In response to the poison gas attack in Syria, some are calling for war. I’d like to point out a few salient facts:
1. It would require at least 100,000 American troops.
2. It will require at least 10 years of effort.
3. The enemies of Assad in Syria will, once Assad is out, attack us.
4. Within a short time of starting, the left will be calling our troops “war criminals”.
5. A very, very large number of people will die.
6. Syria is more a geographic expression than a nation; it is a compendium of peoples, many of whom simply do not like each other and who refuse to accept a government with the “other” holding any power.
Now, this doesn’t mean we certainly shouldn’t fight – but these are things to keep in mind; and only advocate for war if you’re (a) ok with all that and (b) have a plan for it all.
Ben Rhodes – he of the lying propaganda to sell Obama’s Iran deal – has been extra vigorous in defending Rice. How long before Rhodes is caught up in the scandal? Remember, Rhodes created an echo-chamber in the MSM to sell the Iran deal…one thing the whole Trump-Russia thing smacks of is “echo chamber”.
Don Surber is of the opinion that Trump trolled the MSM and forced them, as it were, to eventually get to ObamaGate.
Rather than being reports about foreigners with incidental info about Americans, the reports appear to be almost private-investigator type things…all sorts of personal details.
I’m quite confident that all GOP candidates for President were monitored…and I’m getting confident that spying on political opponents was a routine activity under President Obama. Remember: he got his boost to the top of the political heap by using a dirty trick to get sealed divorce records unsealed, thus sinking his most credible opponent. Given this and things like the weaponization of the IRS, it is on Obama and his minions to provide some sort of convincing evidence that spying on Trump didn’t happen.
First Lady Melania Trump got her first official White House photo – and a rather fetching photo it is. Her arms were crossed, and apparently our liberal friends are upset about this.
Blogs For Victory 
Is it just me or does the current crop of elected Democrats look like the Land of Misfit Toys? I watched a little bit of Elizabeth Warren the other day and honestly she doesn’t look like she’s right in the head. And Nancy Pelosi is in danger of a botox overdose.
Remember when Obama was hailed for working with Russia and removing all of Assad’s chemical weapons? Well, it’s obvious now that that was just more empty praise for the Nobel Prize winner.
How many times have we rushed into the Middle East to “save the day” like Dudley Do Right? I agree with Mark and we ought to really think this one through.
I am encouraged that Trump is finding his footing as President and the Bannon move proves that he will make the tough decisions. He is becoming more measured with his tone, careful with his words, and decisive with his moves and I think our allies are thrilled that there is a no nonsense American finally in charge.
If I ever got convicted of a crime and sentenced to jail, even though I was born a male, if I said I relate as being a female, does that mean I could chose to be sent to a female prison? Wonder how the left would square that hole.
How is this going to work for the left? They’re advocating for both Islam and multiple variations of gender designation. Don’t they realize Islam is far MORE strict about male / female roles and do NOT tolerate anything other than male / female specific designations? Kind of wonder what their reaction will be when their so called diversity acceptance movement requires opposing choices. Maybe they’ll have multiple deer in headlight moments? Could be fun to watch their heads exploding.
Another leftist issue that is bubbling up and will be fun to watch is the outrage amongst transgendered women at the “pussy” hats worn by women marchers.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/29/transgender-people-are-now-oppressed-because-pussy-hats-equate-womanhood-with-having-a-vagina/
Proving beyond a shadow of doubt that progressivism is a mental disease.
A lady caller to Rush just made one of the most brilliant suggestions I’ve heard in a while. Now that the nuclear option is being employed to confirm Judge Gursuch, Republicans should use the opportunity to expand the Supreme Court from 9 to 11 members and immediately confirm 2 more Conservatives to the court. There’s also an excellent chance that Trump will get to appoint 2 or 3 more justices. Imagine how long it would take the Left to reverse an 8 – 3 or 9 – 2 conservative majority on the SC the next time they regain power, and imagine how much Leftist damage such a court could undo.
I would like to see all the agencies gutted and downsized and then to give hiring preferences to non Ivy League applicants.
I like the idea of expanding the Court but what we really need is a vigorous rebuttal, every time it raises its ignorant head, that there is the slightest foundation for a “balanced” Court. The very concept is an admission of a desire to use the positions of SCOTUS Justices to subvert the Constitution by applying personal or political ideology to rulings, and we need a voice that will jump on this concept and blow it to smithereens every single time it is brought up—long before it becomes a new issue with a new appointee.
I got called away from the computer before I could add something to my comment, above. That is, that my comment in no way implied that Spook’s reference to wanting Conservative justices is based on ignorance. Spook and the word “ignorant” are not even in the same dictionary.
In my mind, someone who is a political Conservative is one who, by his or her very definition, would not use the position of a Justice to subvert the Constitution to advance an ideology—other than the ideology that our government must be run according to specific rules and laws set forth in that Constitution.
I supposed it is theoretically possible that a Liberal could simultaneously hold Leftist views of government and commit to using the position of a SCOTUS Justice only to strictly apply Constitutional oversight to cases before the Court, without introducing his or her Leftist preferences.
Theoretically. But until such a rare creature appears, we have to focus on political Conservatives who are already defined as holding that view. And we have to strenuously reject the very concept of a “balanced” Court.
By my calculation, it would take the left about 2 months to expand the court to get to a 10-9 liberal majority. Probably should leave the court expansion to the left. Best reasonable similar action we can do is split the 9th circuit into two.
Regardless of the fact that it took too long to complete the confirmation of Judge Gorsuch to the SC and that Trump might also be able to nominate additional like minded judges in his term as President, I hope he has the opportunity to quickly fill many of the circus courts and other federal judgeships as well. It seems many of the lower courts are filled with left leaning judges who have greater opportunity to shape America, in many ways more so than the SC, especially given that only a very low % of the rulings from the lower courts ever get to be reheard from the SC.
This is why we need to stop the process of lifetime appointments to the judiciary, or—if there are compelling reasons to have lifetime appointments—then legislation making oaths of office binding. If every single district court or federal court judge knows, up front, that every single ruling of his or hers is going to be scrutinized for its adherence to an oath to uphold the law and protect and defend the Constitution, and not have to make its laborious way all the way to the Supreme Court, he or she is going to be a little more careful in ruling.
Right now the single avenue of correction of judicial rulings is the Supreme Court. This gives massive power to lower courts, and they use it with abandon, because they are not playing with their own money.