Judicial Appointees: One Important Reason America Cannot Survive As We Know It Without DJT

Obama Appointee DC Judge Amit Mehta Rules Against DJT.  A True Team Player

Whether you a passionate fan of DJT or not, if you're honest, you have to admit there's an ongoing, concerted attempt to remove him from office, hook or crook. We now have Congressional Committee leaders J. Fatman Nadler, Bullet Head Cummings and Adam Schiff all acting as a cadre of hit-men. Enter Fedral Judge Amit Mehta.

Monday, the DC District Court Judge ruled against Donald Trump in the case deciding whether Trump's accounting firm Mazars USA LLP must comply with the House Oversight Committee's subpoena of his past financial records. Judge Mehta, native born of India, product of Law School minority set asides, an Obama appointee and cog in his "fundamentally transforming the United States of America" and liberalization of the courts, was appointed to replace a retiring woman judge, Ellen Segal Huvelle.

What perhaps wasn't quite so expected by both parties was just how quickly Mehta issued his ruling.  Or was it?  For no apparent reason, Mehta began his ruling with the words of President James Buchanan, no one's favorite presidents to say the least, from a court case during a failed attempt at impeachment, that can be only be interpreted as a dig at DJT:

"I do, therefore, . . . solemnly protest against these proceedings of the House of Representatives, because they are in violation of the rights of the coordinate executive branch of the Government, and subversive of its constitutional independence; because they are calculated to foster a band of interested parasites and informers, ever ready, for their own advantage, to swear before ex parte committees to pretended private conversations between the President and themselves, incapable, from their nature, of being disproved; thus furnishing material for harassing him, degrading him in the eyes of the country . . ."

Ignoring the separation of powers, the good judge then showed his liberal bias by leaning on the word of that great Constitutional scholar, Bullet Head Cummings as justification:

"Courts have grappled for more than a century with the question of the scope of Congress's investigative power. The binding principle that emerges from these judicial decisions is that courts must presume Congress is acting in furtherance of its constitutional responsibility to legislate and must defer to congressional judgments about what Congress needs to carry out that purpose.

To be sure, there are limits on Congress's investigative authority. So long as Congress investigates on a subject matter on which "legislation could be had," Congress acts as contemplated by Article I of the Constitution. It is not for the court to question whether the Committee's actions are truly motivated by political considerations. Accordingly, the court will enter judgment in favor of the Oversight Committee." (emphasis mine)

Legislation could be had? Elijah Cummings and the Oversight Committee used in relation to grounds for the case as justification the sham excuse, and Mehta dutifully restates in his ruling, that the committee of dubious and questionable ethics was looking at "strengthening ethics and disclosure laws." As if anything about Trump's personal taxes or past financial records could somehow relate to any legislation Congress might legitimately take up.

Mehta closed with this statement:

"Plaintiffs have cited no case since Kilbourn from 1880 in which the Supreme Court or the D.C. Circuit has interfered with a congressional subpoena—because it either intrudes on the law enforcement prerogatives of the Executive or Judicial branches, seeks personal information unrelated to a legislative purpose, or demands records that lack "pertinency." This case does not merit becoming the first in nearly 140 years."

I guess we can theorize here and now Judge Mehta is a true Team player?

As many have said before me, the court system in America is tainted with present day bias. Many Obama appointed Judges have shown their personal bias in the last two years by consistently ruling against DJT and blocking legal policies simple because they personally do not agree with the processes. The Constitution is being ripped. Remaining in office and the reelection of DJT is mandatory for the survival of America. Without the neutralizing the loading of the courts via the Obama years of those who hold no respect for the Constitution as it was written is just one more reason, if not the most obvious, America will not survive as we know it without DJT's leadership.

~ Thank You MJA@IOTWReport for the Linkage! ~

The Deep Blue Rats Are Beginning To Turn On Each Other

One of the first things that happens when the truth starts coming out is those who've involved themselves in a serious cover up start turning on each other to save there own asses. The rats have now begun scurrying because Bill Barr and John Durham are turning on the lights and they’re all about to be exposed. That same liberal cheer-leading media that wanted you to believe Hillary was not really under investigation will try attack it as a partisan effort, or just DJT pulling the strings and going after his political enemies. But facts are facts and truth is truth. And looks like we’re about to know a whole lot of it.

Behind closed doors of  a Congressional Committee, Loretta Lynch threw Jim Comey's carcass under the bus.

James Comey:"We were getting to a place where the attorney general and I were both going to have to testify and talk publicly about. And I wanted to know, was she going to authorize us to confirm we had an investigation? … And she said, ‘Yes, but don’t call it that, call it a matter.’ And I said, ‘Why would I do that?’ And she said, ‘Just call it a matter." - June 2017

Loretta Lynch: "I did not,” Lynch responded when asked if she had “ever” told Comey to call the investigation a “matter.” - Dec. 2018

After two years of the Mueller investigation to nowhere, Democrats and their media lapdogs have desperately avoided acknowledging their nominee was under investigation for potential felonies. Yet the investigation was happening, and it was absurd to try to pretend it wasn’t. So Lynch’s solution; label it with an innocuous word that wouldn’t be so damaging and tarnish Hillary’s triumphant coronation. 

It going to become clear it was Loretta Lynch who ordered the Hillary investigation spiked because of where it was headed. And it was Loretta Lynch who wanted turn the attention elsewhere, ordering the FBI to launch an abysmally predicated counterintelligence probe of the Trump campaign, using the absurd pretext of “collusion with Russia” based on the unverified Dossier and an offhand braggadocios comment in a bar. Lynch knew what she was doing in both cases. She knew Hillary had committed felonies, which is why she ordered the FBI investigation in a way that defied every protocol. 

This was about preventing Donald Trump from becoming president, no matter what the FBI had to do.  Lynch was taking orders from someone above her, and y'all know who that was. If the Obama DOJ acknowledged the investigation was real, they’d hand an easy talking point to the Trump campaign on a golden platter.  

So now this corruption is all about to come out because Barr and Durham are going to make sure of it, and Lynch is positioning herself by taking shots at Comey’s credibility. The rats are scurrying and they’re starting to attack each other. The dam is breaking. The swamp has been unwittingly draining itself in a futile attempt to take down DJT.

I wonder, do they make those orange prison outfits in fat little girl sizes?

(quotes from WAPO)
(WJ-D.Calabrese)

Eating Your Daily Gruel In London Might Just Get You a Trip to the Dungeon.

In our continuing attempt here at DMF to keep you abreast of the latest news in the annals of the decline of Western Civilization, we take you to the seat of the once great British Empire, London England, which is not so great anymore. The people who once tried to take away our guns sheepishly gave up their own, and who now get thrown in jail for Facebook post.

This comes to us from our friend Brian Anderson @ Def Con News:
Here in America we worry about democrats trying to take away our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Over in England, Royal subjects are not allowed to have guns so Brits run around stabbing each other, which prompted the government to take away knife ownership rights. Naturally British thugs have to move on to carrying something else lethal.  From the Regents Park Police Tweeter:

"Yesterday we conducted weapons sweeps,dealt with a person injured from a van reversing on them, reported a burglary and collected all these from @scope charity shop who diligently didn’t want them to get into the wrong hands & disposed of correctly & safely"

As you can see in the photo (click image to biggify), the Regents Park police (London) confiscated a bunch of cutlery and one of those wieney fencing swords. It’s also hard to miss the 3 pot roast forks as well as a rusty spoon. Wait. A rusty spoon?

This is the picture the Regents Park police have on their Twitter page, so maybe this all makes sense:

In the annals of crime fighting, bragging about taking a rusty spoon off the streets qualifies as the most pathetic law enforcement action ever. British thugs started using knives to victimize people. The natural reaction was to ban knives because without knives assholes have no way of hurting other people.  Criminals found and exploited a loophole and apparently started using hammers and so UK police asked citizens to report anyone buying tools in a hardware store. I’m not even kidding about this.

With guns, knives, and hammers all banned, those crafty bad guys figured out how deadly spoons are and now the British police are confiscating those.  It’s just a matter of time before criminals in the UK start using cheese graters and melon-ballers to infect untold carnage. Rest assured the cops will meet that threat head on.

Let’s use this hilarious thing as a reminder of how great it was for our Founding Fathers to kick the crap out of the British and establish our wonderfully free country. We don’t even have a Constitutional amendment protecting our spoon ownership rights and yet we still have all the damn spoons we want. That’s what liberty is all about

We're Through the Looking-Glass Here People.....

Nadler & Co. Not the Only Committee Acting Like Stalinist

Bullet Head Now Wants To Investigate Why Media Did Not Publish a Story 

Even as the little fat man Nadler is demanding the Attorney General of the United States break the law for the purpose of his committee's grandstanding for the leftist droolers, according to Breibart, House Committee on Oversight and Reform chairman, Rep. Elijah "Bullet Head' Cummings (D-MD) is now bringing newsroom debate into his House Oversight Committee for investigation. He wrote to former Fox News reporter Diana Falzone demanding that she turn over any documents relating to Trump’s alleged extramarital affairs.

An article in the New Yorker last month alleged that Fox News executive Ken LaCorte spiked the story to protect Trump — a claim LaCorte has vehemently denied, saying the story lacked corroborating evidence and that the network was merely practicing responsible journalism, as were other outlets who declined the story. That article seems to have motivated Cummings’s letter — a letter that not only seeks personal dirt on the president, but seeks information that might be used to review Fox News’ editorial decisions.

The committee’s letter suggests that Fox News may have violated campaign finance rules if it tried to help Trump by suppressing the Daniels story. Falzone has said she will cooperate with the committee, despite an agreement with Fox that prevents her from speaking about the story.

In an op-ed at Mediaite, LaCorte says he supports Falzone’s desire to talk about the story publicly, but that he will refuse to cooperate with the committee’s effort to exercise oversight over the free press:

"Falzone’s lawyer announced that she would comply with the committee. I won’t. If House Oversight can launch an investigation based on the ridiculous notion that publishing, or even more bizarrely not publishing, a story can be construed as an in-kind campaign contribution, then no journalist in America is safe from government intimidation. 

It’s a vast overreach of power, and I won’t have any part of it. To be clear, I fully support Fox News lifting Falzone’s non-disclosure agreement so that she can make her case publicly, without leaks or lawyers. But neither editorial decisions nor joke writing should be a subject of government approval....." - Full op-ed HERE.

DJT Delays State of the Union Address Until Shutdown Ends

Speaker Pelosi and Her Puppet Chuck On Capital Hill 

According to the Associated Press, the president said late Wednesday night he is postponing his State of the Union address until the government shutdown ends, following a high-stakes game of dare and double-dar.  DJT conceded that "no venue can compete with the history, tradition and importance of the House Chamber" and that he was not looking for an alternate option after Pelosi served notice earlier Wednesday that he won't be allowed to deliver the address to a joint session of Congress next week. Pelosi had taken the step after Trump said he planned to show up in spite of Democratic objections to the speech taking place with large swaths of the government shut down.

The president cannot speak in front of a joint session of Congress without both chambers' explicit permission. A resolution needs to be approved by both chambers specifying the date and time for receiving an address from the president. The Constitution states only that the president "shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union," meaning the president can speak anywhere he chooses or give his update in writing.

The address has been delayed before. Ronald Reagan's 1986 State of the Union address was postponed after the Challenger space shuttle disaster on Jan. 28 of that year. But there is no precedent for a State of the Union invitation being rescinded. Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and Jimmy Carter all issued their final messages in print.

_________________________________

And now we return you to the important news of the day:

Voter Fraud Is Just a Myth They Say......

A forged signature swapped for $1 -- or sometimes a cigarette. The crude exchange played out hundreds of times on L.A.'s skid row during the 2016 election cycle and again this year, prosecutors said Tuesday as they announced criminal charges against nine people accused in a fraud scheme. Using cash and cigarettes as lures, the defendants approached homeless people on skid row and asked them to forge signatures on state ballot measure petitions and voter registration forms, the district attorney's office said.

The defendants -- some of whom were scheduled to be arraigned Tuesday -- face several criminal charges, including circulating a petition with fake names, voter fraud and registering a fictitious person. The charges, which were filed three weeks ago but made public Tuesday, followed a Los Angeles Police Department crackdown on suspected election fraud on skid row earlier in the year. - Los Angeles Times

 ----------------------------------------------------------------

This issue has been marginalized within the newsrooms of the liberal elite media and Democrats in general. It doesn’t happen often is their defense, though when they lose elections, like Georgia’s gubernatorial race, oh yes—you’re going to see charges that voter fraud cost them the race, not their straight trash views on public policy.

The lengths liberals go to deny the obvious is laughable. A Wisconsin paper which happens to be part of the USA Today empire reported that there were about 200 cases of vote fraud in WI in about 18 months. But of course according to them these don’t count as vote fraud because they were not organized vote fraud – just 200 lone wolves I guess. Meanwhile back in Florida, the state Democratic Party is under investigation. At least we know the backdating of ballots was all completely innocent.

Judge Rules Jim Acosta Gets His Lil' Pecker Back

A Trump appointed judge ruled Friday morning the Constitution say DJT doesn't have the basic powers all other Presidents have. The president can not deny a press pass to an unprofessional grandstanding insufferable reporter from a disgraced basement ranked news network who physically pushes away an intern, and declares that Jim Acosta now has his press pass back. This is an emergency injunction, not a decision following a full trial, but the judge found a substantial likelihood that CNN would prevail on the merits (which is necessary finding for granting an injunction). The judge said the government could not say who initially decided to revoke Acosta’s hard pass. The White House had spelled out its reasons for revoking his credentials in a tweet from White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and in a statement after CNN filed its lawsuit. But the judge said those "belated efforts were hardly sufficient to satisfy due process."

The judge also found that Acosta suffered "irreparable harm," dismissing the government's argument that CNN could simply send other reporters to cover the White House in Acosta’s place. The suit by CNN alleges that Acosta's First and Fifth Amendment rights were violated by suspending his hard pass. While the judge didn't rule on the underlying case, he signaled they were likely to prevail in their claims. Press Secretary Sarah Sanders released a statement responding to Jim Acosta’s temporary reinstatement of his press pass via a court ruling: 

“The court made clear that there is no absolute First Amendment right to access the White House. In response to the court, we will temporarily reinstate the reporter’s hard pass. We will also further develop rules and processes to ensure fair and orderly press conferences in the future. There must be decorum at the White House." 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

"A few CNN reporters told me that they’re embarrassed by Acosta & CNN. A WH correspondent from a major network (not Fox) told me “This isn’t the Jim F*ing Acosta Show. We all hate him. He’s an asshole and he actually is disrespectful to the president.” - @Arthur Schwartz‏

The judge framed all this as a matter of process, which justifies Trump issuing a set of rules of decorum. I assume the rules will include a requirement that a reporter who has received a response (whether it's to his liking or not) must relinquish the microphone once the President (or press secretary) has moved on to the next questioner, and that there can be no physical interference with a staff member who is there to retrive the microphone.

(AceHQ)
(The Tweeter)
(WH.gov)

DJT Stirs Up The Pillow Biters With 14th Amendment Comment

This issue continues to upset the left, who cannot read the constitution and choose to ignore the stated intent of it's amendments by their enlightened authors. We have visited the issue of the 14th amendment in the past, so we repost here from the DMF archives of 2015, the last time this issue arose. 

by Anna Maria Perez

The 14th Amendment does not grant birthright citizenship to everyone born in the United States. In order to assume that it does, a person has to actually ignore what it says. The Supreme Court set the precedent of birthright citizenship by misinterpreting the 14th Amendment. Poor education about our history and government ensures that We the People never get uppity over this unconstitutional misinterpretation. The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to give citizenship to former slaves who were in the United States through no fault of their own.

The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. If it granted citizenship for no reason other than being born on U.S. soil, you would think that the U.S. would have started granting birthright citizenship in 1868, right? Wrong. They didn’t, because that isn’t what the 14th Amendment says. As a matter of fact, two years prior to its ratification, Senator Jacob Howard explained the actual intent of the 14th Amendment. He said:

“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”

The key to inheriting birthright citizenship is being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Foreigners are subject to the jurisdiction of the countries they are citizens of. We deport illegal aliens back to the countries that they are subject to the jurisdiction of. If they were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then they would have all privileges and rights that go with that jurisdiction including voting, enlisting in our armed forces, and running for public office. Not being part of our jurisdiction, they are ineligible. They can do so in their home countries. The Supreme Court held to this in the 1884 Elk v. Wilkins case. They decided that the children of foreign ministers were not granted birthright citizenship based on the fact that they weren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. 

An American Indian was not granted citizenship, because his parents weren’t completely subject to U.S. jurisdiction, being also subject to an Indian nation. If an American Indian was not granted American Citizenship by birthright after the 14th Amendment was ratified, then we can certainly conclude that birthright citizenship isn’t granted to foreigners by the 14th Amendment. Congress didn’t grant citizenship to American Indians until 1924!

It wasn’t until 1898, 30 years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, that a case came in front of the Supreme Court that changed things. Keep in mind that the 5th Clause of the 14th Amendment specifically gives congress the power to enforce the 14th Amendment, not the Supreme Court.

Read More

Thank You WHATFINGER NEWS for the Linkage!

Have We Not Learned Anything From What We Watch Happening To Europe?

This is not a caravan of Doctors, Scientist and Engineers bringing cultural enrichment, this is the beginnings of a third-world invasion we cannot absorb.

Article IV Section 4 of the United States Constitution clearly states:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

Yesterday there was much debate and some consternation about the prospect of sending our military down to the border to prevent the invaders (and that is exactly what they are) from entering US soil. Yes, the "optics" would be shall we say "suboptimal" if even one of the individuals were to be injured or worse in any encounter with American troops. But I think the consequences would be far worse both in political terms as well as actual national security if President Trump does not take decisive action immediately to at minimum prevent this mass of invaders from crossing our borders if not send them back where they came from.

The President ran and won on this very issue. From a political standpoint, what Soros and the Dems hope will turn into an October surprise to defeat the GOP has the potential to bury them not only in 2 weeks but in 2020 and perhaps beyond. Aside from sending the military and physically sealing our border, after declaring a national state of emergency the President should also:

• Suspend all granting of asylum at the border.
• Cut all military, economic and other aid to the countries involved in this.
• Freeze all assets and all bank transactions of the countries involved.
• Freeze all wire transfers of cash from the US to the countries involved (this alone is huge).
• Freeze the assets and revoke 501C-3 status of every organization and individual known to be involved in this.
• Deport George Soros to Malaysia or Hungary and seize his assets.

As to #6 on that list, since it is more than likely that Soros is involved in this via his various front groups, he is de facto acting in a manner that is seditious if not treasonous. As Samuel Johnson said, "when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully." The question is who is the hangman and who is the condemned? The world wonders...

(J.J. Sefton@AceHQ)

Thank You WHATFINGER NEWS for the Linkage!

Mugging America in Broad Open Daylight

After the sanctuary city of San Francisco expanded voting to illegal aliens in some local elections, desperate California lefties now want to fraudulently boost its Congressional representation and federal funding by continuing to include illegal aliens in their census. Now leading the charge is none other than the disgraced Senator San Fran Feinstein herself, who seems confused by the fact those of us who are citizens might not want people from other countries vote on who represents us. Surprised?

As we wrote in March: 
The Commerce Department confirmed  that the 2020 census will ask respondents if they are U.S. citizens or not. On the face of it, that’s a pretty innocuous question. It was used until 1950 but was part of the short form starting in 1910 until its removal in 2010 after the dems and Barky Obama got their clocked cleaned big time in the mid terms and lost an historic number of seats.  But the lefties now believe that beneath the surface it’s part of a vile Trump style voter suppression move. 

New York City, who continues to coddle illegal aliens and defy Federal law, created a “NYC-ID” card that was meant to help undocumented illegal aliens with a card for identification, health care, and governmental services (you can bet there's no hanky-panky going on there) all payed for with New Yorker's hard earned tax money. 

Vanita Gupta, a former Obama toadie and president & CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (they do love to give themselves names with Civil and Human Rights in the title don't they) said that “there is already data that the heightened level of fear among Latino populations, created by the Trump administration’s hostile policies and rhetoric and could depress their participation in the 2020 census. You mean a heightened level of fear because They Are Here Illegally?!

The results according to experts means less power for Democrats. Under-counting of Latino populations, which will in turn affect government services, budgets, and voter rolls. No, they shouldn't be accounted for in government services & budgets. They Illegally Entered the Country!!  Non-citizens can’t vote, (yeah, you keep sayin' that BS ) but they are still counted for congressional districts and state congressional representation, which they shouldn't be because They're Here Illegally! 

It’s quite possible that California will lose one or more of its seats in the House of Representatives if enough illegals don’t respond to the census, so says the California Attorney General. This is also particularly galling to snowflake progressives because the 2020 census will also not count how many LGBT queers there are in America, mainly because they are counting heads, not sexual orientations... and no one really cares!! 

(BSI)
(Times-Picayune)

Thank You WHATFINGER NEWS &
MJA@IOTWReport for the Linkage!

We Should Never View The Democrat Party the Same Again

It Seems the Kavanaugh confirmation process has become the death rattle of the old Democrat Party (not that it was responsible for very much to be proud of for the past 200 odd years anyway) and the veneer of civility and respect for the rule of law, and its complete transformation and subsuming into and by a full-on bust-out Marxist neo-Maoist tyranny that is now openly fomenting political violence and the destruction of whatever vestiges of the Constitution and American principles of jurisprudence as well as comity that remain extant. And to paraphrase the great Fred Allen you can take what's left of any sense of decency the Dems may have had, place it in the navel of a fruit fly and still have room for three caraway seeds and Hillary Clinton's heart. But I digress...

The long march through the institutions, primarily through academia, has given us at least three generations of American citizens at best ignorant of our heritage, culture, laws, traditions and Judeo-Christian morality and ethics and as we are witnessing openly contemptuous of it and growing violent in the extreme to any and all who defend it. David Horowitz, who truly is a tireless defender of liberty and freedom (ironic since he was once a red-diaper baby and fellow traveler of Bill Ayers and the Weathermen) states it plainly:

"Every American should be concerned that an ideology so antithetic to everything this country has stood for should now be the conventional wisdom of half the country (including all the persecutors of Judge Kavanaugh). The U.S. Constitution does not contain the words "white," "black," "male" or "female," precisely because the Founders believed they were creating a society in which true equality would one day prevail. It took nearly two hundred years to bring about the social changes that would realize that dream. 

For the last fifty years, however, the left and the Democratic Party have been working hard to turn back the clock and reverse these gains - - to introduce racial and gender categories and quotas into virtually every aspect of social life, to portray white Americans as guilty before the fact, and non-white Americans as innocent even when the facts show they are not. The progressive goal is totalitarian in nature: to erase individuals, their achievements and failures and every aspect of the circumstances in which they find themselves, in order to judge them on the basis of their skin color, their gender and their sexual orientation."

Putting everything else aside, the Dem leadership is both caught in as well as caught up in what may very well be an historical turning point in the party's history and the nation's history. - Quoted from J.J. Sefton@AceHQ

__________________________________________

Democrats did not need the U.S. Supreme Court to institute Social Security or establish the Peace Corps. But abortion on demand, gay marriage, prohibition on school prayer, the abolition of the death penalty, and much else on the liberal wish list became the law of the land because of the U.S. Supreme Court, a parallel national legislature when controlled by the Left. A party without the speaker’s gavel or the word “majority” prefixing “leader” struggles to pass substantive legislation. Add to these handicaps widespread public contempt for much of that party’s agenda, and one begins to see why Democrats need the courts so much. Unfortunately for them, the rude, no-holds-barred gambit for the high court (dishonestly used as something other than a court in their hands) makes it even further from their grasp.

Thank You WHATFINGER NEWS for the Linkage!

A Massive Overdose of Liberal Double-Think and Hypocrisy.

As Kavanaugh's accuser's ramp up their protests and complaints about the terms of engagement, through their rhetoric and demands they demonstrate ever more clearly the reality behind the agenda of their supporters and mouthpieces: the totalitarian drive for absolute, unaccountable, and unopposable control over lives, words, and actions,  and the threat of personal destruction of any who dare to stand in their way or expresses the slightest criticism of the narrative and code of behavior and thought processes that they would impose on society.

This is a movement that, on the one hand, claims to empower women to live full lives but that at the same time treats them as such untouchable fragile vessels, who will irreparably fall apart unless they can fully control their interactions with the world around them. A movement that arrogates to themselves infallible possession of “truth”, asserts control over defining the standards for evaluating their truth claims, and enforces this “truth” on everybody else just because they say so.  They will use all means necessary, including intimidation and force, to silence and destroy any dissent, and by projection labeling any such dissent as oppression in good Orwellian fashion.

A movement that claims unprecedented authority to dictate to the members and staff of the U.S. Senate the entire structure and rules for their witness, seeking to overturn centuries of covenant and jurisprudence for judgment of public accusations, and in its place, seeking to control who can speak to them, what can be spoken in the hearing or by any person outside the hearing in any setting, while at the same time being granted untrammeled power to tell their narrative and to bully and silence any contrary view. Twisting historical rules and custom into a pretzel. A movement that would spread fear and exalt anger far and wide in our land to create a climate of suspicion and distrust between individuals, a world in which a vocal minority with media hegemony can dominate conversation and though  manipulation, create a false “consensus” and “settled truth”. 

It’s time to for the Republican members of the Judiciary committee and Senate leadership to start playing hardball and stand up for, if nothing else, simple decency and fair process and civilized behavior.

(RS Diaries)
H/T Crazy Cousin Olivia

Dem's Exemplary Asshat Extraordinaire Declares DJT Has No Authority To Appoint Supremes

We figured we’ve seen just about every bit of nonsense the Dem's could muster from their tattered playbook, but then Chuck Schumer jumps out of the trees with more weird liberal political science. That constitutional stuff is hard.  So here is today’s news from the slowly desiccating senior brain trust of the opposition - Donald Trump no longer has the constitutional authority to nominate Justices to the Supreme Court.

CFP - The Senate Minority Leader on Tuesday attempted a double bank shot of claiming that Brett Kavanaugh shouldn’t be confirmed for the Supreme Court because Michael Cohen copped a guilty plea. Schumer chose the position he’s in and he can squirm in it every day as far as I’m concerned. Schumer is under intense pressure from the increasingly unhinged liberal base to do everything he can to stop Brett Kavanaugh from being confirmed. In reality, there is nothing he can do and he knows it. But he has to act the part, and if that means grasping at absolutely ridiculous straws (no unusual feat for him), then damn it, that’s what he’s going to do.

Donald Trump no longer has the constitutional authority to nominate Justices to the Supreme Court? Who says? Not you, not me and certainly not the Constitution. But Chuck Schumer says it, not because he believes it, but because he has to say something to keep the barbarians from storming the gate, so why not?

"It is unseemly for the President of the United States to be picking a Supreme Court Justice who could soon be, effectively, a juror in a case involving the President himself,” Mr. Schumer declared, picking up a trope that has quickly become part of the liberal echo chamber. Senators Mazie Hirono (Hawaii) and Ed Markey (his own private Idaho) cancelled meetings with Judge Kavanaugh, with Mr. Markey saying he is now an “illegitimate” nominee.  

So let’s see. Donald Trump is the elected President with the power of appointment under the Constitution, but because his former lawyer has pleaded guilty to evading taxes and paying off a couple of Mr. Trump’s alleged mistresses, Mr. Trump no longer enjoys the powers of the Presidency under Article II. This novel interpretation of presidential authority somehow eluded James Madison." - WSJ

This is not going to change a single vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation, and Schumer knows it. What’s more, Kavanaugh is not going to be a “jurist” in any criminal case involving Donald Trump. Schumer has a history of making declarations about process and principle that completely contradict previous statements he made on the exact same subjects, with the only variable being which party happens to be in power at the moment. He knows he contradicts himself and fears no consequences precisely because he knows the mainstream media will never call him on it. -  READ MORE 

NYT Graciously Admits the 1st Amendment Applies to Conservatives

"The fact that conservatives benefit from the First Amendment is not something to bemoan. It is part of the constitutional bargain."- NYT

According to a new op-ed, folks on the left are “increasingly” making the claim that Republicans have “weaponized” the First Amendment. It seems the scary words are just too much for some to bear. Spoken or written ideas are simply too potent.

Fortunately, your political betters at The New York Times are bigger than that. They’ve just run an editorial written by David Cole. He’s the national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union. You may know them as the organization that occasionally cares about a subset of constitutional issues they agree with. Despite the allegedly-serious argument that “the First Amendment’s very neutrality is problematic, because in an unequal society, the amendment will favor the haves over the have-nots,” the ACLU (and the Times) has decided that free speech is important. That the Constitution applies to to all citizens is quiet a concept!

"Critics are increasingly making the claim that under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the First Amendment, once an important safeguard for progressive speech, has become a boon to corporations, conservatives and the powerful. But  the First Amendment doesn’t favor speech of the right or the left; it simply takes the government out of the business of controlling speakers by virtue of what they say.

The fact that conservatives benefit from the First Amendment is not something to bemoan. It is part of the constitutional bargain. 

It simply means the First Amendment is operating as it should, neutrally preserving the lifeblood of democracy. …these developments should not lead liberals or progressives to lose faith in the First Amendment. For starters, the amendment’s core requirement is that the government must remain neutral regarding the content and viewpoint of speech. As a result, a decision protecting conservative speech will equally support liberal speech."

The very fact that the New York Times felt this was worth printing suggests that even they recognize the left has drifted closer to the fascist black hole than most of us (who are already deeply jaded) have suspected. Think about it. This means that the left is so enamored with the idea of eliminating free speech that the New York Times – itself a leftist-statist standard bearer – felt it necessary to admonish them.

We’re glad you’ve finally noticed …and we’re deeply concerned that you had to.

Excerpts from Robert Laurie

Thank You WHATFINGER NEWS for the 'Blog Explore' Linkage!

Not Good Enough for Kavanaugh To Say He Will Follow Existing Law

Chuck Schumer keeps moving the goalposts with regards to the answers he expects a Supreme Court nominee to answer, declaring during an interview this morning that it’s no longer good enough for a nominee to say they will follow existing law. CBS News’ Norah O’Donnell asked Schumer about previous statements made by Judge Brett Kavanaugh, regarding Roe v. Wade being binding precedent, and why Schumer believes abortion rights are under threat if Kavanaugh is confirmed. 

"When you say you’ll follow binding precedent, that’s been a trick. It is not good enough for them to hide behind this shibboleth that ‘We’ll follow existing law,’ cause when they get on the bench, they change."

O’Donnell asked Schumer if there is anything that Senate Democrats can do to stop the nomination of Kavanaugh, given that Republicans hold a majority in the Senate.

“Yes, well, President Trump with the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh has fulfilled or is fulfilling two of his campaign promises. First, to undo women’s reproductive freedom; second to undo ACA." 

"So, I will oppose him with everything I’ve got." 

Go for it Chuck. The American public are getting tired of your over the top grandstanding and calling everyone you disagree with the far-right, and you and your hysterical minions being against everything that's being done to making America great again. Yeah, you and Nancy go for it Chuck. 

Reason #283 Why Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.

Monday the Supreme Court made a narrow ruling that a Colorado baker’s religious rights were violated when the state civil rights commission showed zealous hostility towards the baker's religion after they refused to bake a cake for a rump ranger wedding. The reaction from the left was that the Supreme Court had taken a step towards legalized gay discrimination! (they didn't) I know, was shocked too. Liberals are usually so rational and even keeled. The decision was 7-2, meaning that 2 liberal Justices agreed with it. That poses a problem for the psyche of leftist. They care nothing of people’s religious freedom or consider it something that is protected by the Constitution.

Believing the gay minority just got run over, those deep thinkers at the lefty website Vox have come up with a solution to just this problem, if having the Supreme Court rule on Constitutional issues is a problem. Vox wants to straight up diminish the authority of Supreme Court.

Yes, this is really dumb leftist thought. It's Vox:

"Majority rule can lead to abuse of minorities, justifying judicial protection of minorities, but how do we ensure that the Court both protects the minorities who really need protection, and does so in a way that allows majority interests to prevail when they ought to? The Court’s answer, “trust us,” is increasingly out of place in an era of populist rejection of elite rule." 

"A democratic system for protecting the rights of minorities is desperately needed. We describe here a voting system that does just that — by allowing citizens to vote in proportion to the strength of their interests. It would be simultaneously more democratic and less vulnerable to the trampling of rights than the options currently on the table, and it would not involve elite interventions in politics through judicial review...."

This Vox-splainer is a really long droning piece but the basic gist is that there would be no more need for Supreme Court in these kind of cases, and minorities who have an interest in a social issue would be allowed to vote for it in a national referendum system. Other examples of resolutions: gay people's vote would weigh more on gay issues and anti-gun nuts vote would weigh more on gun control bills, etc. 

The geniuses at Vox are complaining our system is unjust by offering a solutions that is even more unfair. I’m serious, this is what they are pushing. Read it for yourself.

Have you noticed how when rules and systems that are fair to everyone move against liberal interests they suddenly become unfair and must be abolished? Hillary Clinton won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College and now the left has decided the EC is unfair and unAmerican. Now the Supreme Court makes a ruling that the left doesn’t even understand, but because it seems like it ruled against gay people (it didn’t) the SC has to go too.

Dershowitz: We’re Giving Up Our Civil Liberties to Get Trump

NKT - Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz said that Americans are giving up their civil liberties so that Special Counsel Robert Mueller can bring charges against President Trump during an MSNBC interview today. Steve Kornacki asked Dershowitz to react to the news that federal prosecutors had tapped the phone of Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen. “I think we are moving closer and closer to the surveillance state, where phone calls are tapped, where emails are secured, without a real basis,” Dershowitz said. “We live in such a partisan atmosphere of ‘get Trump at any cost’ that we’re for getting Trump.” 

_______________________________

It's very likely that Trump talked to Cohen without his legal "team" even knowing about it, and only the FBI knows what was discussed. Investigators along with the court will decide if the conversation was privileged.

* After the left-wing websites jizzed all over themselves at the thought of potential proof of corruption, NBC News issued a correction: 

"Michael Cohen's phones were being monitored by a pen register, not a wiretap, senior U.S. officials say. Pen registers capture "to and from" calling and texting information, but not content."  

FCC Chair Tells Democrat Senators To Go Pound Sand

It seems one of the best government appointments to come out of Trump’s election was Ajit Pai as Chairman of the FCC. He’s stood in the fire against all manner of leftist hysteria and verbal non-sense when it comes to net neutrality, censorship, and federal overreach at the FCC. He also stood up to the President when he made the ridiculous suggestion that certain broadcasters should have their licenses pulled. Pai isn’t partisan, he’s principled.

Thursday, he reaffirmed those principles again by formally rejecting an insane request from a dozen Democrat Senators (including Lizzy Warren, Bernie Sanders and Cory 'Scatman' Booker) asking the FCC to “investigate” Sinclair broadcasting for “purposely distorting the news.” Yes, the same Democrat party that shits bricks every time Trump says “fake news” now wants to use the power of the Federal government to investigate the editorial decisions of news agencies because their own media allies got called out. I’d go ahead and call them all hypocrites, but would I be telling you anything you didn’t already know? 

Here’s the money quote from the Dem's Clown Posse's request… 

“We are concerned that Sinclair is engaged in a systematic news distortion operation that seeks to undermine freedom of the press and the robust localism and diversity of viewpoint that is the foundation of our national broadcasting laws,” the senators wrote. They added that it “may have violated the FCC’s longstanding policy against broadcast licensees deliberately distorting news by staging, slanting, or falsifying information.”

This is nuts for many reasons, i'll give you two.  For One, all Sinclair did was tape promos saying they’ll be honest, diligent, and not report fake or unsubstantiated stories. I’m no English major, but where in any of that did Sinclair “stage, slant, or falsify” information? Or are we saying because local news promos are staged, they are actually illegal?

And secondly, suggesting they should have their broadcast license pulled is exactly the kind of idiocy that Trump was
excoriated for by these very same Senators! The FCC does not have the power to, nor should they go around pulling broadcast licenses based on their determination of what is “slanted” or any other such qualifier on a free press.

Luckily for freedom loving Americans at least, FCC Chair Ajit Pai responded in kind Thursday, and he didn’t hold back…

"Dear Senator Cantwell: Thank you for your letter requesting that the Commission investigate a broadcaster based on the content of its news coverage and promotion of that coverage. In light of my commitment to protecting the First Amendment and freedom of the press, I must respectfully decline. 

A free media is vital to our democracy. That is why during my time at the Commission I have consistently opposed any effort to infringe upon the freedom of the press and have fought to eliminate regulations that impede the gathering and dissemination of news.

I understand that you disliked or disagreed with the content of particular broadcasts, but I can hardly think of an action more chilling of free speech than the federal government investigating a broadcast station because of disagreement with its news coverage or promotion of that coverage. Instead, I agree with Senator Markey that “any insinuation that elected officials could use the levers of government to control or sensor the news media would represent a startling degradation of the freedom of the press.” I also take this opportunity to reaffirm the commitment I made to several members of the Senate Commerce Committee last year that the Commission under my leadership would “not act in a manner that violates the First Amendment and stifles or penalizes free speech by electronic media, directly or indirectly."

While he does keep it civil, he points out just how ludicrous and “chilling” this request by Democrats was. The idea that any aspect of the Federal government should delve into judging editorial choices of the free press is antithetical to everything this country stands for. To have elected representatives demanding the FCC go after local broadcasters for filming a promo spot (that doesn’t even say anything false) is outright dangerous.  By that standard, there is no standard. The government could shut anyone down for basically any ginned up reason. Even worse, to do so would be blatantly unconstitutional. 

The 1st Amendment isn’t ambiguous, but then again, to democrats the constitution is only viable if it meets their usefulness. After this episode of foolishness, none of these Senators nor the larger contingent of Democrats who went after Sinclair, have any credibly to speak on freedom of the press. What they have made clear is they don’t actually believe what they’ve sold in the past. It was never about freedom of the press for these people. It was just about freedom for outlets they see as helpful to their cause.

It's Kinda Fun Watching Alan Dershowitz Drive the Media Nuts

BizPac - Reports of Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz having dinner with President Trump sent liberals into spasms. The constitutional and criminal law scholar was meeting with Trump, in part, to “talk about the Middle East,” CNN’s Gloria Borger noted during a panel on “The Situation Room” Tuesday.

The news and subsequent speculation was too much for CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin who was once a student of Dershowitz.

“To the surprise of many including me, Alan has become a deeply outspoken defender of the president on these legal issues. The president has cited him in tweets. He is now welcome in the white House. In Alan’s defense, he will say that he is a defender of civil liberties and not necessarily a defender of the president."

The panel continued to discuss Dershowitz who slammed the FBI raid on the office of longtime Trump lawyer Michael Cohen on Monday, calling it “a very dangerous day today for lawyer-client relations.” He told Fox News’ Sean Hannity his dinner with the president Tuesday was a “pre-arranged, pre-scheduled” meeting. Toobin could not reconcile that Dershowitz, who still considers himself a Democrat, would actually have dinner and talk with Trump. “I love Alan Dershowitz, he’s a great mentor of mine. But he’s picked sides here. He has picked sides,” Toobin ranted. “He’s with the president. And you don’t have to eat dinner with someone to support. He’s there eating dinner.”

Toobin recently accused Dershowitz of “carrying water” for Trump as the two sparred in a CNN interview. “How has this come about that in every situation over the past year you have been carrying water for Donald Trump?” Toobin asked his former professor. “This is not who you used to be. And you are doing this over and over again in situations that are just obviously ripe with conflict of interest. And it’s just, like, what’s happened with you?”

Dershowitz responded by once again schooling the student by basically saying in so many words he, unlike many in the media, doesn't hold up a hypocritical double-standard view of the constitution and the law. - Video at the Link.