Monday, March 27, 2017

Bold Colors, not Pastel Paul's Pale Imitation: AmeriCare, Not CommieCare

"Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness. I don 't know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, "We must broaden the base of our party" -- when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents. It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating? Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?"--Ronald Reagan, "Let Them Go Their Way", 2nd Annual CPAC Convention, March 1, 1975

Newt gets it right:

1. It took 8 months to pass Reagan's Tax Cuts and Obamacare . This 3-week artificial deadline was unrealistic. This isn't over.
2. Take the argument to the Country, not the City and certainly not to the Cloakroom. A bill at 17% approval is doomed.
3. Have a bold, clear bill. This was a timid insider head-fake bill that, for example, only defunds Planned Parenthood for a year. People respond to clear, principled leadership, not to wimpy, least common denominator-maneuvering.
4. No more phony CBO numbers. No more absurd Senate rules. No more "Trust us 'til Wednesday for a cheeseburger today."

Some Republicans are also hiding behind the 60-vote filibuster rule, which should be abolished.

If 60% support is the Senate's sacred, untouchable Magic Number, then let's require senators to be elected themselves with a 60% vote.

Ace of Spades: "The Republicans actually want the Democrats to keep the filibuster, because they actually don't want a conservative court. Or to have the power to enact any of their legislative measures that they claim they want to enact, but in fact do not want to enact. They like pretending they want conservative reforms, while loving the fact that the Democrats can block those reforms.
Then they get to have their cake and eat it too -- they perpetually run on issues they don't want a resolution on, while being able to explain away their failure by saying "Because Democrats" or "Because Political Reality."".......

The whole purpose of Obamacare was to crash the system and institute full CommieCare.

And only freedom can stop it.

Neo-Civil War UPDATE:  Col. Schlichter goes Full-Appomattox Courthouse on Pvt. Ryan:

"Ulysses S. Grant also knew something about pummeling the stubborn Democrats of #TheResistance into submission, although his Democrats used iron chains instead of welfare and lies to keep their serfs in bondage. Grant wasn’t a big, flamboyant martial artist like George Patton – he didn’t make giant, bold strokes across the canvas of the battlefield. Grant was about brute force, not finesse. He found his Democrat enemy, fixed him in position, and beat on him until the Democrat couldn’t take it anymore and handed over his saber. That’s the right strategy for facing this intractable foe – luckily, the Democrats of today are merely a bunch of talky, whiny wusses, not the hardcore and courageous infantry and cavalry G-Dawg (and my ancestors) were called upon to regulate. ...

We know the strategy – grind out win after win, big and small, over time until the liberals are broken. It’s the tactics that Ryan has botched; he’s shown no aptitude for the basic blocking and tackling of legislating and consistently falls back on the errors of the past. Here’s how healthcare should have gone. Paully, starting the morning of November 9th, you should have orchestrated an inclusive effort to create a bill based on a consensus that incorporated every stakeholder with the ability to icepick it (the transition team, the Freedom Caucus, the squishes, the think tanks, and most vitally, the Senate). Once you had something everyone agreed on – and 216 sure votes in the House and 51 in the Senate – you all appear with the Prez in front of the cameras to announce it before you actually put out the document, thereby cementing in the narrative about why the people should dig it before the haters can hate it into little pieces. Then you pass it and win.

But what did we get? A tactical clusterflunk. Seven years in and Ryan wasn’t ready. He putzed around with no sense of urgency until there was a sense of urgency. Who was expecting this dog’s breakfast to drop when it did? And it just dropped on us out of the blue – one day, suddenly, there’s this whole plan out there. Surprise! I listened to Hugh Hewitt the morning after it was released; he was stunned that he couldn’t get any of the Republican House leadership [sic] on his show to talk to his conservative audience about the biggest piece of legislation in Trump’s first term.

Paully, you gave the enemy precious hours to set the narrative, and the bill never recovered. How stupid can you be to have no full court press plan to sell it, to manage the message, even though my corgi-retriever could have foreseen the media’s narrative was going to be that this was the moral equivalent of the Rwandan genocide - only without all the love?

Three phases? You didn’t have the credibility for one phase and you were babbling about three. Any idiot could have seen that Phase III (“The Democrats Do Exactly the Opposite of What Democrats Do”) was never going to happen. ... Congrats! That’s how you manage to garner a 17% approval rating for a plan to repeal something that is about as popular as herpes.".......

Solution: Mandatory Herpes Coverage!

Or freedom.

Sunday, March 26, 2017

Canadian Legislators Choose Slavery: Ask A Saudi Before You Speak, Canuck

In Ottawa, Some Supremacists Are More Supreme Than Others

I once read a quote to the effect "No one ever freely volunteered to become a slave."

If that was ever true, it's no longer true anymore.

Jihad Watch: Canadians Duped: A Victorious Day for Islamic Supremacists

"The Canadian House of Commons passed anti-Islamophobia motion (M-103) on Thursday, leaving opponents stunned that protests and tens of thousands of Canadian signatures to petitions calling for rejection of the motion were ignored. M-103 was touted as advancing tolerance, inclusiveness and racial harmony, but instead it bestows a special status to Muslims and is a first step in edging Canada down a dangerous path, eroding the freedom of speech and potentially leading to the censorship of reporting on crimes committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. ...In Canada, Mohamed Huque, executive director of the Islamic Family and Social Services Association in Edmonton has already called for migrant sex crimes to be covered up following the sex assault of six Edmonton teen girls of which a Syrian refugee was arrested."

King Abdullah II of Jordan"It is a war inside of Islam, it is our civil war...”.

Is the King's statement Islamophobic? Should he be silenced?

And if Islam is fighting a civil war, how do you let in only the good side? Or is it a crime to even ask?

Can honor killings still be discussed? Or Female Genital Mutilation? The "Cutting Season" is arriving--also known as "summer vacation", so now is the time to ask--if asking is still allowed.

"In a Toronto Sun article entitled “I’m a liberal Muslim and I reject M-103,” Farzana Hassan writes:
"Internationally, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation has moved to curtail “Islamophobia” in the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights. I categorically reject such restriction on free speech, just as I reject M-103, tabled by Liberal MP Iqra Khalid, who has refused to remove the term from the motion."
...Some say that a (non-binding) motion is harmless, but it is not. It guides legislative decisions. ...Khalid was swamped by the media, and pressed by a reporter on whether she thought she could have allayed the concerns of many Canadians by including a written definition of “Islamophobia.” Instead of addressing the question, Khalid clumsily dodged answering. The reporter continued: “Why won’t you answer my question?,” at which point Khalid rudely turned away from him. Still in full avoidance mode, she turned to another reporter, who embarrassed her further by stating that she, too, was  interested in an answer to the question. Now cornered and looking foolish, Khalid turned back to the original reporter and asked, “What was the question?” The reporter repeated himself but she replied only by hailing the merits of M-103..."

The question is "What constitutes Islamophobia?".

And based on previous experience, the answer is: "Whatever we say it is, at the time we say it, depending on who the speaker is and whether or not we approve of his politics."

The whole concept of Leftist Phobias is the Big Llie anyway.

A phobia is an unreasonable, irrational, mindless fear without any basis in reality. But what if you have deep, deep concerns based on thoughtful, reasonable analysis of the facts and evidence?

That's not a phobia.

What if only 20% of the Turks in Germany work and the rest are on welfare? What if there is a rape epidemic in Sweden? What if in one Australian classroom, every single schoolgirl had her clitoris carved away? What if a quarter of England's Muslims admit they want to impose 2nd and 3rd-class citizenship on non-believers? And many thousands of them support terrorism to achieve it? And that's just the ones who will admit it to pollsters.

Canada's Answer: "Shhhhhhh! Hater!"

"Khalid is well versed in deceit, and has, despite her harmless appearance, a questionable history. She is a former president of the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Muslim Student Association (MSA) at York University. MSA’s are “essentially an arm of the Saudi-funded, Muslim Brotherhood-controlled Muslim World League.”...The OIC has many member nations that once subscribed to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but which signed on to the Cairo Declaration of Human rights in August 1990. The Cairo declaration affirmed that Sharia is the sole source of determining human rights. Sharia is regarded as divine law, and any insult to Muhammad or Islam is deemed blasphemous.
The passing of this “Islamophobia” motion in Canada represents a low point for freedom and an outstanding achievement for Islamic supremacists.   The same [destructive] process has begun in Canada [as in Europe], with its suicidal refugee policy of welcoming in unvetted asylum seekers and ramming “anti-Islamophobia” initiatives down the throats of Canadians, along with the persistence of Canadian authorities in unreasonably accommodating Islamic supremacists and even allowing Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups and individuals to sway public policy. The only positive aspect of the M-103 “anti-Islamophobia” ordeal was the open and widespread rejection of it by Canadians of every race and religious background.".......

Freedom is hard. But dhimmitude is harder.

Volunteering to become slaves isn't the answer, Canada.

"Don't make me turn this Freedom Train around, kids!"

Prof. Solum's Day in Court


STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE B. SOLUM
CARMACK WATERHOUSE PROFESSOR OF LAW
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER
Hearings on the Nomination of the Honorable Neil M. Gorsuch
to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

What is Originalism?
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.  This statement is about Judge
Gorsuch’s judicial philosophy. Judge Gorsuch is an originalist and a textualist, but what
does that mean? The core of originalism is a very simple idea. In constitutional cases,
the United States Supreme Court should consider itself bound by the original public
meaning of the constitutional text.
That simple idea can be broken down into its component parts.
Like Justice Scalia before him, Judge Gorsuch believes that the meaning of the
constitutional text is its public meaning—the ordinary or plain meaning the words had to
the public at the time each provision of the Constitution was framed and ratified. If the
words employed are technical, the technical meaning must be accessible to the public.
The original public meaning of the text is the meaning that the words had then—and
not necessarily the meaning that they have today. For example, Article Four of the
Constitution refers to “domestic violence” but in the Eighteenth Century that phrase did
not refer to spousal abuse. It referred to riots and insurrections within a state.
When we interpret Article Four, we should understand the words as they were used
at the timethe Constitution was written.
What is called “linguistic drift” is not a valid method of constitutional amendment.
The Supreme Court today should consider itself bound by the text. The Court does not
and should not have the power to amend the text on a case-by-case basis.  It should
decide constitutional cases in a way that is consistent with the original
public meaning of the text.
Originalist judges do not believe that they have the power to impose their own values
on the nation by invoking the idea of a “living constitution.” Instead, they believe that
the proper mechanism for changing the Constitution is by amendment through the
process provided in Article Five—as has been done twenty-seven times.

Myths about Originalism
The basic idea of originalism is simple and intuitive. We have a written constitution
that is the supreme law of the land. Why then would anyone oppose originalism?
Some of the reasons for opposition to originalism are based on myths—
misrepresentations of the actual practice of originalism by lawyers, judges, and scholars.
Myth Number One: Originalists Try to Channel James Madison
Originalism is about the constitutional text. No originalist thinks that we should decide
contemporary constitutional bases by asking, “What would James Madison do?”  What
matters for originalists is what the constitutional text says. When Judge Gorsuch writes
an opinion that applies the original public meaning of the constitutional text to a
contemporary legal question, he does not need to know anything about the
mental states of the Framers regarding that question.
Myth Number Two: Originalists Cannot Apply the Constitution to New Circumstances
There was no Internet when the First Amendment was written in 1791. Today,
Americans can speak over the Internet.  The application of the freedom of speech to a
speech broadcast over the Internet is very simple.  Speech is speech, whether it is in
person, amplified by speakers, or transmitted over the Internet. The Constitution was
written in language that can be applied to new circumstances. There was no state of
Iowa when the Constitution was ratified, but there was no difficulty in applying the
constitutional provision that grants each state two Senators to the new state Iowa.
Myth Number Three: Originalism Would Require that Brown v. Board be Overruled
In fact, there is very good historical evidence that segregation would have been struck
down under the original meaning of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. In fact, Plessy v. Ferguson, the decision that established
the separate-but equal doctrine, was a living constitutionalist decision, one of many
that nullified a now almost forgotten guarantee of equal basic rights.
Myth Number Four: Originalism is Inconsistent with Precedent
In fact, the opposite is the case. The original meaning of the judicial power in Article III
is entirely consistent with the ancient doctrine of stare decisis. Judge Gorsuch has
consistently displayed a respect for precedent in his judicial career—as did Justice
Scalia. It is true that an originalist Supreme Court would gradually move the law away from
precedents that are inconsistent with the constitutional text, but great movements of this
kind are gradual—and they give the democratic process an opportunity to react.

Originalism is in the Mainstream of American Jurisprudence
Is originalism somehow outside the mainstream of American jurisprudence?  The
answer to that question is an emphatic “no.” The idea that judges are bound by the
constitutional text is very much in the mainstream of American legal thought.
For most of American history, originalism has been the predominate view of
constitutional interpretation.  There have been episodes in our history where fidelity to
the constitutional text was neglected. One such episode occurred during the
Reconstruction period when living constitutionalists of that era undermined important
provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. Another departure from the mainstream
occurred during the Warren Court, when the Supreme Court sometimes issued opinions
that decided constitutional questions without any reference to the constitutional text.
But for most of our nation’s history, the Supreme Court has made a good faith effort to
follow the constitutional text.
Originalism is in the mainstream for another reason. Originalism can and should be
endorsed by both Democrats and Republicans and by progressives and conservatives.
This point is especially important to me personally.  I am not a conservative or
libertarian, but I do believe in originalism. Why is that? It is because I am convinced
that giving judges the power to override the Constitution and impose their own vision of
constitutional law is dangerous for everyone.  If you are a Democrat, you should ask
yourself the question: Given that the next Justice will be appointed by a Republican
President and confirmed by a Republican Senate, would you prefer an originalist like
Judge Gorsuch or would I prefer a conservative Justice who does not believe that she
or he is bound by the constitutional text?  The alternative to originalism is a Justice who
believes that she or he is free to override the constitutional text in the name of her or his
own beliefs about what the Constitution should be given changing circumstances and
values.
There is a final reason that originalism is in the mainstream. The Supreme Court has
never claimed that it has the power to override the original meaning of the constitutional
text. There are cases where the Supreme Court has departed from the text, but in those
cases, the Court either attempts to disguise the true nature of its decision with an
implausible reading of the text, or it simply ignores the text altogether—usually by citing
precedent. Indeed, if Judge Gorsuch had come before this Committee and testified that
he believed that as a Supreme Court Justice, he would have the power to override the
original meaning of the constitutional text, I think it is clear that he would not be
confirmed.

The Case for Originalism
Originalism is the simple and highly intuitive idea that the Justices of the Supreme
Court are bound by the constitutional text.  The Justices, like all federal judges and the
members of this Senate, take an oath to perform their duties under the Constitution of
the United States. There are good reasons for the obligation of constitutional fidelity
represented by the oath.
First and foremost is the rule of law. John Adams is famous for insisting on the “rule of
law and not of men.”( John Adams, Novanglus Papers, Boston Gazette, no. 7 (1774)
The commitment to the original meaning of the constitutional text
is the best way to ensure that the awesome power entrusted to our Supreme Court—
the power to have the ultimate say in constitutional cases and declare that statutes
passed by Congress are unconstitutional—is the rule of constitutional law and
not the rule of the men and women appointed to the Court.
What is the alternative? Living constitutionalists believe that the Supreme Court has
the power to amend the Constitution by judicial fiat.  If the constitutional text does not
limit that power, what does?  You might say that it is precedent, but the Supreme Court
has the power to overrule its prior decisions. I have the great privilege of authoring the
volume of Moore’s Federal Practice that deals with the doctrine of stare decisis.  In that
capacity, I have read hundreds and hundreds of cases dealing with the role of
precedent in the federal courts. My conclusion, and I think fair-minded scholars
would agree, is that the Supreme Court has an inconsistent approach to precedent.
When a majority of the Court believe that a prior decision is wrong,
they have the power to overrule it, and that doctrine of precedent
does not prevent them from so doing. Indeed, in recent years,
critics of the Court have observed a pattern of what they call “stealth overruling.”
Even when the Court pretends to adhere to precedent, it can nullify a prior decision by
distinguishing it in a way that leaves it without any true precedential force.
If the Justices of the Supreme Court are neither constrained by the constitutional text
nor by precedent, then how is the rule of law to be achieved? My day job is as a law
professor.  In that capacity, I study the constitutional theories that are propounded by
my colleagues. One of the most distinguished living constitutionalists is
Professor David Strauss of the University of Chicago.
Professor Strauss is the leading proponent of what is called “common law constitutionalism”
—the view that constitutional law should be made by judges.
What I want to call to your attention now is his remarkable candor. Professor
Strauss is willing to say things that no one who aspires to judicial office would say in
public. Some constitutional amendments are passed to overrule Supreme Court
decisions. The two most famous examples are the Eleventh Amendment
which limits the ability of citizens to sue states and the Sixteenth Amendment
which overruled the Supreme Court’s decision invalidating the federal income tax.
Professor Strauss believes even those amendments could be overruled
by the Supreme Court through a common-law process—
although he believes the Court should wait a few years
before taking such a radical step.
It is no accident that Professor Strauss wrote a book entitled, The Living Constitution.
(David A. Strauss, Foreword: Does the Constitution Mean What It Says?, 129 Harv. L.
Rev. 1, 57 (2015) (implicitly rejecting the Constraint Principle by stating that “original
understandings are binding for a time but then lose their force”).
The truth is that if the constitutional text does not bind the Supreme Court, then the
Justices are the equivalent of a superlegislature. A committee of nine unelected
judges has the power to reshape our Constitution as they see fit.
There is a second reason to prefer originalism over living constitutionalism. That
reason is rooted in the idea of democratic legitimacy.  Each and every provision of the
United States Constitution has been ratified by a supermajoritarian process.
The original constitution was ratified by the representatives of “We the People”
in convention assembled.
Amendments must be proposed by two-thirds of the Senate and the House
and ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures. This supermajoritarian process
confers democratic legitimacy on the provisions of the Constitution.  It is important to
acknowledge that this process has not been perfect.  In the late eighteenth century,
women, slaves and others did not have the vote. But the democratic legitimacy of the
Constitution must be compared to some alternative. The Supreme Court consists of
nine women and men. They are not elected.
They are appointed for life terms.
In theory, they can be impeached by the House and tried by the Senate,
but it is difficult to imagine that any Supreme Court Justice would be removed
in this way on the basis that their living constitutionalist jurisprudence
was out of step with popular opinion.
If we must choose between originalism and a constitutional text that has been ratified
by the representatives of “We the People” and a living constitutionalist constitution that
is ratified by majority vote of a committee of nine, there is no doubt in my mind about
which constitution is the more democratic.

Objections to Originalism
My final topic concerns objections to originalism. Let me begin by noting that many of
the objections are based on the myths about originalism that I have tried to dispel.
Consider some of the remaining objections.

The Dead Hand
It is argued that originalism involves the rule of a “dead hand.” Of course, it is true
that most of the provisions of the Constitution were framed and ratified long ago. We
have an old constitution that has survived the test of time. But is this a reason to reject
its authority? Did the members of this august body make a mistake when they swore
an oath to support and defend the Constitution?
Some of my colleagues in the academy do
believe that the Constitution is outmoded and outdated,
but I believe they are wrong for two fundamental reasons.
First, the Constitution is not a code. The Constitution established a basic structure of
government—this Senate, the House of Representatives, the President, and the judicial
branch.  It established procedures for legislation and appointment of judges and
executive officials. There have been challenges and even periods of crisis, but the
fundamental structure of government has worked well for generations. The Constitution
also enshrines fundamental liberties like the Freedom of Speech and the
Due Process of Law.
Originalists are committed to the proposition that the meaning of these liberties
does not change, but that does not mean that their applications must remain frozen in
time. The whole point of originalism is to respect the text, and nothing could be less
respectful than to refuse to apply the text to new circumstances.
Second, the Constitution can be amended. And it has been. Twenty-seven times. Our
Constitution is properly changed through the amendment process when the American
people form a consensus that change is necessary and desirable.  The Constitution of
1789 was improved by the passage of the Bill of Rights. The great evil of slavery was
cured by the Thirteenth Amendment.  The Fourteenth Amendment provided a great
charter of liberty and equality, not just for the former slaves, but for all Americans. The
right to vote was extended to women by the Nineteenth Amendment and to all citizens
of the age of eighteen and over by the Twenty-Sixth Amendment.
Constitutional amendment is not easy; it requires a consensus of most Americans.
But it is not impossible.
In this regard, it is important to remember that living constitutionalism undermines
the lawful process of constitutional amendment.  These days if a social movement is
seeking constitutional change, they have two alternatives.
They can marshal their forces for a constitutional amendment; that is a hard road.
Or they can attempt to eke out five votes from the Supreme Court, the easy path.
It is hardly surprising that many choose the
easy path over the hard road.  But in this case, the hard road is also the high road.
Constitutional change through the amendment process enables “We the People” to
overcome the dead hand of the past through the rule of law.

Law Office History
Another objection to originalism is based on the idea that the Supreme Court is simply
not capable of discovering the original public meaning of the constitutional text.  And
even if they were capable of that task in theory, they will fail in practice because their
ideological preferences overcome the search for historical truth.
The first aspect of this objection is simply false.  The constitutional text is old, but it is
not the Rosetta Stone.  Lawyers, judges, and scholars can work together to unearth the
evidence of original meaning in the hard cases.  And there are many easy cases,
in which the original meaning is clear to any fair-minded reader
who consults the historical record.
The second aspect of the objection goes to the virtue and integrity of the Justices. It is
true that neither originalism nor any other constitutional theory can work if the Justices
are corrupted by ideology.  For originalism to work in practice, the President must
nominate and the Senate must confirm Justices with the virtue of judicial integrity. They
must be willing to subordinate their own political and ideological preferences to the law.
They must set aside their preconceptions and desires and engage in a search for
truth—with a willingness to reach outcomes as judges that would
necessarily agree if they were lawmakers.
In this regard, I take comfort from what I have read about Judge Gorsuch’s reputation
for integrity.  The job of this committee should be to examine the record carefully.  If you
believe that Judge Gorsuch has the virtue of judicial integrity and that he is committed
to the principle that the Supreme Court is bound by the Constitution, then I believe that
your duty is to vote for the nomination.

Taking Sides
Recent discussions of the nomination of Judge Gorsuch suggest another objection to
originalism. If Judge Gorsuch is committed to the law—to the original public meaning of
the constitutional text and the plain meaning of federal statutes—then he may rule
against persons and groups about whom we care very much. One version of this
objection is based on the idea that judges should favor the little guy (or gal), the
common man (or woman) against big corporations or big government. The core idea is that
judges should “take sides” and favor some groups over others.
I understand this objection.  I have great sympathy for the plight of Americans who
struggle against poverty, bias, discrimination, and oppression.  I favor legislation that
attacks injustice and prejudice.  But I cannot endorse the idea that the Supreme Court
should take sides, if by that, you mean that the Court should bend or break the
constitutional text in order to favor one group over another.  Taking sides is a “two-sided
coin”—if you will excuse the pun.  There is no guarantee that a Supreme Court armed
with the awesome power of overriding the constitutional text will take “the right side.”
More fundamentally, taking sides is dangerous, because it threatens the rule of law in a
fundamental way.
If there is any lesson from the history of the judicial nomination and confirmation
process over the past few decades, it is that there is a grave risk of the politicization of
the judicial selection process. This Committee knows far better than I do that neither
side of the aisle is blameless in this process. There has been a downward spiral of
politicization, a process of escalating tit for tat that threatens the integrity and
fundamental fairness of the great constitutional duty of the Senate to give
advice and consent.
I cannot say what might stop the politicization of the court, but I do know this.  The
idea that we should select Supreme Court Justices because of what side they will take
can only make the problem worse. Once we start selecting Supreme Court Justices
explicitly based on ideology, it will become progressively more difficult to select
women and men of integrity who respect the rule of law.
And this leads me back to originalism. The whole idea of the originalist project is to
take politics and ideology out of law. Democrats and Republicans, progressives and
conservatives, liberals and libertarians—we should all agree that Supreme Court
Justices should be selected for their dedication to the rule of law. For this reason, I support the
confirmation of Judge Gorsuch for the office of Associate Justice of the United States
Supreme Court.".......


That's a lot of words to say "Words mean what they say."

The Framers thought you could understand your own Constitution and make a choice to ratify it or not. That's why they argued the Federalist Papers in the newspapers.

The "Living Constitution" Scam is a way to sneak in exactly what our Checks-and-Balances Constitution was meant to thwart: the unaccountable concentration of power in the hands of a few.

It's Your Constitution, not theirs.

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

"An Acceptable Level of Terrorism": The London Terrorist Attack

No--Not That One

This one:

BBC: "[12] years ago, four suicide bombers with rucksacks full of explosives attacked central London, killing 52 people and injuring hundreds more. It was the worst single terrorist atrocity on British soil. A decade on, we look back at how events unfolded on 7 July 2005.

The bombers' journey began at 04:00 BST as three of the group - Mohammad Sidique Khan, 30, Shehzad Tanweer, 22, and 18-year-old Hasib Hussain - left Leeds, West Yorkshire, in a rented car bound for Luton, Bedfordshire. There they met their fourth accomplice, 19-year-old Germaine Lindsay, before heading to the capital by train. They went on to detonate four devices - three on the Underground and one on a double-decker bus.".......

It's only been 12 years--and it's basically been forgotten. Too much water over the dam. I didn't even hear it referenced in today's Parliament attack.

Today: Nonie Darwish: Urgent Messages to the Muslim World
  • A dangerous message is being sent to the Muslim world by the West: There is nothing that moderate Muslims or anyone else should fear from radical Islamic terrorism! Look at us Western governments! We are bringing in refugees who cannot be vetted even if they are ISIS infiltrators. In fact, we in the West are so goodhearted that we are encouraging many organizations to operate legally in the West under the banner of the Muslim Brotherhood -- even organizations that are sympathetic to the terrorist group Hamas and that are pledging to overthrow us!
  • The West, by taking all the Syrian refugees, is emptying Syria of any kind of resistance to the Caliphate (ISIS). The West's compassion, by taking in the refugees escaping ISIS, will end up leaving only the radicals to rule unopposed in Syria and Iraq. This, in US foreign policy, is not compassion; it is gross negligence and reckless endangerment.
  • "Tough love" is badly needed when dealing with the Muslim world. We must say: No, we cannot accept your jihadist aspirations. We cannot accept you forcing your way of life on the world; your way of life is unacceptable to us. Before you send your refugees, you must end your "us against them" jihadist culture. The civilized world no longer finds your aspirations for an Islamic Caliphate tolerable.
From 2005: 
Ron Reagan, Jr.: "Christopher, I'm not sure that I buy the idea that these attacks are a sign that we're actually winning the war on terror. I mean, how many more victories like this do we really want to endure?"

Christopher Hitchens: "Well, it depends on how you think it started, sir. I mean, these movements had taken over Afghanistan, had very nearly taken over Algeria, in a extremely bloody war which actually was eventually won by Algerian society. They had sent death squads to try and kill my friend Salman Rushdie, for the offense of writing a novel in England. They had sent death squads to Austria and Germany, the Iranians had, for example, to try and kill Kurdish Muslim leaders there. If you make the mistake that I thought I heard you making just before we came on the air, of attributing rationality or a motive to this, and to say that it's about anything but itself, you make a great mistake, and you end up where you ended up, saying that the cause of terrorism is fighting against it, the root cause, I mean. Now, you even said, extraordinarily to me, that there was no terrorist problem in Iraq before 2003. Do you know nothing about the subject at all? Do you wonder how Mr. Zarqawi got there under the rule of Saddam Hussein? Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal?"

Jr.: "Well, I'm following the lead of the 9/11 Commission, which..."

Hitch: "Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal, the most wanted man in the world, who was sheltered in Baghdad? The man who pushed Leon Klinghoffer off the boat, was sheltered by Saddam Hussein. The man who blew up the World Trade Center in 1993 was sheltered by Saddam Hussein, and you have the nerve to say that terrorism is caused by resisting it? And by deposing governments that endorse it?"

Jr.: "No, actually, I didn't say that, Christopher."

Hitch: "At this stage, after what happened in London yesterday?"

Jr.: "What I did say, though, was that Iraq was not a center of terrorism before we went in there, but it might be now."

Hitch: "How can you know so little about..."

Jr.: "You can make the claim that you just made about any other country in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia.

Hitch: "Absolutely nonsense."

Jr.: "So do you think we ought to invade Saudi Arabia, where most of the hijackers from 9/11 came from, following your logic, Christopher?"

Hitch: "Uh, no. Excuse me. The hijackers may have been Saudi and Yemeni, but they were not envoys of the Saudi Arabian government, even when you said the worst..."

Jr.: "Zarqawi is not an envoy of Saddam Hussein, either."

Hitch: "Excuse me. When I went to interview Abu Nidal, then the most wanted terrorist in the world, in Baghdad, he was operating out of an Iraqi government office. He was an arm of the Iraqi State, while being the most wanted man in the world. The same is true of the shelter and safe house offered by the Iraqi government, to the murderers of Leon Klinghoffer, and to Mr. Yassin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. How can you know so little about this, and be occupying a chair at the time that you do?"

Jr.: "I guess because I listen to the 9/11 Commission, and read their report, and they said that Saddam Hussein was not exporting terror. I suppose that's how, Christopher."

Hitch: "Well, then they were wrong, weren't they?"

Jr.: "No, maybe they just needed to listen to you, Christopher."

Hitch: "Well, I'm not sure that they actually did say that. What they did say was they didn't know of any actual operational connection [on Sept. 11]...

Jr.: "That's right. No substantive operational connection."

Hitch: "...which was the Iraqi Baath Party and...excuse me...and Al Qaeda. A direct operational connection. Now, that's because they don't know. They don't say there isn't one. They say they couldn't find one. But I just gave you [a] number, I would have thought, [of] rather suggestive examples."

More Hitch here:

"We know very well what the "grievances" of the jihadists are.

The grievance of seeing unveiled women. The grievance of the existence, not of the State of Israel, but of the Jewish people. The grievance of the heresy of democracy, which impedes the imposition of sharia law. The grievance of a work of fiction written by an Indian living in London. The grievance of the existence of black African Muslim farmers, who won't abandon lands in Darfur. The grievance of the existence of homosexuals. The grievance of music, and of most representational art. The grievance of the existence of Hinduism. The grievance of East Timor's liberation from Indonesian rule. All of these have been proclaimed as a licence to kill infidels or apostates, or anyone who just gets in the way.

For a few moments yesterday, Londoners received a taste of what life is like for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, whose Muslim faith does not protect them from slaughter at the hands of those who think they are not Muslim enough, or are the wrong Muslim.

It is a big mistake to believe this is an assault on "our" values or "our" way of life. It is, rather, an assault on all civilisation. I know perfectly well there are people thinking, and even saying, that Tony Blair brought this upon us by his alliance with George Bush.

A word of advice to them: try and keep it down, will you? Or wait at least until the funerals are over. And beware of the non-sequitur: you can be as opposed to the Iraq operation as much as you like, but you can't get from that "grievance" to the detonating of explosives at rush hour on London buses and tubes.

Don't even try to connect the two. By George Galloway's logic, British squaddies in Iraq are the root cause of dead bodies at home. How can anyone bear to be so wicked and stupid? How can anyone bear to act as a megaphone for psychotic killers?

The grievances I listed above are unappeasable, one of many reasons why the jihadists will lose.

They demand the impossible - the cessation of all life in favour of prostration before a totalitarian vision. Plainly, we cannot surrender. There is no one with whom to negotiate, let alone capitulate.

We shall track down those responsible. States that shelter them will know no peace. Communities that shelter them do not take forever to discover their mistake. And their sordid love of death is as nothing compared to our love of London, which we will defend as always, and which will survive this with ease.".......

Really? Hitch is gone now. London has a Muslim mayor. It seems like it is a greater crime to complain about terrorism than to commit terrorism in today's Britain. "The idea that you can have an acceptable level of terrorism is frightening," said Rudy Giuliani of John Kerry in 2004--and we just finished eight dangerous years of that acceptance level.

I didn't hear anything about the 2005 London Attack today. I only heard the dictator Erdogan demand the right to campaign in Europe for the votes of dual citizens in a Turkish referendum--or else.

He said "Turkey is not a country you can pull and push around, not a country whose citizens you can drag on the ground. If Europe continues this way, no European in any part of the world can walk safely on the streets," even as Europeans in London were in fact being pushed, pulled and dragged on the ground while unable to walk safely on the street! 

Mark Steyn, 2002: "Yet even in the face of the crudest assaults on its most cherished causes -- women's rights, gay rights -- the political class turns squeamishly away.

Once upon a time we knew what to do. A British district officer, coming upon a scene of suttee, was told by the locals that in Hindu culture it was the custom to cremate a widow on her husband's funeral pyre. He replied that in British culture it was the custom to hang chaps who did that sort of thing. There are many great things about India -- curry, pyjamas, sitars, software engineers -- but suttee was not one of them. What a pity we're no longer capable of being "judgmental" and "discriminating." We're told the old-school imperialists were racists, that they thought of the wogs as inferior. But, if so, they at least considered them capable of improvement. The multiculturalists are just as racist. The only difference is that they think the wogs can never reform: Good heavens, you can't expect a Muslim in Norway not to go about raping the womenfolk! Much better just to get used to it.

As one is always obliged to explain when tiptoeing around this territory, I'm not a racist, only a culturist. I believe Western culture -- rule of law, universal suffrage, etc. -- is preferable to Arab culture: that's why there are millions of Muslims in Scandinavia, and four Scandinavians in Syria. Follow the traffic. I support immigration, but with assimilation. Without it, like a Hindu widow, we're slowly climbing on the funeral pyre of our lost empires. You see it in European foreign policy already: they're scared of their mysterious, swelling, unstoppable Muslim populations.".......

"We live in the Age of Bad Ideas. Mass Muslim immigration into Western nations seems to me a strong candidate to be regarded as the worst of all the bad ideas we are afflicted with, and pretty convincing evidence that the West is in the grip of some sort of collective insanity. ...

There are fifty majority Muslim nations in the world, covering a fifth of the world's land area. Muslims have plenty of places to live, with national laws and customs that suit them. There is no reason for them to migrate en masse into western countries, and no reason for western countries to let them. Britain is one of the most crowded countries in the world — population density twice China's or Nigeria's. The British are fools to permit mass Muslim immigration."--John Derbyshire, 2008


Zero Hedge: Erico Matias Tavares via Sinclair & Co., interviews Danish commentator Iben Thranholm, 2017
ET: Denmark is supposedly the happiest country on the planet. But you have little reason to be happy these days as you find yourself on the receiving end of government censorship, not only for expressing your concerns about the future of your country but also for working for a Russian news outlet. What happened here? You recently wrote a powerful piece about this, expressing your feelings not only as a woman who does not toe the party line but especially as a Christian. 
IT: In 2015 I wrote an article criticizing our politicians who for the most part hate Christianity but nevertheless use Christian values, especially charity and compassion, to promote their own agendas, in particular mass immigration. So I called them out on that.
A few months later I got a call from a politician here who told me that I was on a government blacklist, supposedly acting as a pro-Russian propagandist agent, despite having absolutely no evidence to that effect. I occasionally work for a Russian news outlet, but that’s simply my job as a journalist. 
Today, in a society where supposedly there is freedom of speech, if politicians want to silence their critics they simply accuse them of working for the Kremlin, or having some unexplained ties with Russia. That is what happened to me, and it also happening to high profile politicians and journalists in the US, France and Germany. If you don’t agree with the multicultural policies of Europe then you are labeled a Russian agent. Which is really a form of political or character assassination. 
They are so afraid of the rise of what leftist politicians in Europe call “populism”, which threaten the existence of their beloved European Union. And this year the stakes are very high with elections in France and Germany. So they resort to these kinds of tactics to quash any dissenters. 
So I find myself in a blacklist in a supposedly free country like Denmark, but if a conflict with Russia emerges I can end up in prison under the pretext of being a foreign agent. Again, with no proof and no judicial process. This is very much how totalitarian societies operate. First they put you on a list, then when there is a problem or a made-up reason they will come for you.
ET: You were only expressing views that are consistent with those of many conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic. There are certainly many people concerned about the future of Western societies. In many ways this evokes memories of the Soviet Union, and the great new society they tried to create, with the disastrous consequences we all know.
That is actually a very real and concerning comparison. After all, communism was a Western idea and it was imposed on Russia, they did not create it. And it did not die with the collapse of the Soviet Union. On the contrary, it is still very much alive and roaming around our continent. While it operates differently, the goals are not too dissimilar. The version we have spreading across the West is Cultural Marxism.
We no longer have families, religion, even genders. In Sweden now they have invented a gender neutral term to address little boys and girls at kindergarten. This is a complete change from traditional Western values that have kept Europe safe from outside invasion for centuries. And this is now gone. 
All this talk of multiculturalism and open borders sounds very nice, but in practice it has led to a progressive transformation of our societies, and as Sweden shows not for the better. Less freedoms, less safety, less cohesion; more crime, more fragmentation, more social problems. It really is a struggle of good versus evil, and we in the West can no longer distinguish between the two. I would even call it diabolical disorientation. 
ET: So how long you think before the Christian cross is removed from your flag? And how does the Danish monarchy, which is sworn to protect Danish culture and religion, feel about all of this?
IT: No European politician will stand up for Christianity. Nobody. Expect from perhaps Hungarian Prime Minister, Victor Orbán. 
There is this unholy alliance between the left and radical Islam. Many Europeans have such a disdain for their own traditions that they would prefer to see Christianity being eradicated even if it might cost their way of life and even personal freedoms in the end. 
We have this bizarre situation where Western feminists support women having to wear a head cloth, along with foregoing many of the rights they should be able to enjoy in our countries. And these women often get penalized by their own communities when they try to assimilate into our society, while the feminists stay quiet. It is all very multicultural and good.
ET: You know Russia well as part of your work. Can you contrast what is happening there relative to the transformation taking place across much of Western Europe?
Believe it or not, we have swapped lanes. Now it is Russia who is adopting Christianity as the West gets rid of it by any means possible. 
Christianity runs very deep in Russia: in their literature, in their arts, in their culture. When the Soviets brutally tried to suppress it, at the cost of countless lives, it survived underground. People still celebrated it in secrecy, performing baptisms and the like behind closed doors. 
President Putin recently inaugurated an enormous statue of St. Vladimir, the patron saint of the Russian Orthodox Church, about 100 yards from the Kremlin walls. If you stand at a certain point across the street from the Kremlin, the cross that he bears is even taller than the star in the Red Square, so the symbolism is very potent. 
In the West, as we discussed, we are going the other way. We can’t discard our values and heritage fast enough. 
ET: There was a 2014 Russian movie, Leviathan, which alluded to this transformation. However it put Orthodox Christianity in a less positive light, essentially being used as an ideological argument to justify the power of the oligarchs in society. President Putin is certainly no saint. Isn’t this all just superficial?
IT: There are people in Russia who are also opposed to their own traditional values and who want a more Westernized Russia. I have not seen that movie so I can’t say if the director supports that view or not. 
People need to go to Russia and see it for themselves. President Putin is only responding to what is happening there and he respects the Russian people’s faith in Orthodoxy.
This is one of the reasons why I believe the West hate the Russians so much. They cannot tolerate the thought of having a resurgent and powerful Christian Russia who openly rejects their Cultural Marxism. And accordingly they demonized it in much of our media and political circles.
ET: So, is Denmark on the brink? Indeed, is the rest of Europe on the brink?
IT: Yes, Denmark is on the brink. And Europe is on the brink. We completely lost our culture, our values and our moral compass. What used to be good is now evil and vice-versa. 
You mentioned Denmark being the happiest country in the world but I am not sure that is true. We have high alcohol consumption and about half a million people on happy pills for a reason. 
Channel 1, our main TV channel here, recently aired a documentary on three Danish girls who converted to Islam out of their own will, not because they got married or anything like that. They all had the same background, coming from broken homes, dealing with alcoholism and so forth – basically part of the legacy of the 1968 revolution we had across Europe. What these girls lacked was structure, and they found it in Islam because it regulates all aspects of your life: how you dress, what you eat, with whom you can socialize with, how to pray, how to interact as a wife and so on. 
That is what the right-wing parties in Europe don’t understand. This is a spiritual battle. There is no political freedom without spiritual freedom. If you go around just forbidding things, like don’t wear the head cloth and so forth, it will not work. Our civilization will gradually disappear.
The only thing that can save Europe right now is a true spiritual, dare I say Christian, revival across the Continent. This played a significant role in the demise of communism in the Soviet Union and East Germany. The churches there provided hidden venues for people to congregate, express ideas and share their faith and hardships.
Since its inception Christianity was always about fighting evil with love, prayer and faith because these three are the key to freedom. And these are the values that the radical left and radical Islam do not tolerate, because of course both demand total obedience to the state and their conception of God, respectively. 
ET: Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts and your courage. You deserve to be in the cover of a magazine, not on some government blacklist. Wish you all the best.
IT: Thank you.

Judge Not Not

Sen. Ted in Action
 
Oops--wrong Sen. Ted.



"[J]ust a decade ago, Judge Gorsuch was confirmed in the Senate by a voice vote only two months after he was nominated to be a judge. He was even reported out of this committee by a voice vote. Not a single Democrat spoke even a word of opposition to him.
Not our current minority leader Chuck Schumer. Not Harry Reid or Ted Kennedy or John Kerry. Not Senators Feinstein, Leahy, and Durbin, who still sit on this very committee. Not even Senators Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or Joe Biden spoke out against Neil Gorsuch.
The question I would ask my Democratic colleagues is this: What has changed? Ten years ago, he was so unobjectionable that he did not merit even a whisper of disapproval. In the decade since, he has had an objectively exemplary record. If anything, he has shown himself to be even more worthy of the bipartisan support he received back then.
Unfortunately, that is probably not something that my Democratic colleagues can do today in light of the current political climate. Many probably believe they have no choice but to manufacture attacks against Neil Gorsuch, whether they want to or not, just to preserve their own political future.
We are seeing these baseless attacks already. Most recently, some Democrats have been slandering Judge Gorsuch as being “against the little guy” because he has dared to rule based on the law, and not on the identity of the persons appearing before him.
This is beyond absurd. For one thing, these are the same people who have spent the past eight years attacking the Little Sisters of the Poor for having the audacity to be live according to their deeply held religious beliefs. You really need to take a long look in the mirror if one day you find yourself attacking a group called the Little Sisters of the Poor. So forgive me if I don’t believe these people actually care about the “little guy.”
But more important than that, a judge is not supposed to care about the big guy or the little guy. A judge swears an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States, not to give favor to particular litigants.
Unfortunately, I fear that we will see even more baseless attacks this week. But I hope I am wrong. I hope that my Democratic colleagues will give Judge Gorsuch a fair chance. I hope that those who were willing to confirm him ten years ago will treat Judge Gorsuch with the same respect that they showed him then.
Because make no mistake: Judge Gorsuch will be confirmed.".......

Analysis: True.
"Our manner of interpreting the Constitution is to begin with the text, and to give that text the meaning that it bore when it was adopted by the people ... This is such a minority position in modern academia and in modern legal circles that on occasion I'm asked when I've given a talk like this a question from the back of the room—'Justice Scalia, when did you first become an originalist?'—as though it is some kind of weird affliction that seizes some people—
'When did you first start eating human flesh?'"
 

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

Saratoga Springs High School Teachers Mimic the Nazis' Hitler Youth Political Indoctrination Program

"We're So Against Hitler That We're Going to Copy Him!"
"You must remember zis: It's Different When We Do It(tm)!"
Todd Starnes:

"A group of moms in Saratoga Springs, New York has decided to fight back against what they call the radical leftwing indoctrination that has infested the local school system. ...
She realized it was time to take a stand after a teacher at the local high school led a classroom presentation on fascism that included a graphic portrayal comparing President Donald Trump to Hitler and Mussolini.
A tenth grade teacher at Saratoga Springs High School led a discussion on the rise of fascism during World War Two by referencing President Trump.
“It’s total indoctrination,” said Melissa, the parent who contacted me. She asked that I not use her last name. “It’s not their place to indoctrinate our children. It’s their job to teach the facts. Healthy debate is one thing but this definitely crossed the line.”
The entire lesson plan was posted on the school district’s website. But once I started poking around and asking questions, the lesson was hidden behind a password protected wall.
“Trump has absolutely no relation to World War Two. There’s no reason why he should be included with Stalin, Mussolini or Hitler,” the mom said. They are trying to link him to the leaders of that time. That crosses a line.”
Another graphics listed “early warning signs of fascism”:
·      Nationalism
·      Obession [sic!] with national security
·      Religion and government intertwined
·      Rampant sexism
·      Fraudulent elections
·      Obsession with crime and punishment
“The fact they posted this on the school’s website shows just how brazen these teachers are,” another concerned parent told me.
“Liberal teachers need to be reminded it’s not okay to use their platform to push their agenda on our kids,” the parent added.
Supt. Mike Piccirillo defended the lesson – telling me that “teaching about fascism as a political movement in the context of World War II is part of the curriculum.”.......

Translation: "Your children are zee property of zee One-Party State! Zee Party vill teach zem!"

Since the goal is to edu-macate the kidz about the 1930's, why doncha' run this past them one time?:

J. Christian Adams, American Spectator, 2009:

""The Great Illusion" advocated for a system of international interdependence and a world where large powerful nations did not have greater international relevance than smaller weak nations. Obama's address to the United Nations tracked Angell's philosophy so closely it would be surprising if the similarities were accidental.

Angell wistfully advocated for "relinquishing the principle of isolated national defence…and erecting an international authority" to replace "the self interest of individual nations." The Nobel Committee described Angell as "cool and clear," and that he "spoke to the intellect." Most notably, Angell argued, "you cannot kill ideas with bullets." He believed that an enlightened citizenry, once someone or something enlightened them, would render war obsolete.

[Sir] Norman Angell won the Nobel in 1933, a most dangerous year for his ideas to gain currency. In January 1933, Adolf Hitler became the Chancellor of Germany. And in the following years, Norman Angell's ideas flourished and were adopted as policy by a British Government unwilling to acknowledge the Gathering Storm. Winston Churchill, however, regularly and vociferously opposed Angell and his allies. It took Churchill's courage to stand against this national naïveté throughout the 1930s, usually alone, and always jeered in the House of Commons. The British government followed Angell's model for international relations and ignored Churchill, adopting timid diplomatic and defense policies.

The 1933 Peace Prize winner profoundly influenced British policy in ways that led directly to German tanks rolling into Poland in September 1939. War did not break out because nations ignored Angell's advice; instead, the ensuing carnage in Europe happened because European democracies made Angell's ideas government policy. Europe gambled that Angell's model would ensure peace, and by the time everyone saw that the gamble had failed, it was too late."
"My dear, perhaps you have already observed zat in Casablanca human life is cheap and education is expensive. Summon the children at vunce, Fraulein!  I must impose my Trumphausen-by-Proxy on zee children--BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY!"