I listened yesterday as Dianne Feinstein, a very old senator from California (as in should be out to pasture), questioned Senator Sessions as he goes through the process to be the next Attorney General. She was a typical liberal and asked about things that dealt with abortion and gay marriage. She was concerned that Sessions still considers Roe v Wade to be the worst decision the SCOTUS ever made (I agree with him that it was unconstitutional and should have been a 10th Amendment issue). Sessions was candid and said it was the law and he would enforce it but that he personally thinks it was wrongly decided. I think the same is true about gay marriage. Marriage of any kind is not in the Constitution so it is not the business of the federal government.
It was obvious to me that Feinstein is biased and does not want Sessions to be confirmed. That is obvious with regard to most Democrats who questioned him. They have decided to run a racist allegation smear and are sticking to it despite mounds of evidence to the contrary. It is how they do things in DC. It matters not that these folks work together and that they have good relationships. As soon as politics are in play they abuse each other with lies. It is a wink, wink situation where they say, nothing personal dude but I have to play up to the base so I look good.
It started with Feinstein’s opening remarks where she expressed concerns (allegedly told to her by victim groups) about Sessions’ ability to be the AG for all people and to enforce all the laws, particularly the ones with which he disagrees.
I have no doubt Sessions will do just that BUT, I want to know where Feinstein was with regard to former AG Eric Holder. Feinstein supported Holder even though he has a history as a radical. While in office Holder refused to defend laws with which he disagreed. He refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act stating gay rights were the last civil rights. Did Feinstein have a chat with Holder about supporting the law EVEN THOSE WITH WHICH HE DISAGREES?
In 2011, the attorney general said he won’t defend Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which rules that federal interpretation of “marriage” applies only to heterosexual couples. Last year, Holder told ABC News, “From my perspective, [gay marriage] is really the latest civil-rights issue.” So when six state attorneys general said they would not defend laws that ban gay marriage, Holder did not step in. Instead, Holder said they didn’t have to defend the laws if they believed they were unconstitutional. ABC News
Is it OK for AG Sessions to ignore laws or state AGs who ignore laws that they consider unconstitutional? If a state AG decided that Obamacare or gay marriage or abortion were unconstitutional and refused to enforce or defend the laws guiding them would Feinstein be OK with that? She certainly had no issue with Holder…
Feinstein also expressed concern that Sessions had a history of racism (not proven and contrary to evidence) and she was concerned that people of color (and other protected minority groups) would not get a fair shake under an AG Sessions. Where was Feinstein when Holder refused to prosecute the Black Panthers who were recorded intimidating white voters? She was nowhere to be found when Holder claimed that the focus on the Black Panther Case demeans “my people.”
Did Feinstein call Holder in to let him know it was racist to take that attitude and that all Americans are his people?
It is obvious that the Democrats have a hard on for Sessions (actually they hate Trump and want to wound him this way). That is all well and good BUT a real leader, a principled person in the Senate, would evaluate a person based on skill and career. The reality is the Democrats (hell, most politicians) are immoral and cowardly. They do not care what is good for the country or what is right. They care about how they can get and keep power and how they can control each and every one of us.
Feinstein is a moron and a political hack. She is out for blood because her besty Hillary Clinton got her rear end whipped by Donald Trump.
I want adults with ethical principles and of good moral character to sit in the senate and that is why Feinstein should be put out to pasture.
She is a disgrace to herself and the body in which she sits.
As an aside, Al Franken is as partisan and cowardly as Feinstein.
Democrats ram stuff through when they are in charge and expect their nominees to be accepted. When they are the minority they expect bipartisanship and the ability to oppose nominees because they know what is best for America.
They are a ruthless bunch and must be handled with brutal force. Get them down and keep them down.
Never surrender, never submit.
Pope Francis, a man whose actions call his devotion into question, has entered the US political fray by attacking Donald Trump. The Pope was in Mexico and was asked about Trump’s positions regarding immigration and particularly his stance on building a wall. The Pope commented that we should be building bridges, not walls, and that anyone who would build such a wall is not a true Christian.
I am sure the Pope is aware that Christians read the Old Testament and follow its doctrine even though it was the Jews involved as Christians were not yet around. In the Old Testament there is some mention, I am sure the Pope can have a Bishop look it up, of at least one walled city.
In fact, if the Pope looks out his bedroom window he can see the very same thing.
You see Vatican City, which is its own small sovereign state, is surrounded by very high walls making it nearly impossible to get in. The Vatican has millions of people who enter it as tourists to visit the place but only about 800 people there are CITIZENS and the rules to gain citizenship are very strict.
Not just any Tom, Dick, or Harry can enter the Vatican and request citizenship. No one can scale the wall (thus entering illegally) and expect to stay and reap the benefits that those who come to America illegally get.
Pope Francis, you need to tear down those walls lest people take you at your word and claim you are not a Christian because you have walls surrounding you.
Why are there walls surrounding Vatican City in the first place? What’s that you say? For safety. Oh, I get it. You want to be able to control who enters YOUR sovereign little slice of the planet.
Well we want the same thing and we don’t need a socialist Pope prancing around telling us we should be doing otherwise.
So either tear down the walls and build a few bridges or sit down and shut up.
As an aside, if you tear down the walls ship the bricks over here. We could use them to lower the cost of our wall.
Never surrender, never submit.
Feb 7, 2015 Military
The Chairborne Rangers at the highest levels of the Army (including the Chief Desk Occupant Secretary McHugh) have politicized the bravery of one soldier and denied him not only the Service’s second highest award but also the Silver Star he was awarded for bravery on the battlefield.
According to a story by Aaron MacLean in The Washington Free Beacon then Captain Matt Golsteyn was awarded the Silver Star for his brave and heroic actions in combat and when he was awarded the Silver Star the powers that be indicated the award was being reviewed and would likely be upgraded to the Distinguished Service Cross (DSC).
A funny thing happened on the way to the award and that is Golsteyn was quoted in a book where he criticized the strategy in Afghanistan. The petty pencil pushers, those who send people into harm’s way and watch from afar, decided to launch and investigation into whether Golsteyn violated the rules of engagement (ROE) that led to the death of an enemy bomb maker (how is that a bad thing).
The long investigation did not result in any charges and the Chairborne Rangers could find absolutely nothing that Golsteyn did wrong but they denied the DSC. One might say they reviewed the case and decided his actions did not warrant that medal.
Fair enough BUT, the Secretary revoked the Silver Star Golsteyn was awarded for his heroic deeds.
This is all recounted by Congressman Duncan Hunter who wrote to McHugh to determine the status of the upgrade from Silver Star to DSC.
This is all petty politics by people who are more concerned with their inside the beltway cocktail luncheons and dinner parties than the welfare of the troops. The people who served with Golsteyn recommended him for the award based on what he did with them and while they were with him.
The denial of the DSC and the revocation of the Silver Star were nothing more than political moves by people whose biggest threat is a paper cut.
The powers that be don’t like the real heroes who have to fight and die pointing out that the tactics and ROE dictated by those pencil pushing powers are getting people killed and stifling their ability to prosecute and win the war.
The Secretary of the Army should be ashamed of himself for allowing politics to cloud his judgement. He should be bounced out of office for tarnishing the name of a true hero whose boots he is not fit to shine.
Never surrender, never submit.
Sep 12, 2012 Political
Anyone ever had an addict in their family??? I have. what drives any form of addict is the bloodthirsty need to have power or control over another or a situation. It is the nucleus to the disorder…and trust me, it is a HUGE disorder…for every addict to remain so, they must have one or more co-addicts. hat being a willing person or partner who doesn’t engage in the addictive act, but does nothing to stop the active addict.
What I witnessed by both Republicans and Democrats at their convention was the disease of addiction and their willing co-addicts. That feeling of watching something occur and asking yourself if you really did just see what you saw. Surreal. The debris inside the eye of the storm flying everywhere, must have been what it felt like to be a delegate of anyone but Mitt Romney. And let’s not give the Dems a pass either…same for any Democratic delegate who places God as their supreme guide in life decisions and behavior.
Those of us on the outside of that eye of the storm can see things for exactly what they are, and it isn’t a pretty sight for either party if they continue this assault on rules, laws, and citizens. Judging from how many citizens don’t bother to vote, and how many dead citizens continue to vote, I’d say this is an utter failure. How about you?
To push away all those elected delegates by the people of their states, and change the rules at the last second to get your boy the 1144 delegates he needed, was less than the “big tent” you claim you are Republicans. And to push God out of any reference in your little party in Charlotte was equally divisive Democrats. You’re not winning anyone over.
How many of you would like to have another choice? How many would like to hear Gary Johnson in the debates, who is on the ballot in all 50 states? I know I would. I would like to hear what a former Governor of New Mexico, who was one of only four Governors to leave office with a budget surplus, has to say. I would like to hear what the former Governor has to say about cutting taxes, because he did so 14 times and still left the treasury with 222 million to the 28 million when he arrived. I would like to hear what the former Governor who won two terms with a wide margin has to say about school choice, since he was the first to lead the challenge on a statewide voucher program. I would like to hear about a former Governor who actually cut 1200 government jobs without firing one government employee. I would like to hear from the former Governor who vetoed 750 bills during his tenure, more than any other Governor in the country. I would like to hear about health care from a former Governor who has participated in several Iron Man triathlons and summited Mt. Everest in 2003.
If the Republicans throw another game in November, just remember, there was a third choice…he just wasn’t invited to the party…maybe because he isn’t a power hungry, controlling addict?? Maybe he isn’t drinking the Kool Aid that requires an intervention.
One would like to think that any court, especially the Supreme Court, would rule based on the Constitution. In an ideal world the judges would look at a case and compare it to what is allowed in the Supreme Law of the land and then decide if it passes muster or not.
Unfortunately, our country is not like that as many judges ignore the Constitution in order to push a political or idealistic agenda. For instance, there is no way that a case involving the right of an American citizen who is not otherwise disqualified (criminal, mental illness, addiction, etc) to own a gun should be shot down by any court. The fact that Second Amendment cases have been 5-4 decisions in our highest court speaks volumes about how some justices view the Constitution and the citizens who own that document.
Today the Supreme Court struck down three of four provisions of the Arizona Immigration Law, a law that was written with the same wording as the federal law and one that did nothing more than enforce ALREADY existing federal law.
Chief Justice Roberts voted with the majority on this and there might be a good reason. Justice Kagan recused herself because she was Solicitor General and was involved in the case against the law. If Roberts votes the other way the decision is split at 4-4 and the lower court ruling that invalidated the entire thing would be upheld. At least this way Roberts ensured that the most important part of the law, that which allows police officers to check immigration status, was upheld.
There is another take on this that I have heard and it is that Roberts voted this way because Obamacare is going to be overturned (or parts of it are) and Roberts wants to be able to show the Arizona case as proof that he is thoughtful in his process and that overturning Obamacare was not political.
It is sad that this takes place but the Court has been a political entity since FDR fiddled with it. Justices are selected based on their political ideology and less so on their judicial qualities. Presidents put people on courts not who will uphold the Constitution but who will provide political decisions in a party’s favor. If justices ruled by interpreting the Constitution (and this means reading what the Founders wrote about what it means and not some liberal living document mumbo jumbo) then there would be no issues and there would be fewer 5-4 decisions.
There would also not be a necessity for justices to vote one way to demonstrate that their decisions are not political. There would be no outcry over judicial activism and we would not have Barack Obama and his liberal minions berating the court and trying to intimidate them.
Supreme Court Justices are supposed to interpret law in accordance with the Constitution and base their decisions ONLY on that document. There should be no reference to foreign law or public feeling or opinion polls and there darn sure should not be decisions that run contrary to the words of the Constitution and those who wrote it.
We have these things because nine people sit on a court and play games.
As an aside, Justice Scalia wrote agreat dissenting opinion in the Arizona Case. His was well reasoned and followed the Constitution. It is too bad others could not do this as well.
I think that Roberts voted the way he did in order to keep the entire law from being shot down because of the split. But I can’t help but wonder if he feels as if this were a blessing because now he is on record as voting with the liberals on the Court in favor of Obama’s position so that when Obamacare is shot down (if it is) he will have cover.
It is a shame that our system of government has come to this and unless changes are made we will soon hit a death spiral from which we cannot recover.
On Thursday of this week we will know how Obamacare plays out. We will know if the Court takes its job and its duty to the Citizens seriously or if they have committed us to the loony bin of a banana republic.
Time will tell. I think at least part of the law will be struck down but with politics instead of adherence to the Constitution the MO of the SCOTUS, one can never tell.
Justice Kagan recused herself from this decision because of her role as Solicitor General. She should have recused herself from Obamacare but since she was placed on the Court by Obama to uphold it you can bet she will vote on it.
Though it might get interesting if she did recuse. That would make it a 4-4 and things would really be boogered up.
We will see Thursday if we are a nation of laws or a nation of men.
Never surrender, never submit.