Open Thread

We’ll start off tonight with a racist song:

Legal Insurrection writes up the possibility – thin, but real – of a GOP Senate upset in Rhode Island.

On Twitter this evening someone posted a short video of the line for Trump’s Indiana rally. Now, I realize that Indiana is one of the most Trump-friendly States you can find out there…but the line was astonishing. My guess: there are more Republicans these days than there has been for a while, and they like Trump.

Democrat warns law enforcement against enforcing the law because Trump is President. I don’t think our Democrats fully realize what they’re doing here.

Democrat money is now far left – which is likely why the Democrats keep going further left: it is where the money is. Trouble is, I think this increasing leftist purity among Democrats is making the party smaller. Sure, it is more on fire enthusiastic and donates and organizes and knocks on doors like no tomorrow…but as a party becomes more ideologically pure, it starts to turn off anyone who isn’t ideologically pure. Some people on the right simply don’t like the populist elements of Trump. Well, I can dig that…but a fusion of Conservatism and Populism will likely win elections, whereas a purely Conservative party will consistently lose. Democrats are now purely left…

Democrats are calling for a boycott of In N Out burger…apparently not learning a thing from their Chik Fil A debacle.

Civil Rights of 1919. As it is, I think Congress can legislate very broadly, as the Constitution directly gives Congress the power to make all necessary laws and regulations to ensure the Constitution is enforced.

And we’ll end this with a secretly racist song:

13 thoughts on “Open Thread

  1. Cluster August 31, 2018 / 8:52 am

    Why do Democrats and the media think Andrew Gillum is a monkey?

  2. Amazona August 31, 2018 / 9:23 am

    Most racism IS secret—so secret people don’t even KNOW they are racists. Not until the Left has informed them that deep in their hearts, unknown to them, they are.

    Of course,most people don’t know that having less melanin in their skin is proof they are racists, or of the theory that lack of melanin CAUSES racism. It’s a chicken-and-egg thing, as the two are so inextricably linked.

    Most people don’t know that picking up a banana skin on a sidewalk, where it poses a danger to pedestrians, and putting it in a safe place where it can be seen by maintenance people to be picked up, is racism. Most people don’t know that algebra is racist. Most people don’t know that cleaning human manure off streets is racist, though some do wonder if it isn’t racist for those accusers to assume that only dark-skinned people s**t in the streets. But let us not wander off into logic, or reason.

    Most people don’t know that voting for a Republican is racist, though that is another of those chicken-egg conundrums. Using a word that has always merely indicated dark skin, all the way back to its reference to natives in India, is now the most racist, hateful, vile, vicious, indefensible, disgusting, violence-inducing nightmare-causing trauma-producing riot-justifying thing imaginable. Don’t these people KNOW they are black? And why do they find this so offensive they have to have all-out meltdowns about it?

  3. Amazona August 31, 2018 / 9:28 am

    I am speculating that a lot of people did not for Trump because……Trump. But that now many of these people are thanking those who did. If he has surprise people who voted for him by being such a good president, imagine the surprise felt by people who simply could not imagine the possibility enough to pull the lever for him. I have a feeling that every day, as more information valiantly fights its way through the firewalls of the Complicit Agenda Media, people in the middle of the political spectrum are realizing what a bullet we dodged by electing Trump, and how deeply corrupted our most trusted federal agencies had become.

  4. Amazona August 31, 2018 / 10:04 am

    Ready for a trip to Crazytown? Your guide today will be Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich, whose time serving in a presidential cabinet seems to have educated him far beyond the levels reached by most of us. He certainly has some interesting insights into the Constitution.

    He wrote an article for some magazine called “American Prospect” that someone there found worthy of printing. Go figure.

    Anyway, he expanded on his theory that the Trump presidency is “unconstitutional”. This is evidently so obvious, he didn’t need to explain what MAKES it “unconstitutional”. We are just supposed to accept that it is, so he can move on. There is a hint that he realizes there is nothing in the Constitution NOW to support this claim, so he addresses it later by explaining how the Constitution could be changed to go back in time and ban things that are not illegal now, to make them illegal then. Yes, I know, I know……..

    ““Impeachment would remedy Trump’s ‘high crimes and misdemeanors, But impeachment would not remedy Trump’s unconstitutional presidency because it would leave in place his vice president, White House staff and Cabinet, as well as all the executive orders he issued and all the legislation he signed, and the official record of his presidency.”

    Uhhh, it would also leave in place THE PRESIDENT. An annoying detail, so it is simply ignored.

    “The only response to an unconstitutional presidency is to annul it. Annulment would repeal all of it—recognizing that such appointments, orders, rules, and records were made without constitutional authority. ”

    Here I am reminded of the Left’s position back when the question of Obama’s eligibility as president was being questioned. That is, that once he was sworn in the deed was done and couldn’t be undone. I guess that standard left the White House with him. But I digress……

    Reich knows, just KNOWS, somehow, that the very election and existence of the Trump presidency violates something, somewhere, in the Constitution. Oh, if ONLY we could have gotten another Liberal on the Supreme Court to interpret its inner secrets to ferret out that part! But in the meantime, I guess we just have to take Reich’s word for it. He’s pretty sure it’s in there somewhere.

    BUT…just in case no one can find it, he has that pesky little detail covered, too. He goes on to explain:

    The Constitution also gives Congress and the states the power to amend the Constitution, thereby annulling or altering whatever provisions came before.”

    See, I just didn’t KNOW that. Silly silly me, product of something other than Leftist “education”, thought THE PEOPLE amend the Constitution, not the elected officials in Congress or state government. And I just never realized that an amendment would act as a WayBack machine, going back in time to erase what had happened before it was passed. Or imposed. Or whatever.

    He continues: “Here, too, it would logically follow that Congress and the states could, through amendment, annul a presidency they determine to be unconstitutional”

    Yes, he DID use the word “logically”.

    We do have to remember he served under a president when a new tax law was passed and then made retroactive, so I guess I can see why he might think that this is just the way things work To me, his vision of a United States in which any major political shift could result in the ability of elected officials to simply revise history to say what they wished it had said all along is just too darned evocative of another government in another nation, not too long ago. It crumbled at the end of the 1980s, but evidently its demise is still mourned by its fellow travelers who want to bring it back here. Rewriting history in our textbooks is a start, but we really need to get that pesky old Constitution fixed, retroactively. There is a LOT that needs to be changed to make it fit into a Brave New World.

    Reich continues to share his fantasy, or delusion, or whatever:

    “After the Trump administration was annulled, the speaker of the House (third in the order of presidential succession) would take over the presidency until a special election.

    He clearly anticipates a Dem takeover of the House, leading, in the fever swamp of his mind, to a President Pro Tem Pelosi.

    The article goes on to list some of the things Reich believes would support impeachment: “Reich has previously claimed there were as many as five possible articles of impeachment to bring against Trump. He cited treason as a possibility, but claimed the president’s travel ban, bashing the press, accusing the Obama administration of spying on him, and receiving gifts from foreigners (in the form of diplomats staying at his hotels) were the others.”

    Quite a tour of Crazytown, eh?

    And of course the whole inconvenient concept of “innocent till proven guilty” has gone out the window. Now merely being “implicated” (in something that is not even a crime) is enough to heat up the tar and pluck some chickens. Reich might be the mayor of Crazytown but he is not the only resident.

    • Amazona August 31, 2018 / 1:06 pm

      I got caught up in the space/time continuum conundrums of Reich’s fantasy.

      It starts with his wish list about what he would like to happen, and the veers off into how it could be made to happen.

      First, Congress (or the states) would have to amend the Constitution to allow them to amend the Constitution. That is such a big hurdle it is simply ignored. It HAPPENS, OK?

      Then the somehow-enabled Congress (or the states) amend the Constitution to eliminate the part of Section 9 of Article 1 of the Constitution, the part that says “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” Just get rid of it. It’s in the way.

      Then the way would be cleared to for Congress (or the states) amend the Constitution to do three things.
      1.) Invent some kind of law or rule or restriction that, if it had existed in 2016 and been applied to the Trump campaign, or Trump himself, or whatever, would have made his eventual election a violation of that law or rule or restriction and then make this law retroactive to before that election.
      2) Invent a law or rule that says any such violation would result in “annulment” of any event that occurred as a result of this violation. It would erase it. It would be gone. It never happened.
      This invention would have to specify how many levels of result would have to be erased from the books.
      3) Invent a law explaining how a “special election” must be and would be held to elect (FINALLY!) an approved president

      Somewhere along the way there would have to be some adjustment to the civil law that someone has to know something is a law to be guilty of breaking the law. The problem of ex post facto laws has been addressed in the past.

      “Professor Lon Fuller ….. asserted that “a retroactive law is truly a monstrosity. Law has to do with the governance of human conduct by rules. To speak of governing or directing conduct today by rules that will be enacted tomorrow is to talk in blank prose.”


      “Professor Stephen Munzer put no lesser stakes upon prospective application of law than considering it to be a definitional aspect of the rule of law itself, asserting that “[t]he rule of law . . . is a defeasible entitlement of persons to have their behavior governed by rules publicly fixed in advance.”

      Aww, details, just petty details, clearly not of import in the greater scheme of things.

      And none of this addresses the belief that impeachment means removal from office—from a man who worked for a president who was impeached and remained in office.

      • Retired Spook August 31, 2018 / 1:56 pm

        I can’t think of a better justification for the 2nd Amendment than the current actions and rhetoric of the Left. In 67 days we’ll have a much better idea of just what percentage of the electorate buys into the nonsense and nitwittery of the current incarnation of the Democrat Party. We’ll also have a pretty good idea which is the greater motivator, hate or prosperity. I’m betting on the latter.

  5. Retired Spook August 31, 2018 / 3:39 pm

    On Twitter this evening someone posted a short video of the line for Trump’s Indiana rally.

    I don’t think the Left and its lapdogs in the media have any idea of the level of enthusiasm for Trump across middle America. Kudos to Trump for giving a shout out to the $75 million expansion of the Steel Dynamics plant about 2 miles from my house.

    • M. Noonan August 31, 2018 / 11:00 pm

      We’ll find out for sure come November…anything less than a Dem gain of 20 seats will be Trump’s doing. And if it turns out to be a Red Wave…

    • M. Noonan August 31, 2018 / 11:02 pm

      Oh, and in case you missed it – the new biopic about Neil Armstrong won’t have the flag raising on the Moon. Now, the people involved are all saying because it wasn’t necessary…but the real reason is that they don’t want to have a movie where the United States does something amazing. Two reasons:

      1. Makes it a harder sell in foreign lands.
      2. Hollywood doesn’t like the United States.

      • Retired Spook September 1, 2018 / 9:08 am

        Plus a Canadian actor to play Neil Armstrong. No, I’m not making that up.

      • Amazona September 1, 2018 / 1:22 pm

        I think they are getting closer to testing Reason #3:

        3. They don’t need the dollars of patriotic Americans

  6. Cluster September 1, 2018 / 8:55 am

    I just hate it when ICE separates families:

    Over 20 MS-13 gang members were arrested in California on Friday as a result of a months long multi-agency investigation. Older indictments that also stemmed from this investigation were released as well.

    These men were just looking for a better life which included things like:

    The charges covered a broad range and included:

    assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering
    conspiracy to distribute
    possession with intent to distribute

    They don’t get to do these things in their country ….. so who are we to deny them citizenship?
    It’s time to abolish ICE and promote MS13


  7. Retired Spook September 1, 2018 / 10:35 am

    Got this from a friend a week ago and just got around to watching it. The lady reminds me a bit of John Oliver without the F-bombs and speaking from the other side of the political spectrum. She intersperses her deadly (literally) serious remarks with subtle humor. Half hour long, but worth the time.

    We often criticize our media for saying and printing things that either aren’t true or contain such a small grain of truth that they might as well be made up. But our media is equally guilty of NOT reporting things like what’s going on in Europe because it doesn’t fit with their multicultural view of inclusivity and tolerance. I’ve read enough foreign news to know that what she’s saying is not only true, but, to some extent, an understatement. It’s possible that what’s happening in Europe will eventually happen here, but not likely. We simply have too many Americans who will not put up with it.

Comments are closed.