (average) in the eighth data column (shaded light blue), the acceptance rates for blacks (86.9%) and Hispanics (75.9%) were much higher than the acceptance rate for whites (48.0%) and Asians (40.3%) with those same academic credentials. For all matriculants to US medical schools in the fall of 2015, the average MCAT score for Asians (32.8) and whites (31.8) were above the average MCAT score of 31.4 for all matriculants, while the average MCAT score for Hispanics (28.0) and blacks (27.3) had average MCAT scores below the overall average (see second to last column in table). Likewise, the average GPAs for Asian (3.73) and white (3.73) matriculants were above the overall 3.70 GPA average, while the average GPAs for Hispanic (3.59) and black (3.48) matriculants were below the overall average (see last column in table).

So this reverse discrimination counts for nothing? America has been doing this sort of thing for decades, with Affirmative Action and Race Norming to give black and Hispanic people a leg up. At what point will it be accepted the debt has been paid?

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:35 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 513 words, total size 3 kb.

Carter calls Trump Illegitimate

Timothy Birdnow

Jimmy Carter, the braying jackass of the old Democratic Party, weighs in with his ill-informed opinion, claiming Donald Trump is an illegitimate President.

From the NPR article:

"Well, the president himself should condemn it, admit that it happened, which I think 16 [of the] intelligence agencies have already agreed to say. And there's no doubt that the Russians did interfere in the election. And I think the interference although not yet quantified, if fully investigated would show that Trump didn't actually win the election in 2016. He lost the election, and he was put into office because the Russians interfered on his behalf."

When asked directly if he thought Trump was illegitimate he said 'yes".

Carter told a lie in his statement, too; though multiple agencies did in fact agree with the CIA, they did so out of courtesy but did not investigate the matter themselves. It was just three agencies - the CIA, the FBI, and the NSA - which made the "Russian interference" claims. And those three agencies were headed by Trump hating Obamabots. What we have learned since the election is that there were people at top levels of all three agencies who had it in for Trump and who promised to not allow him to become President.

I suspect Carter knows that. The man has always been a despicable liar.

I'm glad he's wading into this fight. The more we hear from Jimmy Carter the worse it will be for the Democrats.

By the way, who here remembers Jimmy Carter whacking a "killer rabbit" that "menaced" him when he was in a boat? Or his telling Playboy he lusted in his heart after young girls. Or his having hemorrhoid surgery while in office (so undignified - couldn't he wait until he was out of office)? Or his setting policy by asking his daughter Amy what was the most pressing issue (she said the bomb, which led to Roger Staubach's hilarious comment about the St. Louis Cardinals "Q: what is the Cardinals most potent weapon Staubach: I asked my daughter Amy and she said it was the bomb.)

Carter did nothing of any worth for this country. He gave s high gasoline prices. He gave us Stagflation - something the Keynsian economists said was impossible. He gave us double digit interest rates. He gave us the Iranian Revolution. He gave us America Held Hostage. He presided over the decline of the American military. He presided over the decline of the American family farm. And he was a joke, a national embarrassment.

Oh, and Carter was the first President to break the unwritten code of conduct and badmouth his successors.

So keep running the mouth, Jimmy!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:52 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 452 words, total size 3 kb.

LGBTQ Jumping the Shark

Timothy Birdnow

Andrew Sullivan is himself a homosexual, which is what makes this so interesting; Sullivan sees the younger generation turning against the gay/trans movement.

From NY Mag:

I wondered when this would happen. How long would it take, I asked, before a younger generation revolted against the new left orthodoxy that there is no sex binary, or gender binary, or indeed any place for biology in understanding the differences between men and women? How long before boys rebelled against the notion that their sex is actively toxic and in need of psychotherapy? Or how long before girls felt violated or just uncomfortable seeing people of the opposite biological sex in their bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers? How many are miffed that they have to compete with biological males in athletic contests?

New data suggests that that time could be now. For the first time, we’re seeing a sharp drop in tolerance of "LGBTQ” people among the younger generation. This is an entirely new phenomenon. It used to be the young that spearheaded toleration and inclusion. Now they’re suddenly bolting in the opposite direction: "The number of Americans 18 to 34 who are comfortable interacting with LGBTQ people slipped from 53 percent in 2017 to 45 percent in 2018 — the only age group to show a decline,” according to the annual [GLAAD] Accelerating Acceptance report. And that is down from 63 percent in 2016. (Perhaps they should rename the report Decelerating Acceptance.) "36 percent of young people said they were uncomfortable learning a family member was LGBTQ in 2018, compared with 29 percent in 2017, and 24 percent in 2016. 34 percent were uncomfortable learning their doctor was LGBTQ vs. 27 percent a year earlier. 39 percent were uncomfortable learning their child had a school lesson on LGBTQ history vs. 30 percent in 2017.”

Or check this out: 62 percent of young men regarded themselves as "allies” of LGBTQ people in 2016; only 35 percent now say the same — a near-halving of support. Women "allies” have dropped from 65 to 52 percent. The turn began in the year that the Obama administration — with no public discussion or congressional support — imposed critical gender theory on America’s high schools, determining sex to be whatever a student says it is. The imposition of trans ideology by fiat on the entire country’s young — along with severe public stigma for those with even the slightest questions — was almost textbook left authoritarianism.

Sullivan is right about this and it was inevitable, as the LGBTQ movement is at odds with Natural Law. Eventually somebody was going to see the imperial nudity.

Sullivan hits the nail on the head here:

Of course, there is almost no chance that the gay-rights Establishment will relinquish the "LGBTQ” label. They, like most extensions of the Democratic Party, have completely embraced postmodern critical gender and queer theory. My fear is that this will fail to win support and that, as the trans movement keeps pressing and pressing, the backlash will grow and gays and lesbians will become collateral damage.

The gay rights movement was never about dignity or respect. It was always a tool to further alter society and to break the bedrock of the American People. It was about wrecking the family. It was about making marriage extraneous. And it has always taken aim at the core of Conservatism. The family is the primary educational system, and the way to fundamentally alter Humanity is to eliminate it. Marx understood that. So did Lenin.

There is no better way to destroy marriage and the family then to redefine it.

Kudos to Sullivan for having the courage to say it.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:23 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 616 words, total size 4 kb.

Socialism Pays Big for Sanders

Timothy Birdnow

During the debates Comrad Bernie Sanders America's Kentucky Colonel of Communism - fawned over the glories of socialism and promoted his revolution in maroon. Conservative HQ tells us the story.

I left the following comment:

"How come nothing really changes? Nothing will change unless we take on Wall St., insurance industry, pharma industry, military industrial complex, and fossil fuel industry. If we don’t, the rich will get richer and everyone else will be struggling."

End quote.

Aren't these the same people who usually support the Democrats? Anyone?

And he can include himself in the rich that re getting richer. Socialism has been quite profitable for Sanders giving him a net worth over two million bucks, and for his wife, who got a great job at Burlington College and committed bank fraud on a land deal.

Socialism is about fairness, or so Bernie says. Yeah - right.

With our fearless leader it's self-serve, apparently.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.

A Crisis of Faith

Timothy Birdnow

The Bishop of the Belleville, Illinois Diocese has been under fire for some time. He's a black man, and was probably appointed by the Pope because Belleville is a community that has suffered from racial strife in the past. But Bishop Edward K. Braxton has not been popular in the region, and I suspect because he is not a flaming liberal. I may be wrong about that.

At any rate, he has just turned 75 and must tender his resignation. His enemies are waiting with baited breath to see if the Pope accepts it.

It seems to me the complaints about the Bishop are nitpicking. For example, he once told sixth graders there was no Santa Claus. SIXTH GRADERS and the parents were outraged! I hate to break it to them, but somebody should have told them long before. If your sixth grader still believes in Santa you have some problems.

At any rate, the Bishop held a fundraising party for his birthday, and gave an excellent speech which I share with you below:

Dear sisters and brothers in Jesus Christ,

Peace be with all of you!

This evening’s dinner, held on the very day on which I have completed my 75th journey around the sun, is not primarily about me or my birthday. Though, it is a reminder that "There is no day but today. Tomorrow is not promised.” We have only today to love God with our whole being and to love all people as we love ourselves. And, of course, this day is about the inescapable truth that "in a little while you shall see me. And then, again, in a little while, you shall see me no longer!”

Saturday, the commemoration of St. Thomas More, was the 14th anniversary of my installation as the eighth Bishop of this Diocese. In my installation homily, I quoted the last words of St. Thomas More, before he was beheaded by King Henry VIII for his refusal to recognize the King, rather than the Pope, as the supreme head of the Church in England. Sir Thomas said, "The king has commanded me to be brief. So, brief I will be. I die the king’s good servant. But, God’s first. I say none harm. I do none harm. I think none harm. If this be not enough to keep a man alive, then, in Good faith, I long not to live!” Throughout these years, my honest effort has been to live by these words of the great English martyr for the Catholic faith! more...

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1831 words, total size 11 kb.

To Cheat and Lie in L.A.; Vote Fraud Scheme

This courtesy of Judson Phillips:

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 05:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

June 28, 2019

The Democratic Debate Debacle: Part II, Darkness Falls

Dana Mathewson

Disclaimer: I did not watch either of the Left's Komedy Klub presentations. At my age, my doctor urges me to keep my stress levels at a minimum, and I'm happy to comply. She also highly recommends that I refrain from the kind of drinking games presented by such excellent writers as PJMedia's self-styled Vodkapundit, Stephen Green, and Power Line's Steven Hayward -- though I did have a glass of bourbon handy while trying to keep up with the former's "drunkblogging" of the first night's show.

Anyhow, Townhall's Paul Curry provides an excellent overall take on both nights, and tells me -- and anyone reading this who likewise didn't watch -- what we need to know about how far the erstwhile Party of Roosevelt and Kennedy has fallen.

In 1977 "Star Wars" took Hollywood and the world by storm. A new genre was not only introduced, but perfected. People were justifiably certain that no film, let alone a sequel, could actually compare. Then came "The Empire Strikes Back." Darker, more nuanced, and by many accounts, superior. When would we ever witness such a sea change again? Well, on June 27th, 2019 that question was answered.

On Wednesday night, when the closing bell rang on the first Democratic presidential debate, many were justifiably certain that we had seen the pinnacle of progressive hysteria. But where Wednesday seemed like a cast of not ready for primetime players, screaming for socialism, open borders, and identity politics, Thursday night’s cast were the angry, grizzled, and pugnacious players in the race to the left. Not only more hysterical than their preceding contenders but mean spirited and ready to do anything to win. Well, at least the ones that seemed to know why they were there. (Marianne Williamson, Andrew Yang, you know this is for the presidency, right?)

The second greatest mistake one can make in a political campaign is to allow an opponent to define you in negative terms. The greatest sin is to define yourself in those terms. And that is just what the contenders did Thursday night.

Much like Wednesday night’s debacle of Democrat discourse, the candidates screamed for socialism over a strong economy. They assailed the evil 1 percent. They assured the American people, 71 percent of whom feel we have a pretty good thing going, that they were wrong. Like a bad therapist telling a patient, "You’re only happy because you think you're happy.” Fortune cookies dispense greater wisdom.

[...]

But there was a much darker tone to Thursday’s debacle. The Democrats showed not only how extreme they have become but how low they are willing to sink, not as politicians, but as people in general, to achieve their leftist aims. And they defined themselves in the process.

There are plenty of reasons to oppose Joe Biden. He is creepy, sleepy, slurry, and flips more than a 5-year-old on a trampoline. But when Kamala Harris attacked him on his non-role in segregation, she crossed a line she can never come back from. Not that she ever would.

This is the same Kamala Harris that not only fell for the Jussie Smollett hoax, but used it to stir racial division. Not to mention her close connections to both Smollett and his excuser Kim Foxx. This is the same Kamala Harris that took not only pride but center stage in the baseless and shameful attacks on Brett Kavanaugh. This is the same Kamala Harris that has a demonstrated history of using racism and victimhood, either real or perceived, as political weapons.

[...]

Wednesday night saw the Democrats frame their case for unseating Trump based on socialism, open borders, and an America Second, Third, or Wherever philosophy. Thursday saw them etch that philosophy in stone.

They have framed their case as socialism, open borders, America last, and identity politics, and they lose on all of those issues. And rightfully so.

Donald Trump will win easily when this is the case the Democrats make. America will win when the Democrats make such ridiculous arguments. But the cost of the fight will be destructive. After all, can anyone recall the left losing anything without rioting?

On Thursday night Democrats assured a Trump re-election, which is great for the country, but darkness has fallen, and it seldom abates without a fight.

An excellent article indeed! Let us fervently hope the vast majority of the country rejects the message presented over the last two nights!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 01:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 745 words, total size 6 kb.

Arrogance to Think Man can Destroy the Earth with so tiny a Population

Timothy Birdnow

On a Facebook post a man left a comment over a criticism of environmentalism/global warming hysteria by the debating Democrats.

He said:

So you don't think seven and a half billion people can screw up the environment huh

To which I replied:

Half of the Earth's land surface is wilderness. Also, 96 percent of the world's population lives on ten percent of the land. That's not to mention the fact that we are hardly on the seas; 71 percent of the Earth is covered with water. We like to think we have overcrowded the Earth (and it may seem that way since we all cluster together) but the fact is the planet is far, far larger than we.

From space the only sign of human habitation is the Great Wall of China. An alien coming here would see a planetary wilderness. He might see some junk floating around in orbit, and maybe, just maybe, notice the Great Wall, but little else.

The arrogance of the Gang Green is astonishing. We are not the gods we like to think of ourselves as, nor are we destroying the planet; we are a species that is here and may one day be gone, like all the other species that walked across the stage. Earth is but a stage, as Shakespeare rightly observed, and in the end we are but players to be seen no more. Our physical lives aren't what is important, anyway, from any sort of religious perspective, but rather Earth is merely a way station, a place where we learn a few things and wait to serve out our time. It's God's waiting room.

But the Left - agnostic to atheistic and desperate to find meaning in their meaningless materiality - have to believe they are the rulers, the ones who must save the world or destroy it. It's simply a desperate attempt by desperate people to put some meaning in their empty, pathetic lives. A life without God, and no chance for something more, is empty indeed.

Too many people  believe in nothing. That's why things like Global Warming and Transgenderism have become hot topics.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:13 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 370 words, total size 3 kb.

If it ain't broke...

Timothy Birdnow

If it ain't broke...

From the Federalist:

If you listened to the Democratic debate in a vacuum, you wouldn’t be remiss in assuming that the economy is in terrible condition and drastic action must be taken to save the little guy. However, the Democratic Party’s lurch towards socialism would destroy this kind of growth that benefits everyone.

It’s a clear sign of the candidates’ desperation and the weakness of their proposals if lies and misrepresentations are required to sell an increasingly socialist agenda. Maybe the real enemy isn’t the "corporations” Bill de Blasio brought up every chance he had but the false narrative created to fit democratic socialists’ view of the world.

Let's finish that first sentence: DON'T FIX IT! Especially since the Democrats' fix is a cure sure to cause  the disease.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:46 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 139 words, total size 1 kb.

More Thoughts on Robert's betrayal on the Census Question

Timothy Birdnow

Yesterday I wrote about another betrayal by John Roberts - this time the Bush-appointed Clhief Justice sided with the left wing of the Court and ruled the Trump Administration couldn't ask people if they were citizens on the census form. The interesting thing about this is that the SCOTUS didn't rule that the President didn't have the authority to make this rule change but that Trump - by virtue of a hidden political agenda as they see it - didn't give an adequate explanation as to WHY he made the rule change. This despite the obvious fact that we have millions of aliens in this country and that we apportion Congressional districts based on the census and really need to know who is a citizen, a permanent resident, and a trespasser. The real question here is why haven't we been asking this for the last few years, not why are we asking it now. Roberts sided with Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomeyor.

The way this was handled was interesting; it did NOT simply overrule the President, as lower courts have done. But it made it unlikely that the Administration could rework their appeal before the next election. In other words, it was clearly politically motivated.

First, reader Bill H. made the following observation:

Roberts has used that same argument several times when ruling against Trump, usually when Trump is reversing an Obama executive order.
Clearly, somebody knows where Roberts buried a body. Whoever it is knows that knowledge, and the power it conveys, must be used judiciously (so to speak) or it becomes obvious and loses its value. But somebody is holding something over Roberts' head.

I suspect Bill is right; Roberts is compromised and his "services" are used as sparingly as possible to avoid his being outed. If that is not the case then Roberts is himself a backstabbing traitor, someone who lies about who he is so as to trick us stupid deplorables. Either way, it amounts to the same thing in the outcome.

Second, why didn't the Court just rule against Trump and be done with it?

Well, this helps maintain Roberts' "cover" for starters. But more importantly, it keeps the prospect of using the census open for future Democratic Presidents. If a President Sanders, say, wants to add a question about gun ownership, or religious affiliation to the census form, he would be blocked from doing so by this ruling. Can't have that. So the Progs on the Court didn't strike down the authority of the President to ask the question - just stop Trump from asking THIS question. They manage to prevent the Administration from getting a more accurate count, and preventing illegal voting as well as padding the number of Democratic Congressional districts. Very handy trick.

Of course, the goal is to prevent Trump from being re-elected, and perhaps gaining some seats in Congress.

In politics things don't just happily work out. It's strange how often happy accidents happen to the Democrats and the Left - and unfortunate incidents smite Conservatives and the Republicans. Again, it is no accident and anyone who thinks otherwise is more than a fool. Roberts knew what he was doing here. So too did the Progressive wing of the Court. Remember, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a civil rights lawyer with the ACLU before joining the Court, and she is no stranger to this sort of judicial activism. The ACLU probably worked out the whole scheme, called her, then leaned on Roberts with whatever they have on him.

As usual, we are going to have to run the table on the Left or we will lose. They always find ways to cheat.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:57 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 622 words, total size 4 kb.

June 27, 2019

Oops he did it again; John Roberts Spikes Census Question

Timothy Birdnow

I was worried when George W. Bush appointed John Roberts to the Supreme Court. I argued then that Roberts had been around Washington for decades and had a very low profile, and that the Democrats were not at all opposed to him. You cannot be hanging around anywhere for a long period and not make enemies - especially if you are a person in a position of authority in a place like D.C. I knew that if the Democrats didn't howl over Roberts he was not one of us.

While Roberts has not gone completely native, he has become the Anthony Kennedy-esque swing vote on the Court.

Oops; he did it again!

Not content with stiffing America over health insurance and other issues, J.R. has now sided with the Leftists on the Court and issued a stay on the Trump Administration plan to ask about citizenship on the Census form.

From Reuters:

The U.S. Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a significant defeat on Thursday, ruling that his administration did not give an adequate explanation for its plan to include a contentious citizenship question on the 2020 census and preventing its addition to the decennial survey for now.

The justices - in a 5-4 decision with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the court's four liberals in the majority and writing the ruling - upheld part of a federal judge's ruling barring the question in a victory for a group of states including New York and immigrant rights organizations that had challenged the plan.

Now, this question was asked until 1950 of everyone, than was asked of a percentage of the public until 2000. There is considerable historical precedent. And the President is tasked with the Census - not Congress, and not the Courts. He pretty much has carte blanche on how to do this, or is supposed to have the authority, at any rate.

The need for a citizenship question is obvious and urgent. America has millions of illegal aliens - anywhere from 12 (the official number) to as many as 40 million. If we count these people as citizens we artificially boost the numbers in certain areas, giving extra Congressional seats to places that are not entitled to them. This is a direct threat to the integrity of the electoral process and to the balance of power in Congress. That this question should be asked is a no-brainer. Also, legal aliens need to be differentiated from citizens. As of 2017 there were 44.5 MILLION immigrants in the United States - a number higher than the entire population of Canada (which is 37.41 million). We need to know who has citizenship and who does not.

It's strange; the Left is always complaining about the need for "every vote to count" and their desire to protect "democracy" yet they won't even allow the Census to check legal voting status. How does every vote count when you don't even know who has a right to vote?

And SCOTUS has spiked the ball here. Oh, they left the door open, because they couldn't find a way to slam it shut, but they did so in a manner designed to prevent the Trump policy from being implemented before the next election. This is to give the Democratic candidate a leg up in stealing the election. Cute trick. Roberts either fell for it, or was complicit.

The Court did rule the President has the authority to ask this question,. They simply decided to deny Trump the right. I cannot imagine the contortions that went on in their minds.

More from the article:

Roberts said that under a U.S. law called the Administrative Procedure Act, the federal government is required to give a reasoned explanation for its actions.

"Accepting contrived reasons would defeat the purpose of the enterprise," Roberts wrote.

Roberts said that the explanation provided by the government was "more of a distraction."

This is the same tortured logic Roberts employed in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012), where he squeezed Obamacare threw the narrow gate of American jurisprudence by rewriting the law. In this case he is simply ignoring the very reason the Administration is implementing the rule change because he doesn't want to allow this. It is not Roberts' job to determine what is in the heart of Donald Trump, but rather whether his actions are Constitutional. We are not supposed to be a nation of men but of laws.

This illustrates how important it is to put Originalists on the Court. The next President will get to appoint several Justices, and they MUST be Originalists. If we hadn't had eight  years of Barack Obama this would have been a mute point. But the Court sits on the edge of a knife, and John Robetts - Bush's folly - did serious damage to America and the Constitution.

In a saner world the Administration would go forward with their plan and tell SCOTUS to enforce their ruling themselves. But we don't live in a sane world.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:35 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 849 words, total size 6 kb.

Triple Shark Attack Kills Student in Bahamas

Timothy Birdnow

It's unusual to be killed by a shark. This poor girl was killed by three of them.

https://www.bnd.com/news/nation-world/national/article232011812.html#storylink=hpdigest_nation

According to the Associated Press, Jordan Lindsay, a 21 year old college student vacationing in the Bahamas with her family, was bitten multiple times and died of blood loss. One arm was completely torn off.

One has to wonder at the brazenness of the attack. Are we protecting these sharks too much, making them lose any fear they had of humans? Probably.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:49 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 89 words, total size 1 kb.

Sanders Camp Leaked ICE Raid Info

Timothy Birdnow

Bernie Sanders' campaign sent out warning about the recent ICE raids, in violation of Federal Law. Will he be prosecuted for Obstruction of Justice?

According to Vox via Newsmax:

Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign over the weekend sent out an email warning of ICE raids in 10 cities, Vox reports.

The email, sent Saturday morning by Sanders' press secretary Belen Sisa, had a subject line that reads, "ICE raids targeting 10 cities start Sunday. Know your rights."

It also included graphics in English and Spanish with a list of immigrant rights based on guidance from the American Civil Liberties Union.

"Multiple news outlets are reporting that Immigration and Customs Enforcement is planning deportation raids against immigrant families in Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New Orleans, New York City, and San Francisco starting early Sunday morning," the email, obtained by Vox, reads. "Whether or not you are an immigrant, please share this 'Know Your Rights' information widely to help those who might fall victim to the cruel and inhumane policies of the Trump administration."

That is a crime, punishable by up to five years in prison. Who will be held accountable here?

This is exactly what led to Donald Trump's election; there appear to be two sets of laws, one for the elites and another for the general public. People like Sanders or Hillary Clinton never seem to be held accountable for breaking laws, while others have the book thrown at them (hello, General Flynn!)

The DOJ needs to open an investigation and prosecute someone to the fullest extent of the law. They may not, because it would appear the Trump Administration is using the force of law to go after a political enemy. This is the dirtiest of dirty pool.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:08 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.

Trans on all fours Barking Like Dog at Tween Library Event

Timothy Birdnow

For those of us who think "transgenderism" is a mental disorder, here we have proof.

From the Life Site News article:

SEATTLE, June 26, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — A public library in Washington state was the platform for a drag show and "pride celebration designed by teens for teens" that featured a man dressed in drag who roared incoherently while on all fours. One parent called it "demonic.”

Demonic, yes, and just plain bats. One can almost see the little bird pop out of the clock here. This is what happens when you flirt with overturning reality; you lose your sense of it yourself. These people are like Harley Quinn from the old Batman comics; a psychiatrist driven insane by the Joker.

Sadly, it's not funny. And they are trying to promote this to America's children.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 148 words, total size 1 kb.

Planned Parenthood Prayer and Protest in St. Louis

Bev Ellen forwards this:

Jericho Walk at Planned Parenthood

On Saturday, June 29th, Defenders of the Unborn will be at Planned Parenthood at 10:00 a.m.
4251 Forest Park for the second Jericho Walk of 2019
With the possibility that Planned Parenthood will be closed it will be paramount that we continue to pray for the complete closing of this last abortion mill in Missouri.

God has said if we are faithful He will answer our prayers.

This ecumenical prayer service will begin at 10:00 a.m.

We will pray for all those who work here and for the abortionist that come here to kill babies.

We will pray for the closing of the last surgical abortion Mill in Missouri.

We will walk 7 times in front and side of Planned Parenthood

Please take the time to join us. It will only take approximately 45 minutes but it will be the BEST Pro Life 45 minutes! Signs will be provided

God bless you,
Mary Maschmeier
Defenders of the Unborn
Founder/ President
314-346-9052

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:34 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.

Chrstimas Sauce and Ganders

Judson Phillips observes:

Conservative Christians should unite and demand that corporate America treat December for Christians, the way they treat June for Gays. That means promotions that say "Merry Christmas" and corporate logos in red and green

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:26 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

June 26, 2019

Reality bites Joe Biden’s “Clean Energy Revolution”

Paul Driessen

Presidential candidate Joe Biden recently announced his "Plan for a Clean Energy Revolution and Environmental Justice.” My analysis gives his plan a failing grade. Not only would it cost many times the "$1.7 trillion in federal funds over ten years” that he uses to entice voters: in dollars, lost jobs, lower living standards, fewer freedoms and huge environmental from his make-believe clean, green, renewable, sustainable wind, solar and battery "replacement” energy.

Exactly how many turbines, panels and batteries would we need? On how many millions of acres? Made from how many billions of tons of metals and concrete? Extracted from how many trillions of tons of ore? In the USA or overseas, in someone else’s backyard? Under what child labor and environmental standards? Even worse, all these Green New Deal plans smell of eco-fascism: state control of companies and production, government control of our lives, and silencing and punishing anyone who challenges climate crisis claims or green energy agendas. And what "justice” will he bring anyone?

Perhaps Mr. Biden can address all these issues – at his next town hall meeting or press conference. Perhaps folks who read my articles would like to ask him a few questions like these.


more...

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 02:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1652 words, total size 12 kb.

The questions Robert Mueller must be asked on July 17

Dana Mathewson

A Fox News opinion piece by Jay Sekulow teases more than it answers, but does suggest that Robert Mueller may have a more difficult time testifying to Congress than he expects when he appears before "two Democratically-controlled House committees after being subpoenaed by them." This is because, although he has promised to give no new information and instead stick to "the script:" his report that is already available to them (although I'll bet you none of the Democrats have read it), there are (gasp) Republicans on those committees too.

Let's let Jay continue.

The Democrats chose to subpoena Mueller; but their partisan move will backfire on them -- significantly.

The hearing -- set up by the angry Democrats -- will provide a forum where the rest of the story about the Russia investigation must be told. But the problem for Democrats is that Mueller will not provide any new information.

How do I know this? Because Mueller’s report will be his testimony and his testimony will be his report.

Mueller has made it clear he will not testify about any further details that were not already included in his public report. His conclusion: there was no collusion. While Mueller elected not to reach a conclusion on obstruction, the Justice Department did – there was none.

The upcoming Congressional hearings in July are pure political theatre. There is nothing new to learn. This is just an effort by Democrats to keep the anti-Trump narrative alive as long as they can.

But Mueller’s appearance before Congress is certain to create problems for Democrats.

Why? Because Mueller will face questions from Republicans, too. Discerning questions. Fact-finding questions.Questions Americans have wanted to be answered for a long time. Questions that will get to what really went on.

There are many difficult questions that Mueller will face. Here’s just a few:

  • When did you know that there was, in fact, no collusion or conspiracy by the Trump campaign with Russia?
  • What did you do with evidence gathered by former FBI agent Peter Strzok?
  • Why did you not take an inventory of the contents of Strzok’s phone when he was terminated?
  • Why did you allow the phone to be wiped clean and be reissued?
  • Do you really believe it is the job of a prosecutor to exonerate a person after an investigation? Did you not conflate the prosecution’s burden of proof?

These questions are just the beginning. There will be more questions.Questions about conflicts of interest. Questions about evidence of political bias. Questions about irregularities. There will be more questions. And Mueller will not be able to avoid.

Mueller will have a lot to explain.

The fact is that Mueller’s report really was an exoneration of President Trump. There was no collusion. No obstruction.

The investigation is over. We won.

Uh-huh. A lot of 'splainin' to do indeed. I imagine the Democrats on the committees will do their best to shut the Republicans down, and I greatly hope the Republicans insist "No, it's OUR turn now!"

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 01:51 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 517 words, total size 5 kb.

<< Page 1 of 7 >>
217kb generated in CPU 0.19, elapsed 0.4231 seconds.
43 queries taking 0.2618 seconds, 180 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.