Her stupidness is at it again. Did you see where in discussing gun control yesterday she said that while it’s true we have a constitutional right to own a gun, we also have a constitutional right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Sorry Hillary, the Declaration of Independence is not part of the constitution. No wonder she flunked the D.C. bar exam. Makes you wonder how many other rights –more realistically lefts — she plans to invent.
Just a few quick thoughts on last nights debate. First it was good to see Rubio finally come out on the attack. It was priceless after Trump dissed him for his repetitive response to Christie a couple debates ago when Rubio caught Trump in his own repetitive do loop and it really flustered Trump.
Now the question is whether exposing the underside of Trump will have an effect on the primaries. If not, then Rubio and Cruz have just given Hillary the playbook to attack Trump in the general election. Of course should that be the case, the one thing you can count on is that Trump will come out with guns a blazing in any debates with Hillary, and God knows there is an enormous amount of ammo in the sorry, sordid, fraudulent and criminal past that she represents. And Trump will use it.
I felt sorry once again for Ben Carson because they just keep ignoring him and I thought Kasich had a pretty good debate. My problem with Kasich is that he’s too nice a guy. The Republican’s lost the last election because Romney didn’t have the killer instinct and wasn’t willing to go hard about the failure of Obama. It will be crucial that the Republican nominee be willing to attack Hillary and all her past failures and frauds. I don’t think Kasich would take the fight to her in the way that will be necessary to win.
I’ll be interested to see if the debate changed the outcome of the SEC primaries or if Trump is inevitable. The one good thing is that the Dems have a seriously flawed candidate and maybe one who will be indicted.
Was just watching the Five and they just don’t get it. They kept using inappropriate metaphors. They say things like think of the phone as a room in a house and they want to get in the room. They have the room! The more appropriate metaphor would be the phone is the house and it’s in an inaccessible location and the government wants to compel someone who doesn’t own the house and is not a party to the crime/investigation to build a road to the house. If they can do this, then they can do anything and we have no rights left! I always find it interesting when either the left or right demonstrates situational ethics vis-a-vis the constitution. Individual mandate is wrong and it is but compelled creation of something that doesn’t exist is okay. Sorry you can’t have it both ways.
BTW the supremes held the government doesn’t have the right to impose the individual mandate as within the federal governments constitutional authority under the commerce clause, it was upheld as a tax and the supremes have long held that the power to tax is the power to destroy. The requirement to create a path into the phone is not a tax or an appropriate exercise of federal constitutional power!
Just a couple of quick updates. Unsurprisingly, the New York Times is now saying the opposite of what they said when Reagan was president and claims that Republicans don’t have the right to oppose Obama’s nomination for the Supreme Court. I AM SHOCKED!
The other point for today is once again the military budget. As I indicated earlier, the Navy’s budget is getting cut and it turns out that according to an article I saw today, not only does it hurt our position in the Mideast but it also means we don’t have the force to counter China’s naval and military build up and “land” grab in the South China Sea.
This is a legacy issue for Obama. He has succeeded in downgrading our military to the point that we are starting to fit into what he wants us to be — just one more country in the world. No more American exceptionalism for Barry O.
If you want to see just how far the professional intelligentsia has gone off their progressive rockers, I strongly encourage you to read this article.
And read it all the way to the end as it just gets better and better. The only thing amazing to me is that it was a lefty professor who wrote this. I guess it’s so bad even they can’t take the lack of actual education anymore.
[If for some reason the above link doesn’t work, just go to prospect.org and look at the most popular section for Academic Fraud Report.]
And here’s a link to a place where the students are way ahead of their “professors”.
It’s no wonder we’re going to hell as a country!
Just a quickie on the I-Phone controversy. Up front I will say that I agree with Apple’s position. First off, I doubt that there is any really valuable information on the phone. Remember it is the County’s phone not the terrorists. And by the way, the County purchased software or an app, I don’t recall which now that would have allowed them to access the phone whenever they wanted but they failed to install the already paid for solution. The terrorists personal phones have not been found and they took the hard drive from their computer and it has not been found. After taking these precautions, it is extremely unlikely that they would have left this phone if it contained significant information.
More importantly, I am concerned with the judge’s order in this case. He is not ordering Apple to turn over existing proprietary software. He is ordering Apple to create new software!! The right is up in arms over Apple not capitulating, but I find it ironic that this situation is reasonably analogous to the individual mandate in Obamacare. Instead of a compelled purchase, it is a compelled creation. However, I don’t think it’s a proper exercise of judicial authority.
And lastly, the government can’t protect shit. If Apple creates this, it will get out and fall into the wrong hands. Might as well put it on Hillary’s server. BTW, I am one of the people whose OPM records were hacked and stolen.
You’re never going to believe this but the New York Times agrees with yesterday’s rant. As displayed at stevengoddard.worpress.com back in October 1987 when Reagan made a nomination for the Court the Times noted that while it was true that Reagan won the presidency, nevertheless the Dems had retaken the Senate in the mid term election and so they had every right to oppose the nomination. Don’t expect to see the same rhetoric from the Times now that the shoe’s on the other foot.
I know pretty much everyone reading this already knows the BS being put out by the Democrats and their media lapdogs about Obama having the constitutional right to name the replacement for Scalia. It’s total nonsense and we all know that they would be saying just the opposite if the shoe was on the other foot. That obstructionist weasel, Harry Reid — of whom Dennis Miller once said, “that’s not a name it’s a description” — had the gall to write a long piece in the Washington Post filled with lies about what was and wasn’t done in these circumstances in the past and the many positions Dems have taken opposite to what the Harry one now claims. (Lest you forget, this is the guy who came to Washington 30 or so years ago with maybe $100K to his name and now will retire, having only had a federal salary for all those years, with approximately $55 million.)
Reid was the biggest obstructionist in modern times when he was Senate Majority leader and wouldn’t let anything be voted on that might cause Obama to have to do his job.
On the merits, the Constitution clearly has the President nominating Supreme Court Justices. However, it also has the Senate responsible for approving or denying the President’s nominees. And like most rational people, I think given the stakes, that the vacancy should be filled by the next President. With a 4-4 ideological split on the Court and a national election only 9 months away, it makes sense to let the citizens decide the direction they want the country to go. Now you hear all the Dems and their pundits saying the people have already spoken when they elected Obama 3 years ago. That’s true, although if you’ve read my rants you’ll know that I believe that only happened because Obama unilaterally and unconstitutionally amended Obamacare to push the painful parts like the employer mandate past the election and he and Hillary lied about Benghazi. Nevertheless, he won. However, 2 years later in 2014, he and Reid and Pelosi got their collective asses handed to them in the mid-term election with Republicans taking over the Senate and extending their majority in the House. Thus, it quite fair to say that the people spoke in 2014 and it wasn’t in favor of Obama.
Like I said in my last rant, this is too important a decision with long lasting consequences to allow a lame duck president to push a very liberal nominee through. He could for the first time in his 7 years as president actually practice what he preaches about healing and unity and respect and nominate someone who would be reasonable as a replacement for Scalia. He would never nominate someone that conservative, but he could nominate someone on the center right. I doubt he will.
If Justice Ginsburg had died instead of Scalia, I don’t think we’d be having the same discussions. While many on the right might not want Obama to appoint someone, the rancor wouldn’t be as high because the stakes wouldn’t be as high. The balance on the Court is at issue. I believe the underlying desperation on the Democratic side is because they have placed all their eggs in the Hillary basket and those eggs are smelling pretty bad these days. She’s a train wreck and even took to barking like a dog yesterday and they know there is a good likelihood that they will lose the presidency and be in even smaller status in the Congress. They are desperate because they see this as potentially their last chance to turn the Court liberal for decades.
I hope their right!
The death of Justice Scalia has really upped the stakes in the presidential race. It was pretty certain that the next president would get to nominate one or more justices given the age of many of them. However it was not thought that a vacancy would occur before the election, particularly one that could upset the present 5-4 advantage for conservatives. When I first heard about his death, I was dismayed at the thought of Obama appointing a successor to Justice Scalia. That could really allow him to have a legacy. Up to now his legacy has been one disaster after another from Obamacare to the Middle East and Iranian nukes. Allowing him to appoint someone and change the court to 5-4 in favor of liberals/socialists would reverberate for decades to come. Such a change would result in a court that would approve his unconstitutional use of Executive Orders to change the laws in this country from immigration to the environment.
Fortunately, this vacancy comes only 9 months before the election and many Republicans in the Senate have vowed to block any nominee he puts up and let the American people decide in the next election which type of justice they want on the Court. Hopefully they will stick to their guns on this issue which is far more important than anything else they will do over the next year. That is unless Obama were to nominate a Republican a little right of center for the position which could make it interesting. The odds of that, however, are about the same as the odds of me fitting into a pair of size 30 skinny jeans.
Assuming the Senators stick to their guns and the Republicans don’t nominate someone bad enough to lose to the disastrous, felonious train wreck that is Hillary, there are still going to be some big problems ahead with the Court. With it now split 4-4, any decisions without a majority will result in the ruling from the lower court standing. And that’s the bad news because Harry Reid invoked the nuclear option which requires a simple majority vote to pass something, as opposed to the Senate’s self imposed requirement of a 60 vote majority to avoid a filibuster, to apply it to confirmation of federal judges below the Supreme Court level. This was when the Democrats still had control of the Senate up through 2014. Obama has used this to pack the Courts of Appeal with young very liberal judges who will be around a long time. Thus many decisions that will come up to the Court for review are likely to be decisions that are of the liberal persuasion. A 4-4 split would let those decisions stand. And it’s very likely, that even with a Republican president there will only be 8 Justices for this term and the next one which starts in October. There are very significant cases on the docket that will end up with the wrong outcome because of a 4-4 standoff.
That’s not good news but it’s much better news than letting Obama choose a successor to a very conservative Justice. So please stop Hillary in November or you may loose all your first and second amendment rights, not to mention all your hard earned money to higher and higher taxes.
I don’t know how many of you saw this about Obama’s final budget proposal, which Paul Ryan announced DOA and won’t even use as a starting point, but the Obama proposal for the military would only cut the funding for the Navy — primarily by taking one more carrier group out of service. I don’t know if you recall but in the past few months for the first time in years we didn’t have a carrier in the Persian Gulf and Obama wants to eliminate one.
This makes sense if you’re looking at it from the point of view of the first Muslim president of the U.S. – if Bill Clinton can be called the first Black president, then Barrack Hussein Obama certainly qualifies for the Muslim title. He has been trying to weaken our position in the Middle East from the get go. The Navy, via aircraft carriers, is the source of much of our air power in that area, and Obama is doing his best to eliminate that power.
Instead of taking carrier groups out of service we should be bringing more back into service, and I don’t mean the Navy and their friendly contractor’s wet dream of a new era of aircraft carriers at over a trillion dollars each. Bring a few out of mothballs and can the bloated bureaucracy in the Pentagon. Our old shit is way ahead of the Iranian’s new shit.
Obviously we need major reform in the Pentagon’s bloated purchasing activities. Everyone is familiar with the stories of $500 hammers and the like. The military-industrial complex is just one big revolving door letting military personnel retire and end up becoming millionaires and billionaires off the bloated system. I doubt that reform will come anytime soon. Fiorina is probably the only one who would have done it and she’s out. Trump probably could, but I’m not sure where his loyalties would lie on this subject. I kind of think he would favor the present system with all that extra money flowing into the private sector.
At any rate, this is not the time to weaken the Navy, and hopefully Ryan will keep that from happening.