Monday, August 6, 2018

David Axelrod Tries to Burn Trump on Climate Change

Cory Booker on American Heartbreak


At the Netroots Nation conference conference in New Orleans, Senator Cory Booker's pensive philosophy intimated how may proceed on his path to the White House in 2020.



Pity that he was not more observant about with whom he was posing for photos.  



Booker claims that he did not know but the poseurs (sic) probably would embrace his critical cri-de-couer theme. 

Thursday, July 19, 2018

Victor Davis Hanson on Deep State Elites

Victor Davis Hanson on John Brennan as the Poster Boy for Deep State Elites

On Comey the Clown



Reacting to disgraced ex FBI chief James Comey entreating Americans to vote Democrat in the midterms elections, conservative radio icon Mark Levin labeled his partisan plea as a clownish ploy to avoid accountability. 

Conservative radio icon Mark Levin on Comey the Clown

Aside from removing the veneer of being a Republican, Comey's cloddish conduct in the Hillary Clinton email debacle as well as his own disgraceful leaks of his own classified memos further solidifies his clownish status as it drags down the FBI's reputation.



What will really take the cake is if Comey is foolish enough to belief his mainstream media headlines and really run for President in 2020.

Sebastian Gorka on Press Conferences

Sebastian Gorka on Press Conferences

Buck Sexton on Journalism

Buck Sexton on Journalism

Monday, July 16, 2018

Hillary Clinton on the Kavanaugh Nomination to the Supreme Court

Hillary Clinton Uses Kavanaugh Supreme Court Nomination to inimate that GOP wants to bring back slavery

When Hillary Clinton was speaking before the American Federation of Teachers conference in Pittsburgh, she intimated that President Trump's nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court is an indication that Republicans want to bring back slavery.



Aside from the irony that the GOP was historically the party that ended slavery thru President Lincoln's  Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 and passage of the 13th  Amendment in 1865, Hillary's hair on fire rhetoric is remarkable.

Instead of Mrs. Clinton continuing her loser tour around liberal circles which offered various excuses why she was beaten by Donald Trump in the 2016 election, she is focusing her wrath more firmly towards the rhetoric of "The Resistance".  Whether or not a old pol who profited off of insider deals, questionable charities and the aura of being an Elite can convince surging Democrat Socialists to support her is another story.

This is not the first time which Democrat operatives have sought to invoke slavery to advance their own campaign.  During the 2012 cycle, ex Vice President Joe Biden proclaimed "They want to put y'all back in chains" during a rally in Danville, Virginia (which was the last capital of the Confederacy).



It is uncertain in the era #WalkAway and record low black unemployment will work to get minorities to the polls in the midterms. 

Wednesday, July 11, 2018

On Turgid Constitutional Ignorance

In the alluvia of analysis and opinions which followed President Trump's nomination of Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, NBC New's Katy Tur attempted to ask an insightful question.

Katy Tur on the Constitution Aside from the liberal assumption embedded in the inquiry, Tur operated with an egregious error.  The Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia in 1787 not 1776. It seems that Little Katy did not grow up watching Schoolhouse Rock.



Maybe she should review the lesson as she might learn something.  

That simple mistake really costs her credibility.  So often we are inclined to impart wisdom on the pundits who pontificate on television.  If they get a basic civics fact wrong, why should we listen to them?






Although Katy Tur was awarded the 2017 Walter Cronkite Award for Excellence in Journalism, I think it's  Unbelievable (sic).  That may be the title of her book with her year covering Donald Trump, but now I know better how to analyze her reportage: Progressive, propagandistic, polemic and nescient. 


Rejecting Tomi Lahren's Pink Slime Pro-Choice Perspectives

Fox News Commentator Tomi Lahren likens reversing Roe v. Wade to conservatives spitting on the Constitution


In offering analysis after President Donald Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to be on the Supreme Court, Fox News commentator Tomi Lahren opined that conservatives seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade are effectively spitting on the Constitution.

Lahren has been outspoken in her adherence to abortion rights.  She was separated from Glenn Beck's "The Blaze TV" last year because of her inconsistent opinions about abortion.  This was sparked by an appearance on ABC's The View in which she argued that it was hypocritical to be anti-choice and be a small government conservative.    Beck insisted that he wanted to terminate Lahren for lacking intellectual integrity.


“I can’t speak for the company and why they did it, but it had nothing to do with being pro-choice...
What I have a problem with is somebody who will change their point of view or that will say absolutely crazy, red meat things, and not have any intellectual firepower to back it up. Have the intellectual integrity to be able to back things up.”




Now Lahren laments that some conservatives want a Supreme Court to carry out religious judicial activism to get rid of Roe v. Wade (1973).  Tantalizing pro-choice red meat but it like the pink slime substitute which some fast food outlets use to sell dollar menu items to a hungry public even though it causes indigestion.

Lahren assumes that any rollback of Roe would be premised on religious issues.  Even the Roe decision recognizes that government has interests in unborn life in the last trimester that is viable.  Prenatal medicine has made great leaps of advancement so viability is pushed closer to the 20th week of pregnancy.  No signs of religion in this hermaneutic. And that does not even consider the scientific fact that human life begins at the moment of conception

Pro-Choice jurisprudence currently rests on the shaky foundation of abortion as being included in a right to privacy that is within  penumbras and emanations of the Bill of Rights, as applied to states by the Fourteenth Amendment.  Justice Blackmun's holding in Roe is a quintessential example of judicial activism, legislating from the bench for the entire nation.

Conceptually, a texualist originalist led Supreme Court could rule that "the right to privacy" is not enumerated within the Federal Constitution and that the Tenth Amendment is applicable.  This would throw the abortion issue back to the states, where it resided prior to the 1973 judicial fiat.  Some states, like California and New York, would have liberal abortion laws, while other states may be more restrictive.   That sort of subsidiary jurisprudence sounds like small government conservatism.

Maybe Lahren's political science studies at UNLV did not adequately cover jurisprudence.  She seems to think that it is unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to overrule bad precedent or is judicial activism.   In his confirmation hearing to become Chief Justice in 2005, John Roberts noted that stare decisis does not hold as a legal precedent when a matter was wrongly decided.  But in Tomi Lahren's legal logic, Brown v. Board of Education (1954) that overturned the Separate but Equal standard of  Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) was just spitting on the Constitution too. 

It is lamentable that Fox News turns to Tomi Lahren for legal analysis.  In little more than a year, she has shifted her abortion rights advocacy from being premised on what she believes is small government conservatism to combating religious judicial activism.  No wonder she burned her bridge at The Blaze TV for lacking intellectual integrity. 

Some may want to consume pink slime perspectives because they are spicy tasty morsel temptations, but assuredly many leave the establishment when such dreck is  seen on the television menu.

Terry McAulliffe on the Brett Kavanaugh Nomination

Prospective Democrat Presidential candidate Terry McAulliffe on the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination

President Donald Trump on Vetting SCOTUS Nominees

President Donald Trump on vetting Supreme Court nominees

Wednesday, July 4, 2018

John Wayne on the American Flag


The Duke should have asked Sheldon Cooper on "Fun with Flags".  He might have doubled the viewership.



Thursday, June 28, 2018

A Poignant Reaction to the Annapolis Shooting

Capital Gazette Reporter Phil Davis gave first hand reaction to the Annapolis shooting

On Applying the Nuclear Option and Comity

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Democrats invoking the Nuclear Option for judicial nominations

Article II Section 2 of the Constitution gives the United States Senate the prerogative to give "Advice and Consent" in confirming Executive Branch nominations, especially the judiciary. For most of the Republic, confirmations of Supreme Court justices were not voted on in a markedly partisan manner. 

The Senate, which liked to consider itself as the world's greatest deliberative body, usually operated in a manner which vetted high court nominees in a conscientiously deferential manner to the President.  For example, Ruth Bader Ginsburg had been chief counsel of the ACLU and a noted feminist attorney, yet she garnered a 93-3 confirmation vote in 1993. 


Admittedly, this was not always the case. President George H.W. Bush's nominee of Clarence Thomas endured a contentious confirmation hearings  in 1991 which he likened to a "high tech lynching for uppity blacks".  

And  of course the vitriolic attacks on Robert Bork, President Ronald Reagan's 1987 pick to fill a Supreme Court opening, resulted in the verb "to Bork" to be added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2002.  But the adamant opposition from the left stemmed, however peripherally, to nitpicking "flaws" in the nominees.

Much of the comity that the Senate enjoyed was due to Cloture Rule (Senate Rule XXII) which was instituted in 1917.  In order to end debate on a filibuster, three-fifths of Senators (today 60 votes) is required.  Applying that to judicial nominees, Presidents often picked less stridently partisan or controversial candidates, as some Senate Minority votes were needed in order to advance to the confirmation vote.  



Former Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) found this 3/5ths Cloture requirement to be inconvenient in his effort to aid President Barack Obama in packing the judiciary (particularly changing the balance in the 4th Circuit, a.k.a. "The Rocket Docket").  Thus, in 2013 Reid exercised "The Nuclear Option" which abrogated Senate Rule XXII for judicial confirmations save Supreme Court nominees. 



 Reid was warned on the Senate floor by then Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) that you will regret using the nuclear option.   In the 115th Congress, when Senate Democrats became openly obstructionistic about any nominations made by President Donald Trump, Majority Leader McConnell extended the "nuclear option" to include Supreme Court nominees, which resulted in Neil Gorsuch being confirmed by a 54-45 vote.




After Justice Anthony Kennedy's announced retirement from the Nation's High Court, Democrats have campaigned for the Senate to delay confirmation hearings for the SCOTUS opening until after the 2018 midterm elections.  Their facile rationalization is that Republicans ought to follow the same standard used to deny Merritt Garland a confirmation hearing in 2016 because it was an election year.  Of course, this partisan plea ignores that it was a Presidential election year and had over 70 years of precedent.  In addition, Democrats are not in the majority and they set the agenda. Elections do have consequences.  

So does changing and exploiting rules.  Democrats might have some gravitas to their suggestion to stall SCOTUS confirmation hearing until after the midterms if they were not already slow walking nearly all Trump confirmations.   Senate rules allow for 30 hours of debate on each nominee.  Democrats have been routinely requiring the entire 30 hours of debate, which would mean that President Trump's picks could receive senatorial "advise and consent" in nine years. So the threat that Democrats will further slow walk Senate proceedings in retaliation or to forestall a SCOTUS confirmation vote is meaningless. 

The recalcitrant response of Democrats should be a cue to Majority Leader McConnell on how to react to the diminution of comity in the Senate.  If Democrats are going to slow walk everything in retaliation or retribution for the Senate leadership for exercising their "advice and consent" on Supreme Court nominees in a timely manner, then keep them in session.  McConnell already effectively cancelled the traditional long summer recess so they can meet their budgetary duties. So they get to spend the dog days of summer on Capital Hill and enjoy the swampy weather in the District of Calamity (sic).


But the lack of comity and the need for elected officials to do their job might mean spending more time on Capitol Hill.  Since Democrats seem to relish filibusters and slowing the process down, the Majority Leader should change how filibutsters are treated.  Instead of the failure of a cloture vote resulting in the legislation (or the nomination) being pulled, let the debate continue.  If legislators want to invoke "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" and talk until they are hoarse and drop from exhaustion, that is their prerogative.  But just as the nuclear option changed things in unexpected ways, tinkering with the filibuster might have adverse effects on Senate minority rights in the future.

Moreover, so that the Senate is not simply the place where legislation goes to and dies, remain in session through October instead of taking the election break.  From an objective standpoint, they will be doing their jobs (instead of concentrating on getting re-elected).  Politically, this hurts Senate Democrats (as they have 25 of 33 seats up, including 10 in states where Mr. Trump won).  And it might make obstructionism less appealing and allow incumbents to give comity a chance.






Wednesday, June 27, 2018

Is Mark Warner Intoxicated on Intelligence?

Senator Mark Warner teases big money Democrat donors on inside information about the Mueller Special Counsel investigation

During a Majority Trust Retreat Dinner for the National Democrat Campaign Committee in Martha's Vineyard, Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), the Vice Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee jested that if you gave him another glass of wine, and he would reveal tantalizing details about the Mueller Special Counsel investigation.



  While this cryptic comment can be passed off as sparkling wit during a wine, brie and rubber chicken fundraiser, this discounts the candor which is afforded to high rolling donors. Rush Limbaugh recalled attending a soiree for big donors to President George W. Bush.  Rush recalled that unlike his cautious, stammering public persona, "W" was entirely a different guy when cameras were not focused on him.  Once assured that the remarks were off the record, Mr. Bush spoke with candor and the President opined without notes for 45 minutes about serious subjects without stuttering. 

Limbaugh insists that teasing big money donors with bogus political bombshells is not done. Deceiving deep pocket donors risks alienating their pocketbooks in the future.  

This may be why President Trump chronicled Warner's supposedly tipsy insinuation.  




Taken at face value, Democrats are colluding with the Special Counsel. In addition, they are relying on precursors of impeachable offenses to base their midterm election campaign.  This could explain why Vanity Fair proclaimed that Mueller could give the GOP an October Surprise. 

If it is the case that Warner has advanced intelligence about the Mueller investigation, why is information on an active case being leaked to a key Democrat?   Is Warner intoxicated with illegal insider intelligence or just intoxicated on power?

Tuesday, June 26, 2018

Two New Citizen Tigers

Two Detroit Tigers become naturalized citizens at Comerica Park


During a pre-game ceremony at Comerica Park, twenty five people including two Detroit Tigers took their oath of citizenship. 




Leonys Martin Tapanes, a 30 year old Center Fielder, played on the 2009 Cuban National team before defecting while paying in Taiwan.  Martin then signed with Texas Rangers in 2011 and later played for the Seattle Mariners and Chicago Cubs.  This is the first year that Martin is playing for the Detroit Tigers.


After the ceremony, Martin mused: 


"I will never forget about my country but it's amazing to be part of the United States.  Being able to do this here at the ballpark, in front of fans, that was really emotional."

Jose Antonio Inglesias Aleman is a 28 year old shortstop, who was in the Cuban National Series in 2008 but defected when the Cuban National team visited Canada in 2009.  He came to America with a pair of shorts, a tee shirt and a dream. Iglesias played for the Boston Red Sox  before being traded to the Detroit Tigers in 2013. 

Iglesias admitted that adjusting to America has been daunting as he observed:


"It's hard man, you came. You face a new culture, face a new language, facing new food, new everything. Still learning. I've been here ten years and I'm still learning."

One thing Iglesias learned well was to not alienate fans.  He was happy to be a newly naturalized citizen and be able to vote, but he deflected from questions about commenting on President Trump's immigration policies.

Now that they are naturalized citizens, Martin and Iglesias will be able to join the rest of the Tigers on a road trip to Toronto for a series with the Blue Jays. 

It is inspiring to see two immigrants who sought freedom to live their dreams in America who worked within the system and and embrace their new country rather than treat it like a meal ticket.


Trump Tosses Mud at the Thought of Ex Pat Hogs

President Donald Trump has been intent on establishing fair trade for the US. Thus, he has levied tariffs with both allies and "frienamies" alike.  Some of the nations targeted for tariffs have responded with retaliatory tariffs.  

One of the commodities President Trump has chosen to protect is the steel industry. Mr. Trump applied a 25% tariff on imported steel.  This causes the price of many manufactured durable goods to either increase prices or shift customary operating procedures.  This protectionism acts as a hidden tax on American consumers and makes US products less competitive. 

Harley Davidson is an iconic American motorcycle manufacturer which has recently found success in European markets.  The steel tariff raises the prices of  Harley Davidson hogs by about $2,000.  To try to remain competitive, the Milwaukee based company indicated that it would shift production overseas.



This news did not settle well with President Trump, who vowed retaliation on Harley Davidson. 
President Trump Threatens Harley Davidson with high taxes if it shifts production overseas to mitigate tariffs


Since retaliatory tariffs have been implemented by our trading partners, the stock market went on an eight day slide, one day dropping 500 points.



Larry Kudlow
Perhaps Larry Kudlow, Trump's new Director of the National Economic Council, can convince the 45th President that when implementing threats of tariffs for "fair trade", there are unintended consequences to competitive advantage.