Hearings From Hell

Watching the circus that was supposed to be a Senate Judiciary Committee evaluation of a Supreme Court candidate, I could not believe what the Democrats had done. The timing of the accusations has all the earmarks of the Democrat’s attempt to discredit, delay, and eventually minimize if not disqualify one of the most qualified judges that has been nominated to the position. We, as Americans, should be extremely concerned over the handling of this entire matter.

“This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups.” – Judge Brett Kavenaugh, Opening Statement, Senate Judiciary Hearing, September 27, 2018.

I agree with Judge Kavenaugh on several points – this is a political hit job by the Democrats, Dr. Ford was probably assaulted at some point in her life, and it wasn’t him.

To me, Dr. Ford is not a credible witness. I know of several women who have been sexually assaulted, and they remember every single excruciating detail including time, place, circumstances, and what was done. She, one the other hand, can’t seemingly remember relevant details of what amounts to a teenage groping incident, and is not a full blown assault. Equally damaging to her credibility is the fact that her social media accounts were scrubbed prior to her coming out as the accusing party. Again, perhaps the incident did occur, but given her reputation as a party girl that has been given in the media, she has confused who did what and when. What clinched the last for me was that her good friend stated that the incident did not occur.

Judge Kavenaugh, on the other hand, was very credible. He had calendars and notes, as well as dozens of character witnesses including many women who have stated that he could not and would not have done such a thing. Years and years of interactions with women, and not one peep of impropriety. On top of that, a half-dozen FBI background checks which went much deeper that what is currently required by the Judiciary Committee.

So what’s left?

“Boy, you all want power. God, I hope you never get it. I hope the American people can see through this sham.” – Senator Lindsey Graham, Senate Judiciary Hearing, September 27, 2018.

That’s right, power.

Elevating Judge Kavenaugh to the Supreme Court would severely limit the Democrat’s ability to legislate from the Supreme Court. One such example was Roe v Wade (note: read the notes that are on Wikipedia concerning this decision, and one cannot conclude otherwise that the Supreme Court ruled in such a fashion that is not consistent with the Constitution). Challenges to lower court rulings coming before the Supreme Court with a Constitutional-leaning majority would result in the majority of left-wing rulings being overturned. This would cramp or hinder their quest for getting policies and laws that would otherwise not be possible through the legislatures.

Let’s explore one example…

One of the hysterical assertions that the Liberal Democrats have been screaming about is that the elevation of Judge Kavenaugh to the Supreme Court that Roe v. Wade would be overturned, and “hundreds of women would die from back-alley abortions.” Should a challenge to Roe v. Wade be presented to the Court, it could very well be overturned, and the responsibility of regulating abortion be returned to the States (it should never have been a Federal matter to begin with).

So what does this matter? States would once again be responsible for regulating abortions as before, and the woman’s right to privacy would be re-argued on the State level. The citizens of the State would then hold their State Legislators to the standards that they deem necessary.

So again, why the problem with allowing States to regulate abortion while following current HIPA laws?

In short, money and power.

I read the other day that the political arm of Planned Parenthood was contributing $30+ million toward Democratic candidates. Should Roe v. Wade be overturned, the money for candidates at the Federal level dries up as there is no longer a reason to help fund the campaigns of friendly House, Senate, and Presidential candidates.

Planned Parenthood is also funded with $500,000,000 of Federal taxpayer dollars per year. While that money is, by law, not to fund abortions, what it does do is free up other money in the organization to perform abortions. So in a round-a-bout way, taxpayer money is funding abortions. Should Roe v. Wade be overturned, that $500,000,000 has a very real chance of being cut if not entirely going away.

That’s the money angle – what about power?

The Democrat Party has stood on the bloody platform of abortion for years, lumping the “procedure” in with the “women’s health” issue as well as stating abortion is a Constitutional “right”. By combining these issues into one, the mere thought of a “right” being taken away with certain death women as the outcome stirs up the emotions. FiveThirtyEight.com had this:

“The number of Democratic women in Congress has surged in the last two decades, and now about a third of Democrats in Congress are female. Many of those women got support from the group Emily’s List, which supports female Democratic candidates, but only those who back abortion rights. Planned Parenthood, which provides reproductive health services, including abortions, is deeply enmeshed in Democratic politics. Its political action committee invests heavily to help the party win elections.

“The essential issue with abortion [among Democrats] is that it’s not about access to a perfectly legal health choice,” Chatelain said. “It’s about all of the issues around state rights, around privacy, about gender and the family, about wages, I think abortion has become a proxy for a number of very complicated issues. … It’s about so much more on the left.”

In other words, supporting abortion (through Planned Parenthood) leads to political positions and power.

Are there other examples? Yes, there are. I would get into the 2nd Amendment issues that the Democrat Party fears, but my time is limited today. Just take my word for it that the Democrats would go for a full repeal on the 2nd Amendment if they could a la Diane Fienstein.

Here’s the bottom line on all of this: The Democrats will use every means necessary to block, delay, or destroy a Trump Supreme Court nominee. They believe that the means they use will justify achieving any political goal they have, no matter whom they destroy in the process.

After all, if they are willing to stand in the blood of the unborn, they have no limits on the personal destruction of a person’s character or life.

More Uncivil War

Watching the WAH! Party* (formerly the Democratic Party) over the past few weeks has led me to the conclusion that these people are under the delusion that they believe that they should be the only political party in the United States.  The amount of arrogance of these people in their quest for political power is almost unbelievable in its scope as it is in the levels of duplicity and deceit.  For example:

WAH! Party member Senator Schumer believes that precedence should only be to his Party’s advantage and no others.  He is demanding that his fellow Party members filibuster, obstruct, and vote against one of the most qualified Supreme Court nominees I have seen in some time.  He is also demanding that 60 votes are required to approve the appointment of Judge Neil Gorsuch.  My response would be this:

Senator Schumer, I dare you and your fellow WAH! Party members mount a real filibuster and get up in front of the American people & speak as to why this most qualified person should not be elevated to the highest court of the land.  I want you to explain plainly the reasons for your obstructionism to the due process and precedence that you yourself championed when your power held both Houses of Congress and the White House.  Last, acknowledge that 60 votes are not needed for consent as two current Justices (Justice Alito with 58 votes, Justice Thomas with 52) were approved with less than the 60 votes you state are necessary.  After exposing yourself and your party as being crying, whining children, please remove yourselves to your designated safe space and let the adults vote.

And to Senator McConnell – enough with the tap-dancing.  Change or amend the rules to approve the nomination and move on with the other business of the Senate.  The WAH! Party has not proven that they will play fair or keep their word in the past, and there is no reason to believe that they will now.  To accentuate this last point, the rant of the newly elected WAH! Party Chair Tom Perez against your party and the President is telling.

The flap about Russian hacking into the election and supposed collusion with then Candidate Trump’s campaign is another issue.  To those accusers – produce and release hard evidence with source references now to the American People via all news agencies.  In you cannot, then STHU because you are no longer relevant.  This crap with unsubstantiated accusations is not productive, especially since the former Democratic Presidential nominee has been shown to have violated multiple Federal laws and has not been prosecuted (yet?), and has made multiple deals with the Russians for personal gain.

Last, the ruckus over illegal aliens and sanctuary cities is absolutely insane.  WAH! Party controlled cities are declaring that the rights of illegal aliens (lawbreakers) supersede those of legal citizens.  The Mayors who declare such nonsense are breaking their oaths (and multiple Federal laws) to the people that elected them in the first place, and putting their citizens in danger (see New DHS Report Reveals Sanctuary Cities Are Releasing Violent Criminal Aliens by Leah Barkouskis).

To the Republicans – the WAH! Party has declared war upon you and the American People that elected you to represent them.  What is your response?


* WAH! Party stands for Whiners And Hypocrites, of which the Democratic Party has become.

Supreme Court–It Matters!

With the death of Justice Scalia, the Supreme Court can potentially become an anti-Constitution entity, throwing the country into a downward spiral.  Ben Shapiro had this to say:

In the end, Scalia’s death could mark the end of the Constitution itself. That’s because the current Supreme Court rested, until Scalia’s death, on the vague, confused, indeterminate philosophy of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who apparently decides cases on the basis of whether he has a solid bowel movement that morning. That means that half the time, the Constitution has a shot, as in Citizens United; the other half of the time, the Constitution drains away into the mists of Kennedy’s magical social justice thinking, as in Obergefell.

Unlike Kennedy, Scalia represented a consistent vote for a Constitution beyond modern progressive power politics. But with his death, President Obama now has the power to appoint a fifth justice to join hard-left social engineers Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. If the Republican Senate allows President Obama to select Scalia’s successor, the left will have a complete monopoly on the Supreme Court. Within the next few years, Citizens United will be overturned, restoring limits on free speech; the Supreme Court will render the Second Amendment meaningless by reinterpreting the right to bear arms as a non-personal right; freedom of religion will be made subservient to same-sex marriage and abortion priorities; the death penalty will be ruled unconstitutional; unions will be allowed to continue confiscating the dollars of people who disagree with them politically; redistricting along leftist lines will return. Scalia ensured that the Supreme Court wasn’t a transformative institution; now it will become the chief tool in the left’s arsenal.

The Republican controlled Senate had better grow a pair with a spine to keep this President from ending this country of ours.

Supreme Disappointment

This past week, the Supreme Court handed down two decisions – one of which I predicted in a prior post (although earlier than expected), and the second which should not have been made.

The first decision was the legalization of homosexual marriage.  I predicted earlier that this would happen, although I was off by two years at the earliest.  What ramifications that this will have is to be seen, and will be highly speculative in nature, so let me take this opportunity to throw in my two cents worth.

I foresee that other groups will want legalization of their bedroom activities.  The first of these would be polygamy, which does have an Old Testament history, and is still practiced in other parts of the world.  However, I also see that other, more unseemly practices, will also come to the courts for approval, such as sex with minors (I won’t go into the other perversions that come to mind).

There is also the censorship of opinions on this decision.  Already, a Pennsylvania paper, the PennLive / Patriot News in Harrisburg will no longer accept opinion editorials or letters to the editor concerning opposition to same-sex marriage.  The rationalization is that the paper “would not print racist, sexist or anti-Semitic letters” and thus would include the topic of same-sex marriages in that editorial policy.  The politically correct speech police adds another topic to their list…

Here’s a nation, one of the founding pillars was freedom of speech and freedom of expression. And yet, we have imposed upon people restrictions on what they can say, on what they can think. And the media is the largest proponent of this, crucifying people who say things really quite innocently. – Benjamin Carson

Freedom of speech includes the freedom to offend people. – Brad Thor

Last on my list would be the freedom of our various religious institutions to believe and teach that homosexual unions are a violations of their religion.  Anything from hate speech charges to loss of tax-exempt status are possible with this latest decision.  For the tax-exempt angle, take this excerpt from and article on American Thinker:

Lost in the celebrations over universal gay marriage, like abortion, being deemed a right found in the “penumbras and emanations” of the Constitution is the chilling effect the ruling has on religious liberty.  In a telling exchange between the Obama administration’s Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. and Justice Samuel Alito, detailed by Tom Blumer at Newsbusters.com, in which Verrilli admitted that churches could lose their tax exemptions if they refuse to perform gay weddings:

“Justice Alito: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax­exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same­-sex marriage?

“General Verrilli: You know, ­­I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is­­ it is going to be an issue.”

So the administration admits that the tax exemption of institutions could be at risk if they refuse to acquiesce in the acceptance of gay marriages.  There is no reason to assume that this mandate would not apply to institutions such as the Catholic Church.  Those who think this is a red herring forget that this is the administration dragging the Little Sisters of the Poor, a group of elderly nuns devoted to helping the aged poor, through the courts, because they won’t comply with Obamacare’s contraception coverage mandate…

Somehow, I think that the government will force (or attempt to make) various churches perform homosexual weddings or they would be charged with a civil offense.  I would, however, like to see them try to force an Imam to perform such a service in a mosque…

If you don’t think that the above is possible, consider the second decision that the Supreme Court made this week.  This one ignores the law that was passed by Congress & signed by the President, and reinterprets it in a way that boggles the mind.  From Townhall.com:

The issue in King v. Burwell is simple: The Affordable Care Act provides subsidies for taxpayers who cannot afford health care, but the law clearly states those subsidies are available only to those who purchase insurance in “an Exchange established by the State under [42 U. S. C. §18031].” Since its implementation, however, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), following the command of the Obama administration, has been granting subsidies to all citizens who otherwise qualify under the law, even if they live in states that are using the federal health insurance exchange, which is obviously not “an Exchange established by the State.”

This struck many observers as an open-and-shut case: The law strictly confines subsidies to state-established exchanges, but the IRS has been granting subsidies to everyone, in violation of the law.

[Chief Justice] Roberts reasons, “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.”

In other words, Roberts and the Court majority decided the law is “ambiguous” because the court needs it to be ambiguous to fit a particular policy goal, not because its meaning actually is indeterminate.

…All that matters is protecting Obamacare no matter the cost, as Justice Antonin Scalia illustrated in his scathing and heroic, albeit ultimately unavailing, dissent: “Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.”

Welcome to America, where laws do not matter, but opinions and good intents do.  And it seems that the opinions that do matter are Progressively Liberal in nature, where the intent overrides any possible negative outcomes or consequences.  Here’s a list of “truths’’ that we’re to accept without question unless we want to run afoul of the Thought Police and be denounced as a hater (from National Review):

Exchanges established by the federal government are exchanges established by the state. Rachel Dolezal is black. Iran will honor an agreement not to develop nuclear weapons. ISIS is a JV team. There’s an epidemic of sexual assaults on college campuses. Michael Brown had his hands up and pleaded “don’t shoot.” Caitlyn Jenner is a woman. Obamacare is working. 2+2 doesn’t necessarily equal 4. The polar ice caps are disappearing. The IRS is doing a decent job. The border is secure.We’ve ended two wars responsibly. Hillary Clinton turned over all work-related e-mails. An $18,200,000,000,000 debt can grow without mention. People who burn down buildings and overturn cars aren’t thugs. The OPM hack is manageable. We’ve reset relations with Russia. Entitlement reform can be kicked down the road. We’re more respected around the world.

Fantasy is always preferable to reality.  However, reality is a vindictive bitch, and will eventually slap the politicians back into the situations that they want to avoid.  Reality is coming, and it won’t be pretty because these bastards will not take any responsibility for the mess they created, and it will be up to the American people to clean it up if that’s even possible.

We had better elect good, responsible people to our government, or I have very serious doubts that this country will survive in any way, shape, or form.

Constitutional Crisis?

“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” – United States Constitution, Article I, Section 1

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” – Presidential Oath, United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1

“The President…shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”  – United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” – United States Constitution, Article II, Section 4

This past week, President Obama violated his Oath of Office and the Constitution by essentially bypassing the Constitution of the United States with his Executive Order concerning illegal immigration.  Only Congress can create laws concerning the legality of immigration by people of foreign birth, the penalties of violating such laws, and procedures for legal immigration.  The President, through his Administration, is charged with upholding said laws, not to change, selectively ignore, or violate.

I will not speculate on what Congress’s response will be to this naked power grab by the President.  The leadership and quality of people that we have in Congress leave much to be desired.  The lack of spines in that legislative body would leave a chiropractor broke.

Regardless, I must say that the Members of Congress and the President do not have respect for the Constitution of the United States nor for the People of the United States.  If they did, we would not have legislation like the Affordable (!?!) Patient Protection Act (aka Obamacare) nor scandals such as warrantless NSA spying, the IRS targeting specific groups, or even the Executive Action of last week.  All of these are violations of the various Oaths of the members of Congress and the Administration as well as various codes & statutes, and no one has been held accountable in a meaningful way for these violations!

This last reminded me of something I wrote last year at both Wise Conservatism and Tom’s Place:

I see the President in his actions and speeches toward his political opposition, and his demeanor toward anyone who opposes him does not befit the Office of the President.  His attitude is “I won, you lost, so do as I command” to not only Conservatives, but his own party and the American People.  The sheer arrogance is on display for anyone with half a brain and paying attention to his speeches of no compromise to his will.

And this is exactly what we have in our government at the highest levels:  Naked arrogance toward the American People.  Our government is a large, bureaucratic, insatiable beast that has incredible power which has become increasingly politicized and whose purpose is not to serve the American People, but to serve itself and the politically connected.

With this latest action by President Emperor Obama, the People of the United States are waking up to the fact that the Liberal/Progressive agenda personified by President Emperor Obama is at odds with the desires & wishes of the People of the United States and the Constitution of the United States.  There were massive outcries against ObamaCare before it’s passage by Congress, and the same for the latest Executive Order concerning illegal immigration reform.  The People were not heard, the politicians did what they wanted, and The People are not pleased.

The recourse that We The People now have is to pressure the newly elected Congress to restore the balance of power as stated by the Constitution, and for the Courts to direct the enforcement of the laws of the United States by the Administration.

We The People have no other choice.