Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHE DAY.BLOGSPOT.COM
Friday, July 6, 2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****
Trish Regan National Anthem. Very Exciting...Enjoy
New push for WWI memorial, 116,000 Americans killed ‘virtually forgotten’
by Paul Bedard
Supporters for a new World War I memorial in Washington are stepping up their campaign to honor those killed before the great war is forgotten.
“We are not a country that forgets those who serve, and yet in WWI we lost 116,000 Americans and we have virtually forgotten," said retired Adm. Michael Mullen, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
"It is the charge of this memorial to make sure that ends, and those that sacrificed so much, and the millions of Americans that those loses affected, are not forgotten,” he added in the fundraising appeal for the developing memorial.
He spoke at a recent event hosted by the U.S. World War One Centennial Commission aboard the USS Intrepid in New York. The commission released a new podcast from the event timed for Independence Day.
Joining Mullen was former Starbucks executive and potential 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Howard Schultz who is also an advocate for the memorial.
“This acknowledgement is obviously long overdue," he said.
"Our nation honors the veterans of every major world war of the 20th century with a national memorial in Washington D.C. There's one glaring exception: the veterans of WW1 -- America's first major conflict fought on foreign soil when we stood up on the world stage for the principals of liberty and self-determination. In building a national memorial we will re-acquaint ourselves with some of the most remarkable accomplishments in American history,” he added.
The World War One Centennial Commission is creating the National WWI Memorial in Washington through private donations. Groundbreaking took place last year at Pershing Park, located at 14th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW.
Just imagine who Hillary would have appointed to the Supreme court. Stomach wrenching, isn’t it?
Where is Jim Nabors when you need him. Gawlee...
Facebook has apologized to a Texas newspaper after flagging a post containing text from the Declaration of Independence as “hate speech.
Open Border Democrats Protest ICE Breaking Up a Human Sex Trafficking Ring
https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2018/07/05/bang-up-work-clowns-this-oakland-anti-ice-protest-took-a-very-awkward-turn-video/
Ads by Revcontent
President Trump Calls Out Congress in Latest Tweetstorm: ‘FIX OUR INSANE IMMIGRATION LAWS NOW!’
BREAKING: EPA Chief Scott Pruitt Resigns
‘Reprehensible!’ Footage of ‘Cesspool’ District Maxine Waters Represents, But Doesn’t Live in, Shocks Twitter
Intolerant ‘Liberal’ Agent Drops Actor James Woods on the 4th of July Over His Conservative Politics
ICE Joins Manhunt for 3 Illegal Aliens Who Raped 13- and 14-Year-Old Sisters
Bill Clinton caught lying to investigators (arrest him!)
by Frank Holmes, reporter
An explosive fact tucked away in a federal investigator’s report just exposed a huge scandal – and could it have former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sharing a jail cell.
Just days before Hillary’s interview with FBI agents over her homebrew e-mail server, Bill held a top-secret meeting with former President Barack Obama’s Attorney General Loretta Lynch – and it looks like he lied to investigators about it.
The pair always claimed their half-hour meeting on June 27, 2016, was unplanned and that they never discussed the investigation, which Lynch oversaw.
Bill even told federal investigators that the whole thing happened on the spur-of-the-moment when he realized that both their planes happened to be parked on the tarmac of Phoenix’s Sky Harbor International Airport.
He said he just wanted to be courteous, because he didn’t want to snub Lynch. He wanted the public to believe that the whole thing was just good manners and Southern hospitality!
But a little-read section of Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s 500-plus page report rips their whole alibi to shreds.
“Former President Clinton’s Secret Service detail had contacted Lynch’s FBI security detail and let them know that the former President wanted to meet with Lynch” before they ever landed in Arizona, according to page 203 of Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report.
So much for the meeting being “a casual, unscheduled meeting,” – the way a spokeswoman for the Obama administration’s Justice Department, Melanie Newman, described it.
In other words, Bill asked for a meeting with the head of the Obama administration’s “Justice” Department at the height of its investigation into his wife – and the Obama administration agreed.
But the Horowitz report tears the lid off the Democrats’ rampant corruption of the federal government for political advantage in many other ways.
At a minimum, that would seem to prove that Bill lied to federal investigators about how the meeting came to happen. If so, that’s a federal felony that carries a five-year jail sentence.
And there are other reasons to believe “Slick Willy” lied through his teeth again. The OIG report and independent media investigations show that Clinton and Lynch might just be cracking under pressure because they’re having a hard time keeping their stories straight.
They both insisted they didn’t discuss the DOJ investigation. Instead, Lynch told federal investigators that they talked about golf, Brexit, and West Virginia coal miners.
But Horowitz’s report shows the two had a hard time staying on the same page.
Clinton told investigators “he did not recall Brexit coming up, but acknowledged that he probably did discuss it.” He “also said that he did not recall mentioning West Virginia coal policy to Lynch.”
And Christopher Sign, the local ABC-affiliate reporter who broke the story, has said, “Two years later and I have not found a person who can confirm that Bill played golf during that trip to Phoenix.”
Keeping lies straight must get confusing after awhile.
That’s why the pair did everything they could to make sure no one ever knew the meeting ever took place.
Horowitz’s 500-plus page report shows that the DOJ tried to sweep the meeting under the rug, destroy evidence, and destroy the police officer who tipped off the media.
First, photographers were forbidden from taking pictures of the Clinton-Lynch meeting. Page 209 of Horowitz’s report says:
The OPA Supervisor said that there was a photographer outside, and he recalled telling the photographer that Lynch would not be taking pictures. The OPA Supervisor said that he remembered telling the photographer that he (the photographer) needed to go back in his car.
Then, after a local ABC affiliate broke the story, FBI agents threatened to find out which police officer leaked the meeting and ruin his career.
Internal emails show that Obama officials obsessed with finding the person who let the cat out of the bag.
“We need to find that guy and bring him or her before a supervisor,” one agent e-mailed. Another FBI employee said the federal government had to “make sure he never works on any (presidential security) detail” again.
That’s not the behavior of innocent people. The Horowitz report proves that Bill lied to investigators about meeting with the Obama administration days before Hillary testified about her lawbreaking, and it suggests that Lynch lied about what they talked about.
It’s time to prosecute both of them, Crooked Hillary, and every corrupt official still infesting the Justice Department to the full extent of the law.
Frank Holmes is a reporter for The Horn News. He is a veteran journalist and an outspoken conservative that talks about the news that was in his weekly article, “On The Holmes Front.”
Just days before Hillary’s interview with FBI agents over her homebrew e-mail server, Bill held a top-secret meeting with former President Barack Obama’s Attorney General Loretta Lynch – and it looks like he lied to investigators about it.
The pair always claimed their half-hour meeting on June 27, 2016, was unplanned and that they never discussed the investigation, which Lynch oversaw.
Bill even told federal investigators that the whole thing happened on the spur-of-the-moment when he realized that both their planes happened to be parked on the tarmac of Phoenix’s Sky Harbor International Airport.
He said he just wanted to be courteous, because he didn’t want to snub Lynch. He wanted the public to believe that the whole thing was just good manners and Southern hospitality!
But a little-read section of Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s 500-plus page report rips their whole alibi to shreds.
“Former President Clinton’s Secret Service detail had contacted Lynch’s FBI security detail and let them know that the former President wanted to meet with Lynch” before they ever landed in Arizona, according to page 203 of Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report.
So much for the meeting being “a casual, unscheduled meeting,” – the way a spokeswoman for the Obama administration’s Justice Department, Melanie Newman, described it.
In other words, Bill asked for a meeting with the head of the Obama administration’s “Justice” Department at the height of its investigation into his wife – and the Obama administration agreed.
But the Horowitz report tears the lid off the Democrats’ rampant corruption of the federal government for political advantage in many other ways.
At a minimum, that would seem to prove that Bill lied to federal investigators about how the meeting came to happen. If so, that’s a federal felony that carries a five-year jail sentence.
And there are other reasons to believe “Slick Willy” lied through his teeth again. The OIG report and independent media investigations show that Clinton and Lynch might just be cracking under pressure because they’re having a hard time keeping their stories straight.
They both insisted they didn’t discuss the DOJ investigation. Instead, Lynch told federal investigators that they talked about golf, Brexit, and West Virginia coal miners.
But Horowitz’s report shows the two had a hard time staying on the same page.
Clinton told investigators “he did not recall Brexit coming up, but acknowledged that he probably did discuss it.” He “also said that he did not recall mentioning West Virginia coal policy to Lynch.”
And Christopher Sign, the local ABC-affiliate reporter who broke the story, has said, “Two years later and I have not found a person who can confirm that Bill played golf during that trip to Phoenix.”
Keeping lies straight must get confusing after awhile.
That’s why the pair did everything they could to make sure no one ever knew the meeting ever took place.
Horowitz’s 500-plus page report shows that the DOJ tried to sweep the meeting under the rug, destroy evidence, and destroy the police officer who tipped off the media.
First, photographers were forbidden from taking pictures of the Clinton-Lynch meeting. Page 209 of Horowitz’s report says:
The OPA Supervisor said that there was a photographer outside, and he recalled telling the photographer that Lynch would not be taking pictures. The OPA Supervisor said that he remembered telling the photographer that he (the photographer) needed to go back in his car.
Then, after a local ABC affiliate broke the story, FBI agents threatened to find out which police officer leaked the meeting and ruin his career.
Internal emails show that Obama officials obsessed with finding the person who let the cat out of the bag.
“We need to find that guy and bring him or her before a supervisor,” one agent e-mailed. Another FBI employee said the federal government had to “make sure he never works on any (presidential security) detail” again.
That’s not the behavior of innocent people. The Horowitz report proves that Bill lied to investigators about meeting with the Obama administration days before Hillary testified about her lawbreaking, and it suggests that Lynch lied about what they talked about.
It’s time to prosecute both of them, Crooked Hillary, and every corrupt official still infesting the Justice Department to the full extent of the law.
Frank Holmes is a reporter for The Horn News. He is a veteran journalist and an outspoken conservative that talks about the news that was in his weekly article, “On The Holmes Front.”
North Korea’s Official Media Drop Their Hostility Toward Trump And The US
ANDREW MALCOLM
North Korean propaganda, chronically showing heroic North Koreans crushing imperialist powers like the United States, has taken a dramatic turn toward moderation in recent weeks.
Driven by the Kim Jung-un regime’s open meetings with Presidents Donald Trump and Moon Jae-in of South Korea, the ubiquitous posters festooning public squares, shops and elsewhere now deal with economic progress and hailing improved relations with South Korea. Party newspapers show similar shifts.
In a country where access to information is severely controlled, such unannounced shifts are closely watched as reflections of altered official policies. The Communist press has even been reporting the Dear Leader’s foreign trips to Beijing and Singapore in near real-time.
Reduced anti-American hostility might also be part of an ongoing effort to convince President Trump to ease the stringent international economic sanctions he has assembled on the North. The American leader has vowed not to let up until well into the nuclear disarmament process.
However, the hopeful signs of reduced official hostility come at the same time as other developments indicating possible hedging by the Kim state toward its proclaimed goal of “denuclearization” of the Korean Peninsula, whatever that ends up meaning. Using satellite photos, intelligence analysts say Pyongyang continues a large expansion of a solid-fuel ballistic missile engine factory, as we wrote here the other day.
“In tone, the US is now depicted as if it is a normal country,” North Korea expert Peter Ward told the BBC. “All references to US actions that North Korea considers hostile acts have disappeared from the papers.” They’ve been replaced by what might be considered neutral coverage, even when the US recently quit the UN Human Rights Council.
“This is fascinating,” Ward continued. “Generally speaking, neutral or positive coverage is normally reserved for countries that Pyongyang has friendly relations with.”
Of course, the new line is also propaganda. And it can be changed back to aggressive hostility just as quickly. But it’s an interesting indication of Pyongyang’s more open attitude toward the West. And it comes after yet another post-summit pilgrimage by Kim to Beijing.
Secy. of State Mike Pompeo is in Pyongyang again this week to continue negotiations started in Singapore. He may notice the propaganda changes and even disappearance of anti-American souvenirs on sale widely.
Fyodor Tertitskiy of NK News that closely monitors the North said: “Pyongyang needs an atmosphere of peace and detente and such posters would help to create it.”
ABC Newsman OUT After False Story About Trump And Flynn
ABC Newsman OUT After False Story About Trump And Flynn
by: TTN Staff
ABC's longtime newsman Brian Ross is parting ways with the network. The decision comes after a false report was made by Ross where he stated that Trump ordered General Michael Flynn to contact Russian officials.
After 24 years with ABC News, Brian Ross announced on Monday that he's parting ways with the network. The decision comes a little over six months after Ross falsely reported that Donald Trump ordered adviser Mike Flynn to contact Russian officials during the 2016 campaign — a claim that sent the stock market diving and left the Democrats' salivating over the belief they'd finally got their evidence of "collusion" to take down Trump.
"After a great run of 24 years, we have decided to pack up and move on from ABC News, an organization that has meant so much to us," Ross and longtime executive producer Rhonda Schwartz said in a statement Monday. "While we are signing off from ABC News, we are hardly leaving investigative journalism. There is much more to do."
ABC News president James Goldston bid farewell to the pair in a memo to employees. "They've exposed government corruption at every level, international human rights abuses and fraud, uncovered dangerous working conditions, sexual abuse cover-ups and dishonest business practices," said Goldston. "Their work has led repeatedly to real changes in policy in the U.S. and around the world. Over the years they have built a team of the best investigative journalists in our industry, and they leave behind an outstanding group that will continue to break stories for many years to come. … We wish them well in their next chapter."
Despite Goldston's high praise and optimism about Ross' future, the investigative reporter will likely be most remembered for his infamous false report that has made just about every headline announcing his departure from the network. In its report on Ross parting ways with ABC, Page Six cites his "botched report on ousted White House national security adviser Flynn that reported President Trump directed Flynn to make contact with Russian officials." Variety also cites the "erroneous Trump report" in their piece on Ross leaving ABC.
This is one of the more major consequences of a reporter being reprimanded for reporting the fake news. Hopefully, this serves as a lesson for these big-time journalists to check their sources.
"After a great run of 24 years, we have decided to pack up and move on from ABC News, an organization that has meant so much to us," Ross and longtime executive producer Rhonda Schwartz said in a statement Monday. "While we are signing off from ABC News, we are hardly leaving investigative journalism. There is much more to do."
ABC News president James Goldston bid farewell to the pair in a memo to employees. "They've exposed government corruption at every level, international human rights abuses and fraud, uncovered dangerous working conditions, sexual abuse cover-ups and dishonest business practices," said Goldston. "Their work has led repeatedly to real changes in policy in the U.S. and around the world. Over the years they have built a team of the best investigative journalists in our industry, and they leave behind an outstanding group that will continue to break stories for many years to come. … We wish them well in their next chapter."
Despite Goldston's high praise and optimism about Ross' future, the investigative reporter will likely be most remembered for his infamous false report that has made just about every headline announcing his departure from the network. In its report on Ross parting ways with ABC, Page Six cites his "botched report on ousted White House national security adviser Flynn that reported President Trump directed Flynn to make contact with Russian officials." Variety also cites the "erroneous Trump report" in their piece on Ross leaving ABC.
This is one of the more major consequences of a reporter being reprimanded for reporting the fake news. Hopefully, this serves as a lesson for these big-time journalists to check their sources.
Trump Blows Away a Penumbra
Liberals are hysterical because a long era of judge-made law may be about to end.
By Daniel Henninger
Liberals are hysterical because a long era of judge-made law may be about to end.
By Daniel Henninger
Michael Moore, who somehow has kept his name afloat since he made a movie about George W. Bush 14 years ago, says he wants to surround the U.S. Capitol with a million protesters so the Senate won’t be able to vote on President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee. He asks: “What would you give your life for?”
The day after Justice Anthony Kennedy resigned, the New York Times’s editorialists addressed “those who face the future in fear after Wednesday.” Lest anyone miss the point, the Times said: “It is a dark moment in the history of the court and the nation, and it’s about to get a lot darker.”
Wonder Land Podcast for July 4, 2018
All this panic is supposed to be about the future of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision establishing abortion as a right. In fact, the threat to Democratic political rule is even bigger than Roe, which was about just one thing. What is at risk is the rationale for judicial overreaching that was created in the court’s 1965 decision, Griswold v. Connecticut.
Supreme Court decisions don’t often produce phrases that enter the vocabulary of political life, but Griswold did. The phrase is “penumbras formed by emanations.”
Griswold is worth recalling because it established a right to privacy, though the Constitution says nothing about any such right. Justice William O. Douglas famously explained how this could be, arguing that “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.”
Douglas’s “penumbras” decision, though ridiculed, defined the post-’60s era of “judge-made law,” in which achieving a result that reflected liberal values or policy goals mattered more than the legal reasoning to justify it. This results-driven view is what routinely sent Justice Antonin Scalia into eloquent and volcanic dissents.
Though capable of rigor in his reasoning, Anthony Kennedy was willing to swing toward decisions that simply affirmed what he thought were ascendant cultural mores. With the Trump Supreme Court nominations, this long era of judge-made law is at risk, if not over.
First with Neil Gorsuch and now with Justice Kennedy’s successor, Donald Trump is putting a stop to ruling by penumbra. It’s a historic shift, and Mr. Trump’s opponents are going absolutely crazy.
As the Times editorial suggests, the left seems to believe the Supreme Court will virtually cease to exist as a branch of government. That puts liberals in a tough spot, because they had already thrown in the towel on the legislative branch.
From the 1970s onward, modern liberalism increasingly came to rely on filing lawsuits to effect policies that couldn’t survive passage through representative bodies like the House and Senate. Or they deployed executive mandates—which reached an apotheosis with Barack Obama.
Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ended the filibuster for appellate-court nominees so his party could pack the D.C. Circuit with judges who would affirm the Obama regulatory orders that covered vast swaths of American life.
Having all but abandoned the legislative branch to achieve their goals, progressives now think the Trump Supreme Court nominations will close off the judiciary as a policy tool. Thus, the hysteria.
In the Carpenter case this term, Justice Gorsuch wrote a long dissent, which didn’t mention “penumbras,” but it’s clear he knows exactly when the trouble started: “From the founding until the 1960s, the right to assert a Fourth Amendment claim didn’t depend on your ability to appeal to a judge’s personal sensibilities about the ‘reasonableness’ of your expectations or privacy. It was tied to the law.” Justice Gorsuch calls judging rooted in law “the traditional approach.” I’m for it.
Our confusing culture could itself kill penumbral legal reasoning. One can imagine the high court struggling to adjudicate cases based on ever more arcane claims for self-identity, diversity and privacy. Contorting itself even further to accommodate incomprehensible rights could discredit the court with a strong majority of the American people.
Despite his reputation as the swing vote on cultural issues, Justice Kennedy appeared to understand that we have arrived at a crossroads. In several opinions this term, he essentially issued statements of belief.
Here, in Nifla v. Becerra, is the co-author of Planned Parenthood v. Casey explaining why pregnancy-service agencies should not be compelled to issue a state’s abortion notification: “It is forward thinking to begin by reading the First Amendment as ratified in 1791; to understand the history of authoritarian government as the Founders then knew it.” He is saying to his liberal colleagues in the judiciary: Enough is enough.
Some argue that Mr. Trump filled the Scalia seat with Justice Gorsuch and now is obligated to fill the Kennedy “swing” seat with another Kennedy. He is under no such obligation. What President Trump should do is complete his already stellar Gorsuch bench. That would mean a justice who respects the law’s traditions and understands its limits.
Write henninger@wsj.com.
Hamilton vs. Jefferson...
The Fourth of July celebrates America’s freedom from England
Elise Cooper
The Fourth of July celebrates America’s freedom from England. The delegates from the thirteen colonies adopted the Declaration of Independence, the document written by Thomas Jefferson that gave America its moral pulse. After the Continental Congress approved the final wording of the Declaration of Independence, the United States of America was born.
Americans need to be grateful to Jefferson for giving us the language and values of liberty and freedom. Yet, by watching and listening to Lin-Manuel Miranda’s play “Hamilton” people will get the wrong impression of Hamilton and Jefferson. As Hamilton’s star has risen, Jefferson’s has fallen. In looking at the political views and policies of each man there should be a recognition of who is the elitist and who is the one supporting the common individual.
Jefferson strove to make the American government everything that the British government was not. As historian Ron Chernow said in his book Alexander Hamilton, Hamilton’s Federalist Party was “elitist in its politics and tended to doubt the wisdom of the common people.” No one ever mentions that Hamilton believed that the President should have power for life, similar to the King of England.
Hamilton went so far as to call for a new Constitutional Convention to revise the Articles of Confederation. His plan was to have a permanent president who would appoint all the governors and who would have veto power over all state legislation. Under such a plan, state sovereignty would have been destroyed, and there would have been no escape from the central government's high taxes.
Murray Rothbard, who wrote The Mystery of Banking, said Hamilton wished to “reimpose in the new United States a system of mercantilism and big government similar to that in Great Britain, against which the colonists had rebelled. The object was to have a strong central government, particularly a strong president or king as chief executive, built up by high taxes and heavy public debt.”
Chernow goes on to say, “Jeffersonians called themselves Republicans, believing in limited federal power, a dominant Congress, and states’ rights who credited the wisdom of the common people.” In other words, he was an anti-Monarchist. Historian John Boles, who wrote Jefferson: Architect of Liberty, noted to American Thinker, “Jefferson was not opposed to strong government as long as it stayed within it Constitutional bounds. He believed in political power from the people.”
Hamilton’s autocratic notions versus Jefferson’s beliefs can be viewed with their attitude toward a central bank. Granted, Hamilton was correct in recognizing that the U.S. economy was a total mess. The Revolutionary War had left a huge debt with no plans on how it would be paid off. Some states simply repudiated the debt, making it more difficult for other states to borrow money and rebuild their economies. Yet, Jefferson complained that the bank created a national banking elite and gave them extraordinary power and wealth at the expense of ordinary citizens of the country.
Rothbard stated, the “Bank of North America was deliberately modeled after the Bank of England. The Bank was given a monopoly privilege of its notes being receivable in all tax payments to state and federal government, and no other banks were permitted to operate in the country. It graciously agreed to lend most of its newly created money to the federal government, while the hapless taxpayers would have to pay the Bank principal and interest."
Because the bank would have unprecedented control over the economy it would also have leverage over the government. Jefferson believed this would render U.S. commercial policy hostage to Britain. He warned that this policy concentrated powers in the hands of a small number of wealthy men in only one section of the country. This British domination of American trade harmed this nation’s economy and crippled small local industries. Boles noted that even a fellow Federalist, President John Adams, became more and more convinced that Hamilton was the largest threat to the constitutional form of government, someone with Napoleonic ambitions.
Those who enjoyed the Hamilton play should remember that it has a fictional element to it. In reality Hamilton wanted an Aristocratic America, and that is was Jefferson who was protective of individual rights. This July Fourth people should refer back to history, not revisionist history, to understand the beliefs of Alexander Hamilton versus Thomas Jefferson.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/07/hamilton_vs_jefferson.html
Sheriff Israel being removed from office in Broward County
The day after Justice Anthony Kennedy resigned, the New York Times’s editorialists addressed “those who face the future in fear after Wednesday.” Lest anyone miss the point, the Times said: “It is a dark moment in the history of the court and the nation, and it’s about to get a lot darker.”
Wonder Land Podcast for July 4, 2018
All this panic is supposed to be about the future of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision establishing abortion as a right. In fact, the threat to Democratic political rule is even bigger than Roe, which was about just one thing. What is at risk is the rationale for judicial overreaching that was created in the court’s 1965 decision, Griswold v. Connecticut.
Supreme Court decisions don’t often produce phrases that enter the vocabulary of political life, but Griswold did. The phrase is “penumbras formed by emanations.”
Griswold is worth recalling because it established a right to privacy, though the Constitution says nothing about any such right. Justice William O. Douglas famously explained how this could be, arguing that “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.”
Douglas’s “penumbras” decision, though ridiculed, defined the post-’60s era of “judge-made law,” in which achieving a result that reflected liberal values or policy goals mattered more than the legal reasoning to justify it. This results-driven view is what routinely sent Justice Antonin Scalia into eloquent and volcanic dissents.
Though capable of rigor in his reasoning, Anthony Kennedy was willing to swing toward decisions that simply affirmed what he thought were ascendant cultural mores. With the Trump Supreme Court nominations, this long era of judge-made law is at risk, if not over.
First with Neil Gorsuch and now with Justice Kennedy’s successor, Donald Trump is putting a stop to ruling by penumbra. It’s a historic shift, and Mr. Trump’s opponents are going absolutely crazy.
As the Times editorial suggests, the left seems to believe the Supreme Court will virtually cease to exist as a branch of government. That puts liberals in a tough spot, because they had already thrown in the towel on the legislative branch.
From the 1970s onward, modern liberalism increasingly came to rely on filing lawsuits to effect policies that couldn’t survive passage through representative bodies like the House and Senate. Or they deployed executive mandates—which reached an apotheosis with Barack Obama.
Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ended the filibuster for appellate-court nominees so his party could pack the D.C. Circuit with judges who would affirm the Obama regulatory orders that covered vast swaths of American life.
Having all but abandoned the legislative branch to achieve their goals, progressives now think the Trump Supreme Court nominations will close off the judiciary as a policy tool. Thus, the hysteria.
In the Carpenter case this term, Justice Gorsuch wrote a long dissent, which didn’t mention “penumbras,” but it’s clear he knows exactly when the trouble started: “From the founding until the 1960s, the right to assert a Fourth Amendment claim didn’t depend on your ability to appeal to a judge’s personal sensibilities about the ‘reasonableness’ of your expectations or privacy. It was tied to the law.” Justice Gorsuch calls judging rooted in law “the traditional approach.” I’m for it.
Our confusing culture could itself kill penumbral legal reasoning. One can imagine the high court struggling to adjudicate cases based on ever more arcane claims for self-identity, diversity and privacy. Contorting itself even further to accommodate incomprehensible rights could discredit the court with a strong majority of the American people.
Despite his reputation as the swing vote on cultural issues, Justice Kennedy appeared to understand that we have arrived at a crossroads. In several opinions this term, he essentially issued statements of belief.
Here, in Nifla v. Becerra, is the co-author of Planned Parenthood v. Casey explaining why pregnancy-service agencies should not be compelled to issue a state’s abortion notification: “It is forward thinking to begin by reading the First Amendment as ratified in 1791; to understand the history of authoritarian government as the Founders then knew it.” He is saying to his liberal colleagues in the judiciary: Enough is enough.
Some argue that Mr. Trump filled the Scalia seat with Justice Gorsuch and now is obligated to fill the Kennedy “swing” seat with another Kennedy. He is under no such obligation. What President Trump should do is complete his already stellar Gorsuch bench. That would mean a justice who respects the law’s traditions and understands its limits.
Write henninger@wsj.com.
Hamilton vs. Jefferson...
The Fourth of July celebrates America’s freedom from England
Elise Cooper
The Fourth of July celebrates America’s freedom from England. The delegates from the thirteen colonies adopted the Declaration of Independence, the document written by Thomas Jefferson that gave America its moral pulse. After the Continental Congress approved the final wording of the Declaration of Independence, the United States of America was born.
Americans need to be grateful to Jefferson for giving us the language and values of liberty and freedom. Yet, by watching and listening to Lin-Manuel Miranda’s play “Hamilton” people will get the wrong impression of Hamilton and Jefferson. As Hamilton’s star has risen, Jefferson’s has fallen. In looking at the political views and policies of each man there should be a recognition of who is the elitist and who is the one supporting the common individual.
Jefferson strove to make the American government everything that the British government was not. As historian Ron Chernow said in his book Alexander Hamilton, Hamilton’s Federalist Party was “elitist in its politics and tended to doubt the wisdom of the common people.” No one ever mentions that Hamilton believed that the President should have power for life, similar to the King of England.
Hamilton went so far as to call for a new Constitutional Convention to revise the Articles of Confederation. His plan was to have a permanent president who would appoint all the governors and who would have veto power over all state legislation. Under such a plan, state sovereignty would have been destroyed, and there would have been no escape from the central government's high taxes.
Murray Rothbard, who wrote The Mystery of Banking, said Hamilton wished to “reimpose in the new United States a system of mercantilism and big government similar to that in Great Britain, against which the colonists had rebelled. The object was to have a strong central government, particularly a strong president or king as chief executive, built up by high taxes and heavy public debt.”
Chernow goes on to say, “Jeffersonians called themselves Republicans, believing in limited federal power, a dominant Congress, and states’ rights who credited the wisdom of the common people.” In other words, he was an anti-Monarchist. Historian John Boles, who wrote Jefferson: Architect of Liberty, noted to American Thinker, “Jefferson was not opposed to strong government as long as it stayed within it Constitutional bounds. He believed in political power from the people.”
Hamilton’s autocratic notions versus Jefferson’s beliefs can be viewed with their attitude toward a central bank. Granted, Hamilton was correct in recognizing that the U.S. economy was a total mess. The Revolutionary War had left a huge debt with no plans on how it would be paid off. Some states simply repudiated the debt, making it more difficult for other states to borrow money and rebuild their economies. Yet, Jefferson complained that the bank created a national banking elite and gave them extraordinary power and wealth at the expense of ordinary citizens of the country.
Rothbard stated, the “Bank of North America was deliberately modeled after the Bank of England. The Bank was given a monopoly privilege of its notes being receivable in all tax payments to state and federal government, and no other banks were permitted to operate in the country. It graciously agreed to lend most of its newly created money to the federal government, while the hapless taxpayers would have to pay the Bank principal and interest."
Because the bank would have unprecedented control over the economy it would also have leverage over the government. Jefferson believed this would render U.S. commercial policy hostage to Britain. He warned that this policy concentrated powers in the hands of a small number of wealthy men in only one section of the country. This British domination of American trade harmed this nation’s economy and crippled small local industries. Boles noted that even a fellow Federalist, President John Adams, became more and more convinced that Hamilton was the largest threat to the constitutional form of government, someone with Napoleonic ambitions.
Those who enjoyed the Hamilton play should remember that it has a fictional element to it. In reality Hamilton wanted an Aristocratic America, and that is was Jefferson who was protective of individual rights. This July Fourth people should refer back to history, not revisionist history, to understand the beliefs of Alexander Hamilton versus Thomas Jefferson.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/07/hamilton_vs_jefferson.html
Sheriff Israel being removed from office in Broward County
Surprising Reason
When the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School happened, it immediately became apparent the local sheriff’s office was, at the very least, minimally responsible for the events that took place.
There was reportedly an officer outside the school who heard shooting, yet never acted.
Sheriff Israel tried to direct the attention away from his officers by blaming gun control on the shooting.
But as the incident was further investigated, the sheriff threw his officers under the bus rather than putting any of the blame directly on himself for lack of leadership.
Most suspected the sheriff would eventually be removed from office for some type of dereliction of duty, but that is not what happened.
He is actually being removed for alleged criminal issues, as well as reportedly being investigated by the IRS.
Where There’s Smoke…
The public first became aware of the investigation into the sheriff when FBI Director Christopher Wray was called to testify before the Inspector General.
When specifically asked about Sheriff Israel and the shooting, Wray said he could not comment because of a pending investigation.
Wray himself is also facing considerable scrutiny, specifically from Florida Gov. Rick Scott.
The governor stated: “We constantly promote ‘see something, say something,’ and a courageous person did just that to the FBI. And the FBI failed to act.”
He continued: “’See something, say something’ is an incredibly important tool and people must have confidence in the follow through from law enforcement. The FBI Director needs to resign.”
Much the same was the cause of the initial investigation into Sheriff Israel.
Along with the gaffe from the FBI, reports revealed information his department could have acted upon to prevent the shooting, but they completely dropped the ball.
Gov. Scott is expected to make a formal announcement next week on the status of Sheriff Israel.
Donald Trump shut down the Deep State with one tweet
The Deep State is real.
Despite fake news spread by so-called “mainstream” media, government agencies illegally spy on American citizens.
And Donald Trump reacted to one bombshell by crushing the Deep State with this tweet.
Americans were horrified to learn that the National Security Agency deleted 685 million phone and text message records that were collected since 2015.
The Associated Press reports:
The National Security Agency said Thursday it is deleting call records after “irregularities” caused it to collect records it was not authorized to receive.
The agency released a statement saying it began deleting records in May after “analysts noted technical irregularities in some data received from telecommunications service providers.”
The records date back to 2015 and were obtained under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
The statement added that “the root cause of the problem has since been addressed” for future call record collecting.
The NSA blamed a technical glitch, but critics believe the spying was done on purpose and the NSA only purged the records when caught.
President Trump reacted to this news by calling what the NSA did a disgrace and an attack on Americans’ privacy.
Wow! The NSA has deleted 685 million phone calls and text messages. Privacy violations? They blame technical irregularities. Such a disgrace. The Witch Hunt continues!
Trump says he'll offer Elizabeth Warren $1 million to take DNA test
President Donald Trump arrives to speak during a rally at the Four Seasons Arena at Montana ExpoPark, Thursday, July 5, 2018, in Great Falls, Mont. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)By Dave Boyer - The Washington Times
President Trump joked Thursday night that he’ll offer $1 million to Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren to take a DNA test to determine whether she has Native American blood, if she becomes the Democratic nominee for president in 2020.
At a campaign rally in Montana, Mr. Trump took shots at several Democrats, including incumbent Sen. Jon Tester, who is running for reelection. But the president saved one of his sharpest barbs for Ms. Warren, whom he often ridicules as “Pocahontas” for her earlier claim of Native American ancestry.
Looking ahead to the 2020 race, Mr. Trump predicted, “let’s say I’m debating Pocahontas.”
“I promise you I’ll do this — you know those little [DNA] kits they sell on television for $2?” the president asked to laughter. “I’m going to get one of those little kits.”
He went on, “And in the middle of the debate, when she proclaims she’s of Indian heritage because her mother said she has high cheekbones… we will take that little kit and say, but we have to do it very gently because we’re in the ‘me too’ generation… and we will very gently take that kit and we will slowly toss it, hoping it doesn’t hit her and injure her .. and we will say I will give you $1 million to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test and it shows you’re an Indian.”
“I have a feeling she will say no,” the president said.
President Trump joked Thursday night that he’ll offer $1 million to Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren to take a DNA test to determine whether she has Native American blood, if she becomes the Democratic nominee for president in 2020.
He went on, “And in the middle of the debate, when she proclaims she’s of Indian heritage because her mother said she has high cheekbones… we will take that little kit and say, but we have to do it very gently because we’re in the ‘me too’ generation… and we will very gently take that kit and we will slowly toss it, hoping it doesn’t hit her and injure her .. and we will say I will give you $1 million to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test and it shows you’re an Indian.”
“I have a feeling she will say no,” the president said.
President Trump joked Thursday night that he’ll offer $1 million to Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren to take a DNA test to determine whether she has Native American blood, if she becomes the Democratic nominee for president in 2020.
At a campaign rally in Montana, Mr. Trump took shots at several Democrats, including incumbent Sen. Jon Tester, who is running for reelection. But the president saved one of his sharpest barbs for Ms. Warren, whom he often ridicules as “Pocahontas” for her earlier claim of Native American ancestry.
Looking ahead to the 2020 race, Mr. Trump predicted, “let’s say I’m debating Pocahontas.”
“I promise you I’ll do this — you know those little [DNA] kits they sell on television for $2?” the president asked to laughter. “I’m going to get one of those little kits.”
He went on, “And in the middle of the debate, when she proclaims she’s of Indian heritage because her mother said she has high cheekbones… we will take that little kit and say, but we have to do it very gently because we’re in the ‘me too’ generation… and we will very gently take that kit and we will slowly toss it, hoping it doesn’t hit her and injure her .. and we will say I will give you $1 million to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test and it shows you’re an Indian.”
“I have a feeling she will say no,” the president said.
Looking ahead to the 2020 race, Mr. Trump predicted, “let’s say I’m debating Pocahontas.”
“I promise you I’ll do this — you know those little [DNA] kits they sell on television for $2?” the president asked to laughter. “I’m going to get one of those little kits.”
He went on, “And in the middle of the debate, when she proclaims she’s of Indian heritage because her mother said she has high cheekbones… we will take that little kit and say, but we have to do it very gently because we’re in the ‘me too’ generation… and we will very gently take that kit and we will slowly toss it, hoping it doesn’t hit her and injure her .. and we will say I will give you $1 million to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test and it shows you’re an Indian.”
“I have a feeling she will say no,” the president said.
Moe Lauzier note---Imagine having to say “President Pocahontas” for four years? Yuck.
G’ day…Ciao…
Helen and Moe Lauzier
G’ day…Ciao…Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus Article
That's an article
This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article with the link address https://capitalstories.blogspot.com/2018/07/www_6.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment