My latest effort, a pamphlet on the American legal system (because I don’t lack for ego), A Conservative’s View of the American Concept of Law, has been released, and it can be found on amazon.com: https://amzn.to/2L4iVXx . Links also can be found on my Books page.
Our legal system is explicitly founded on natural law through our Creator’s endowment—the origin and source of our fundamental principles.
The terms include these, via Deutsche Welle:
All of which negate one of the motives for leaving the European Union. EU citizens resident in the UK will be magnets for drawing in others for the UK’s generous welfare system—and EU citizens still will be able to seek work in the UK preferentially, availing themselves both of the UK’s higher wage rates and that welfare system.
There’s a nascent move afoot to create a European army to which, presumably, all the member nations of the EU would contribute men, equipment, and money. German Chancellor Angela Merkel suggested to the European Parliament last Tuesday that such a force
would complement NATO.
I’ll leave aside the question of how the EU’s member nations would pay for such an establishment when they’re having so much trouble finding ways—or reasons—to pay for their commitment (of all of 2% of their respective GDPs) to NATO.
Go vote. Speak your piece at the ballot box.
Double check your ballot, too, before you hit the CAST BALLOT button; electronic machines are capable of glitches.
Don’t make excuses; take the time. Have your say.
At least in Europe. The European Court of Human Rights ruled last Thursday that it’s impermissible to make crude remarks about Islam’s Muhammed if those remarks fall outside what Government deems acceptable. It seems that, in the course of a 2009 seminar, a woman commented on Muhammed’s marriage to his child bride:
[Muhammed] liked to do it with children…. A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? … What do we call it, if it is not pedophilia?
The ECHR ruled that remark unobjective, lacking historical background, and intended to disparage Islam.
The tentacles reach far—even into the origin of Western concepts of individual liberty. A British court has ordered
the wife of a jailed Azerbaijani banker to explain how she and her husband could afford their multimillion-pound London mansion or face having it seized.
Government does not have to prove the illegal origin of the money. No, the holder of the money must prove her innocence. Here is the outcome of the British government’s legislation ostensibly aimed at allegedly dirty money held by people with political connections or suspected of serious crime.
There can be no reasoning, no rational debate anymore with the Progressive-Democratic Party and the Left in general. This is made clear by the statements luminaries of that collection have made in recent days—confirming their behavior during the Kavanaugh confirmation process just concluded, during which they actively rejected a foundation of liberty: innocent until proven guilty. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D, NY) was the loudest on this, saying outright that then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh had to personally authorize an investigation into himself or he would show himself guilty.
Our ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, will resign her position at the end of the year. She told President Donald Trump her intention six months ago.
That raises a couple of thoughts in my pea brain. One is to watch the utter vitriol, hatred, and character assassination with which the Progressive-Democrats will try to block any Trump replacement nominee from confirmation.
Beyond that: Nikki Haley for President in ’24. Consider further: Lindsey Graham for VP (unless we still need the Republican numbers in the Senate to protect the Supreme Court). (If Graham proves unavailable, how about Congresswoman Mia Love (R, UT)? It’d be fun to watch the Party of Identity Politics campaign against that ticket.)
Chris Wallace interviewed Senator Ben Cardin (D, MD) on his Fox News Sunday program last Sunday.
Here are some of the claims Cardin made.
The change that Senator McConnell made to the rules on the Supreme Court really caused us to be much more partisan in this[.]
And
I don’t believe that Justice Kavanaugh’s in the mainstream of judicial thought.
And
Kavanaugh’s confirmation puts at risk “the progress we’ve made on health care issues, on women’s Constitutional rights, and on protecting the Mueller investigation.”
Not quite, although this is America, and Cardin is entitled [sic] to his spin.
As I write this (Saturday morning), Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh has not been confirmed; although, that seems more likely than I had thought Friday morning before the cloture vote. Nevertheless, here’s why we need another textualist Justice on the Court—from the words of another Supreme Court Justice.
Associate Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan said Friday she fears the high court may lack a justice going forward who would serve as a swing-vote on cases….
And
Kagan said at a conference for women at Princeton University that over the past three decades…there was a figure on the bench “who found the center or people couldn’t predict in that sort of way.”