The ratings for the Oscars crashed to a new low – which makes us laugh, but it also gives me another clue that things aren’t as our MSM presents. You see, if people were really as anti-Trump and ready to punish GOPers as the MSM says, then people would have gladly tuned in to the Oscars to get their dose of Trump-trashing. That they didn’t and, indeed, stayed away by the millions, tells me that under the sound and fury, a quite implacable level of support is building for Trump and the GOP.
While the Democrats keep shouting about immigration and DACA, Trump continues to actually enforce the law. It is things like this which keep Trump’s supporters on board, in spite of an occasional verbal gaffe.
Don Surber talks up a proposed West Virginia law protecting the right to life, but it was something Surber brought up which really stood out:
West Virginia has a low abortion rate of 6 per 1,000 women (15-44) per year. The states that are lowest in the nation at 4 per 1,000 are Kentucky, Mississippi, and South Dakota.
The highest in the nation is New York at 24, but the list by Kaiser Family Foundation does not include California.
That is astonishing – on two levels: the amount of children being killed in New York, but also the amazing fact that in a world where birth control is cheap and readily available, that many yet get pregnant and then go on to have a much more expensive abortion. I leave aside the overall morality of it – of course they should just refrain from sex if they don’t want to have kids, but on a sheer level of practicality, if you are going to have the sex, why not exercise a very slight level of judgement?
Senator Flake takes time off from warning us about creeping tyranny to propose a law which would creep that tyranny right up in our grill.
Iran’s Mullah-in-Chief opines on gun control and comes to the exact same conclusion as our Progressive friends. This surprises absolutely no one.
Robert Stacy McCain points out the latest Progressive attack on free speech – in this case, intimidating the kids of a Conservative. This is wicked, but also clever…the left is telling everyone that if you cross them, they will go after those near and dear to you. This is why, by the way, we shan’t surrender the Second Amendment.
Korean girls try American barbecue…
Secession: it is the answer.
Blogs For Victory 
Interesting article on “Civility”.
Agree, 100%!
Kurt Schlichter nails it. I quit playing by the Left’s rules a while back, and it was quite liberating. Now I examine everything the Left does and says through the filter of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals as that really is their playbook.
I LOVED that article. I have been saying this for a long time now:
The problem is that progressives are not people of good faith. They are not trying to reason. They are not trying to compromise. They do not accept the basic concept that all American citizens have inalienable rights and that the law must apply equally to everyone. They hate us.
So true. They are not honorable people and we can not treat them as such.
The problem is that we were nice for far too long. The hate and contempt of the left for Normal Americans grew and grew without any challenge, with any cost, without any pushback,
100% correct. Those days are over.
From Mark’s linked article to Powerline:
In addition, the regular backlog now stands at around 658,000 cases. Put the two together and there are at least a million possible problematic cases of aliens living in the United States.
And here is just one of those backlogged cases that was recently discovered:
A Mexican man who was deported twice and had a history of arrests was able to assume the identity of an American citizen and receive more than $360,000 in government benefits for 37 years……….The man who called himself Riojos gave an address in the Southern California city of Chula Vista, according to the criminal complaint. But when investigators visited the home in January 2016, the landlord admitted Riojos never lived there but instead resided in Mexico, court papers show.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5460875/Mexican-man-assumed-American-identity-37-years.html#ixzz58yBecrmh
Democrats and the Media need to explain to the American voter why they encourage this to continue. And then while they are explaining that, maybe they can shed some light on this:
At least seven House Democrats are known to have direct ties to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, a notorious anti-Semite and racist who has called Jews “satanic” and said white people “deserve to die.”……With the exception of Davis, the Democratic representatives have ignored repeated requests for comment regarding their relationships with Farrakhan.
Would it be correct to label this faction the “Alt Left”?
Speaking of civility – here is DNC Chair Perez:
…you know, there was a term we used to use a lot when I was a prosecutor, and that was the term of consciousness of guilt. There’s a lot of people acting like they’ve been involved in wrongdoing….And why he continues to be Putin’s poodle. You know, he says he’s a tough guy, but he’s really Putin’s lap dog. And the only reason I can think of is because Putin has something on him, and that, to me, is becoming clearer and clearer with every indictment, with every guilty plea…..I think he’s the most dangerous president in American history.”
Shouldn’t we ask Perez and his predecessor DWS why they employed Pakistani used car salesman to run their IT department?
Just an aside—-in Europe, poodles are very respected. They are used for their original purpose, which is hunting, as well as extensively for guard dog duty and police dogs. It took Americans to screw up the breed by making it “cute” in miniaturizing it and making it a yappy lap dog. I once saw an electrician in my house hit the top of the ladder in a microsecond when my 90-pound poodle strolled into the room (a dog my brother referred to as “Cujo”) because when he was serving in Germany he worked with trained attack dogs and the most lethal of them, because of their intelligence and ability to reason and problem-solve, were the poodles. Leave it to a Dem to make a snarky ignorant comment like this.
I just have to say this to people like the hyperventilating Ann Coulter. Reagan legalized 3 million illegal immigrants with the promise from Democrats that border security would happen. It never did. Trump has proposed to legalize just over half of that in exchange for border security and an end to chain migration and I believe Trump will actually make that happen, so if it does, I support this deal all day long. Secure the border and end this issue as a political football for Democrats and people like Ann Coulter.
I can’t figure Ann out. She was one of the first, and loudest, Trump cheerleaders way back when nothing in history and little in his contemporary speech indicated much in the way of conservative ideology. It always struck me as Identity Politics, that she liked HIM and didn’t care about his politics. Then when he showed a fairly consistent commitment to the conservative policies he picked up along the way, she cut him loose when he didn’t comply 100% with what she wanted, even though her support started back when very little he said sounded even remotely conservative. Now she seems locked into Identity Politics, just refusing to like anything he says or does even when it is pretty much what we want.
There is a difference between “legalizing” immigrants and giving them that “path to citizenship” the Left demands. For me, it is that difference that ticked me off so much about Trump. Legalize, yes. Make them citizens, no. But this whole citizenship thing is clouded and confused by the improper interpretations of the 14th Amendment, so the whole thing is kind of a mess. And of course Congressional Republicans lack the thought processes to work through this, to dig down to the underlying issues and resolve them and then build, upon that foundation, a coherent policy. As for waiting around for Dems to honor their word, why bother? We know they won’t, so move on without them.
I liked Rush’s idea – legalize them but they don’t have the right to vote for another 15 years. After all, that’s why the Democrats want them in the first place.
Why let them vote at all? And remember, being “allowed to vote” is just another way of saying “citizen”.
I think it would serve our nation well to have a large population of people who are not and cannot become citizens because they came to this country illegally, no matter how old they were at the time—unless they serve honorably in the military or an equivalent national service—but who can, as long as they follow the law, live here, prosper and have good lives. It would be a way of saying “We put a high value on citizenship” and I think that is a message lacking in every comment about this “path to citizenship” for people who, if they respected this country, wouldn’t even be here.
If they truly value citizenship, they can earn it through military service or the equivalent. If all they want to do is vote, well, that tells me a lot about them.
But until we fix the misinterpretations of the 14th Amendment, those people can have children who are considered citizens.
There is a valid argument for being more selective in citizenship – for instance, Athens’ ancient population was mostly non-citizens. You had to be born of a citizen, or do some extraordinary service to the nation to become a citizen. Back in the day when we had millions of square miles and few people, making citizenship easy made sense. But, times change. On the flip side, the Romans extended citizenship to all adults of the Empire only when being a citizen was meaningless as the last vestiges of self-rule had disappeared (it was done because it was noted that certain taxes only applied to Roman citizens).
I would raise the voting age back up to 21. I’d make citizenship a two-fold thing: you have to be born of a citizen, and make a distinct declaration of loyalty to the United States upon reaching the age of 21. I’d have the only way to get around that is to complete two years of honorable service in the armed forces. I would have provisions in law which would strip citizenship under certain circumstances (all with due process of law, of course): obvious treason would do it, of course; but something like what Jane Fonda did during the Vietnam War would be grounds for withdrawing citizenship, even if no other punishment was meted out for it. Persistent failure to pay taxes. Persistent criminal behavior. Naturalization would only be granted to legal aliens under certain circumstances – military service, naturally; but also by special provision under law for great non-military service to the nation. Other than that, you come in as alien, you’ll stay one…though any children born in the United States would be allowed to take an oath of loyalty to the United States at 21 and thus become citizens.
People should feel that being a citizen is a boon of great worth.
I need to think some of your suggestions through, but for now, I’d add making that oath of loyalty binding. That is, if it is broken the benefits stemming from it are removed.
I agree with you too about Ann, and I use to really like her.
Have you seen this headline:
North Korea says it’s willing to hold talks with US and halt nuclear pursuit while negotiations last
This will disappoint the media
but for now, I’d add making that oath of loyalty binding. That is, if it is broken the benefits stemming from it are removed.
We keep having this conversation. I’ve been thinking about this a great deal lately, including involvement in several Oath Keepers threads that dealt with the topic. Given the mission of that organization, it’s amazing how many Oath Keepers didn’t seem to know that it is not a crime, and there is no penalty for a public servant violating his or her oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. I think figuring out a way to make the oath binding would be a major step in securing the greatest experiment in self governance that is the United States of America for future generations.
The oath has always been treated as sort of a gentleman’s agreement based on each individual’s sense of honor and personal integrity. I don’t know at what point public servants started willfully violating their oath, but it certainly went down hill with the rise of the Progressive Movement in the early 20th century, where interpretation of the Constitution became more subjective, original interpretation gave way to precedent and case law, and the left side of the political spectrum began to see the “ends justify the means” as a viable political strategy.
The majority of members of the United States Congress violate their oath every time they vote for legislation that has no constitutional basis. Over the course of our history, this amounts to thousands of bills. Members of the Judiciary violate their oath every time they rule in favor of something that is clearly a violation of the Constitution, like ObamaCare. (As a side note, have you ever researched the convoluted measures Congress took to establish the income tax, which was clearly prohibited by the Constitution?) And elected and appointed members of the executive branch violate their oath every time an executive order is issued (Obama EOs were shut down by the courts numerous time and often unanimously) or a regulation is issued that has no basis in the Constitution. There are so many aspects of the federal bureaucracy that have no basis in the Constitution, it would be difficult to know where to start, or would you pick an arbitrary starting point going forward?. Who would decide what constitutes an oath violation? What would be the mechanism for prosecuting and punishing those who violate their oath?
IIRC, you’d suggested in the past that some kind of non-partisan civilian commission be established to monitor and prosecute oath violations. On the surface that sounds good, but who would establish such a commission? It seems to me it would have to be established by congressional legislation or executive order, which would be as problematic as Congress establishing term limits on itself, or the President voluntarily limited his/her own power. As a mutual friend of ours is fond of saying, “notgonnahappen.com”
I agree that putting the power of acting on an oath violation into the hands of a commission would pose its own problems, but I think that over time this would result in a clearer understanding of the actual powers delegated to Congress by the Constitution as well as the responsibilities and limitations of the judiciary. The challenges and then the arguments would be very educational, and the prospect of having to go through this would create a more thoughtful approach to legislation.
The first few years would be chaotic, but simply having the law in place would serve several interests.
1. It would lay out a firm foundation for legislators. If a legislator were to take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and then came back with the defense that he didn’t understand what that meant, or that he thought voting for something that was not part of the delegated power of the federal government was not a violation of that oath, he’d be basically admitting that he was an idiot. And the very act of having to defend his position would have a chilling effect on what is now a very casual approach to just ignoring the rules.
2. It would start to educate the public about what the Constitution says, and what it means. We know that the vast majority of Americans literally have no clue as to what the document means, and opening up public hearings would lead to public dialogues and TV shows like 60 Minutes explaining various arguments that have been held in the past about various challenges. We know that our schools won’t do this, but maybe this kind of law and its resulting arguments and challenges would.
3. I think the biggest impact would be on judges, as their rulings are easier to compare to Constitutional standards and they seem to be a lot more arrogant about simply doing whatever they want, because now they have immunity from everything but overt law-breaking, and few lawyers and judges will challenge their own. A tribunal where citizens could file complaints, complaints with teeth and consequences, would shake up the activist judges.
I read once that any new bill in Congress is supposed to be accompanied by a brief explaining its compliance with Constitutional requirements and restrictions. I find that hard to believe. I have thought for years this should be a requirement and when I read that it already is I was amazed and believe it is just another thing to ignore.
But let’s say that there is a bill to increase federal involvement or authority on any issue that is not clearly covered in the 10th Amendment. Opponents could then argue against it on those grounds, with much more support for such an argument than they would have today when the response is likely to be “the 10th WHAT?” So the Lib persists, in spite of having the Constitution quoted to him in the Congressional Record. But he would do so knowing that if he were to be found guilty of violating his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution he would lose his position and its benefits. Bye-bye, lifelong pension, just for starters. So he is a lot more likely to weigh the problems of trying to do an end run around the Constitution than he is now, when there is no consequence for simply ignoring it.
I could see a trickle down effect. Let’s say the Dem Senator from Colorado is found guilty of violating his oath, and loses his position, and the current governor is a Republican and appoints a Republican to replace him. All of a sudden Dems are going to be a lot more careful about who they nominate and elect, knowing that they will have to require a lot more attention to the actual wording of our rule of law, because they can’t afford to turn over seats to the opposition. All of a sudden voters will want to cast their votes for people who are more likely to stay in office, instead of throwing them away on people who have a history of being pretty casual about being restrained by the Constitution.
I think this would result in Dems moving their concerns away from getting the feds to enact their agendas and focusing instead on state governments, where the constitutional restrictions are so much more flexible. At the state level really the only restriction is that it can’t VIOLATE the Constitution, but that leaves a vast area of permissible actions. Which, I point out, is the purpose of the Constitution being written the way it is anyway.
I’m not saying that enforcement of such a law would be easy or goof-proof, but I do believe the existence of such a law would achieve the things I just outlined.
You have the floor…………..
RE: the income tax. That would be a good argument for getting rid of an INCOME tax altogether, and moving to a consumption tax instead (instead of, not in addition to) of a tax on income. That would solve so many of our problems. It would be constitutional, it would strip the IRS of most of its powers, it would bring a lot of people into the tax system who pay nothing now because they have no income to declare but they buy a lot of stuff—-drug dealers and prostitutes come to mind, but there are all sorts of illegal enterprises that produce vast revenues that are never declared as income. It would put control over out finances back in our own hands—-if I want to save all the money I earn, I just have to stop buying new stuff till I have saved what I want. And then I can buy that new car and pay the 17% consumption tax on top of the purchase price. In the meantime my old car has kept more if its value because when I sell it the buyer won’t have any tax on it at all.
I do believe the existence of such a law would achieve the things I just outlined.
When I try to imagine how such a law would work, I imagine it exactly the same way as you, but the question remains — how would such a law come into existence? (if I were King, it wouldn’t be a problem) And if it were a citizen commission, it would probably have to have some Constitutional lawyers on permanent staff, which would open another whole can of worms. About the only way I could see it happening would be as a Constitutional Amendment proposed by an Article V Convention of States with the commission composed of 1 or two members from each state appointed by the Governor for a specific term, maybe even rotating like the Senate with 1/3 of the members changing every two years. Given that so many currently serving Congressmen and Senators routinely violate their oaths, the likelihood that such a law would be proposed by someone in either house of Congress, much less receiving a majority vote is somewhere between slim and none — and Slim left town.
There might be a certain value in having some of the true conservative members of Congress sponsor such a bill, because this would be virtue signaling of a good kind—-it would an in-your-face “we got nothing to lose” statement. And arguing against it would be problematic, kind of admitting that being bound to uphold the Constitution is just not an acceptable restriction. The debate alone would be valuable. I also think that upon reflection a lot of Congresscritters might welcome such a law because it would remove the burden of trying to appease voters who demand things from them. It would free them up to do serious federal business, and it would put a lot more power in the hands of state parties.
As for who would sit on the commission, surely there are some retired constitutional lawyers and some retired judges who would like to keep a hand in. They would be held to the same oaths and the same oversight. If the whole experiment failed, it could be repealed, but in the meantime the idea would be out there, the people would have been exposed to the daring and no doubt foreign concept that the Constitution means something, and a lot of Constitutional scofflaws woul have been scolded if not fired.
Have the law go into effect the day after it is passed, and grandfather in prior violations.
The debate alone would be valuable.
Wouldn’t it? It would be worth the cost of a few cases of popcorn just to see members of Congress explain why they shouldn’t be bound to their Constitutional oath.
There might be a certain value in having some of the true conservative members of Congress sponsor such a bill, because this would be virtue signaling of a good kind—-it would an in-your-face “we got nothing to lose” statement
Out Tea Party group is having a legislative session next month for local, state and federal candidates to speak, and/or give legislative updates. Our U.S. Congressman is a friend of mine and a member of the House GOP Study Committee’s Steering Committee. I will ask him what he thinks about such a law. You might contact Corey Gardner and ask him the same.
I also think that upon reflection a lot of Congresscritters might welcome such a law because it would remove the burden of trying to appease voters who demand things from them.
That is a great point!
Cory Gardner has proved to be a major disappointment. I think some it might be due to being a rookie and not having a competent staff in place. I wrote him a short and succinct comment on some legislation and got a canned response saying he would get back to me later with a specific response, and then in a couple of days got a paragraph pasted from his web site that did not address the legislation or my comment. As long as his filters are run by people who don’t know what they are doing, there is no reason to try to contact him—-though some day if I am in a town where he has an office I might stop in to see if there is a person there. Right now my impression is that any email sent to him is probably tossed into one of a handful of vague categories and then a button is pushed to send a canned response to each of them. He needs a staff geared to helping him represent his constituency, not just to process communications in the fastest and easiest way possible.
I’ve been thinking about this and realized that when we have been talking about this, I have left out part of my calculations.
As you well know, I am constantly harping on the need to better understand and then use the tactics of the Left. One of the secrets to their successes is that they don’t expect to get what they want in one giant leap. Instead, they approach their goals in increments—-they work on gun control, for example, by putting out the umbrella message that guns are bad, but their efforts are to nibble away, a bit at a time. So they go after the materials made to manufacture ammunition, they go after high-capacity magazines, they go after a certain type of weapon they can demonize with a scary name (ASSAULT !!!! rifles !!) and so on. It is a war of attrition, but every time they make a move it is based on what they have done before, whether that is an actual accomplishment or just the implanting of an idea. They lie in wait for an event to give them a chance to drag it out again.
So we could do that, too. When a 9th Circuit judge makes a ruling that is a contradiction to Constitutional law, with this idea already in place we could jump on that like a duck on a June bug and make a big deal out of it—“See? This is why we need to make that oath binding. There are no consequences for violating it.”
I would not expect a move to make oaths of office binding to achieve the entire goal in one big step, but any progress at all, any movement at all, any attention drawn to the problem, would be a step that is not being taken now. If we wait till we have an idea that we think will surge ahead in one move, we will be waiting a very long time.
So I think we play their game. We get some Republicans to sponsor a bill, and we push the pundits to discuss it and get the idea out there to the public. The question would be “why do you think we need such a bill?” which would open the door to discussion of the various violations of the various oaths of office. Pass or fail, the idea is out there. If it fails, then come back with it again and again, till the concept itself is implanted and it is no longer a novel idea but has started to get people talking about it during coffee breaks and in car pools. If it passes, fine. If it doesn’t, then it can build the first step.
I could see it becoming a debate question, which would be a great way to get it out there and to pin down the Libs who would fight it. To those who fight it the response is simple: if you think the law is wrong, then change it. Till then, do you support following the law or breaking it?
Admit it—it would be fun to own a gotcha question for a change.
I expressed my opinion on this a while back. Though I’d love to see such a law in place, I’d use great caution before in putting it in place. For one, as is being discussed here, who would decide when a person is in violation of their oath and to what extent? In these times, it seems it would be near impossible to assemble a team of people not swayed by political bias and a personal agenda – journalist maybe (just kidding). That in itself makes such a law, very dangerous. If we could agree in general terms to make the “Violation of Oath” (VOO) law, I’d strongly suggest all parties play devil’s advocate by viewing the details of the law and intentionally attempting to use the stated provisions against their own members to see how it might play out. We are currently seeing various attempts to impeach Trump, regardless of how farfetched some of these challenges are. You can bet those same people would take apart the VOO law, search relentlessly to find anything Trump said or did that could remotely be construed to be in breach of the VOO law, and push with everything they could to see something stick.
Also, I think we are all in agreement there are numerous persons who would quickly get the boot for their multiply violations. Judges in particular come to mind. Would a ruling against person be subject to multiple appeals / lawsuits? If so, that means courts / judges get to place another level of dissenting view in the process. If not, how could a person protect against false accusations? These are just a few of the things I see that makes it difficult administrate such a law.
First of all, the Constitution is very very clear on many points, a little less so on others but that is mostly due to changes in language over the centuries. So if the 10th Amendment says Congress cannot enact any law about anything that is not specifically delegated to it, and Congress enacts a law about something clearly not delegated to it, the complaint that Congress violated oaths of office would be pretty clear. We already know of countless times this has happened, but it occurred with the knowledge that no one would do anything about it except challenge the law. That is the difference. Challenging the law leaves those who wrote it off the hook. Being on the hook, being held personally responsible, would add a whole new dimension to law-making.
Go ahead and grandfather in existing violations, such as the Social Security program and Medicare, because we have made too many people dependent on them. Those would be addressed in a decade or two, in shifting them to state authority, where they belong. By that time there should be better understanding of what does and what does not belong under federal authority.
Here is one thing to think about. If you work for the IRS and you determine that 20 people owe money in taxes and penalties, and after these 20 people have paid tens or hundreds of thousands dollars fighting this ruling and 19 of them prevail, at great cost to them and to the country, will you be penalized for your mistakes? No. There are no consequences for being wrong, so you can roll the dice with impunity. You can drag these people into court even if they have proved the have followed existing laws and precedents. You are not playing with your own money. If you’re wrong, so what? Not your problem. It’s up to them to defend themselves and pay for their defense. Now change the IRS management model, so you are held responsible for your decisions. Are you going to be so cavalier about dragging people into tax court knowing that if they prevail this will, at the very least, go on your record and that a series of these kinds of failures will cost you your job? Not that the IRS employee would fall into the “violation of oath of office” category, but this is just an example of power run amok because there are no consequences to its abuses.
Another way of looking at it. Every street, road and highway in the Unites States has a speed limit, yet millions of people every single day break this law. They do so knowing if they get caught, there will be a penalty, yet they do it. They don’t do it because they want to get caught—on the contrary, they try to avoid being caught, taking routes that usually have less law enforcement presence, slowing in known speed traps, using radar detectors, etc. Do you think that in spite of the millions of people who risk getting caught speeding, the very existence of such laws results in fewer people driving at unsafe speeds? Just because millions get away with speeding, is that a reason to have no speed limits at all? Doesn’t the very existence of speed limits have an effect on speeding, even if these laws don’t halt it? What if the penalties were greater? What if being found guilty of going 25 MPH over the limit would mean automatic suspension of your license? Would that result in fewer violations than a mere $100 fine? What if the penalty were very severe—-impoundment of your vehicle, for example? The points are (1) a law, even one that is not always enforced or enforceable, is still a deterrent and (2) the degree of risk is in direct proportion to the degree of violation.
Make the law forward-looking, so it is not retroactive to anything done in the past. From that point on, if Trump does anything he will be sure it complies with the Constitution. He’s already been pretty good about this, a lot better than I thought he would be, and has pushed things to Congress in spite of Trumpkins demanding that he rule from the Oval Office like Obama did. As for using the law to go after Trump, it would rebound much more on the Left, which depends on ignoring and/or violating a Constitution that was envisioned and created specifically to prohibit the kind of governance promoted by the Left.
Would it be a perfect solution? No. Would it have some very rocky roads to travel, especially in the early years? Definitely. Would defects and weaknesses in the law surface and have to addressed as time goes on? Absolutely. Should we ignore the problem and not even try to address it because there is no perfect, foolproof, solution to it? Absolutely not.
How could a person protect against false accusations? By following the law and being able to prove it. This law regarding the oath of office would not apply to lapses in judgment or simple mistakes. It would apply to specific acts, such as declaring an intent to thwart immigration laws. A sheriff who swears to uphold the law and then has a policy of ignoring speed limit laws would be in trouble—–a sheriff who didn’t manage to have his officers catch every single speeder would not. The accuser would have to provide specific examples of specific acts that were in violation of specific laws or specific aspects of the Constitution. In many cases, suits are already filed regarding alleged violations of civil rights—this would just add a level of consequence to being found guilty.
I would foresee a messy and contentious beginning, as people squabble about what is and what is not compliant with the Constitution. Maybe it’s just me, but I think we are long overdue for that kind of discussion, in a proactive way. Just forcing legislators and judges to be more careful would be an immediate benefit. I am less concerned about law enforcement officers than I am about politicians and judges—not that the two are necessarily not the same.
If necessary, restrict the law to certain violations of the Constitution, such as denial of due process, illegal search and seizure, etc. and require that there be a policy of refusal to uphold the law. I just don’t think the idea should be dismissed because it would require a lot of work and thought and would still not be perfect.
This can’t be good:
Women’s March is officially in damage control mode.
The left-wing group issued a statement Tuesday after facing an extended backlash over its leaders’ support for Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, a notorious anti-Semite who has called Jews “satanic” and said white people “deserve to die.”
Women’s March co-founder Tamika Mallory attended a Nation of Islam conference Feb. 25 where Farrakhan railed against Jews and white people. Farrakhan praised Mallory by name, and she was seen applauding during his speech.
On another note – 3 people were killed in Phoenix yesterday by assault vehicles. We are in desperate need of car control.
I wonder if this get out of jail card that lets people do truly reprehensible things and advocate violence and death and still be in the fold of the Anointed would apply to a Republican who, possibly, maybe, forty years ago, did or did not do something some people might or might not retroactively find offensive.
Do ya think?
While the media bleats on and on over how chaotic, incompetent, dumb this President is. Here’s what is actually going on:
Trump is so incompetent and lacking of skills that:
He has given us much stronger economic growth that Obama ever did.
He gave a tax cut to almost 100% of the people and has made businesses much more competitive than at any time in decades.
He is taking out ISIS.
He has talked NATO countries into paying more toward their defense.
He is making progress toward securing our borders. It is good to have a president who wants to enforce laws Congress passed.
He has helped move the U.S. toward energy independence.
He has opened pipelines.
He is bringing back manufacturing jobs and businesses.
His economic policies are helping to lower Hispanic and black unemployment. Women’s employment and median income are also going up.
He is giving the people back freedom of choice for health care.
His policies have lifted consumer confidence, home-builder confidence, and business confidence to higher levels than any time during Obama’s eight years.
It appears that North Korea may be blinking on nuclear weapons.
He is helping Ukraine defend itself instead of caving to the Russians.
He has kept the promise of the last few presidents (that they reneged on) to move our embassy to Jerusalem.
He has reduced a lot of expensive regulations.
He is moving the power and purse back to the people as fast as he can, where it belongs.
And, therefore, HE MUST BE IMPEACHED!
Well, of course he must. After all, he is only doing it because he is Putin’s puppet and all this plays into Putin’s hands because……..uh, well, shut up.