Category Archives: culture

Appropriateness of Thuggery

Posted on by
Reply

Here is the core BLM position according to Hawk Newsome, chairman of Black Lives Matter of Greater New York:

If this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it.

He went on:

I don’t condone nor do I condemn rioting[.]

BLM is indifferent to rioting, at best. Supposedly. Never mind that BLM actively participates in the rioting going on in so many Progressive-Democrat-run cities.

Now we have Progressive-Democratic Party Vice Presidential candidate Kamala Harris saying

We must always defend peaceful protest and peaceful protesters. We should not confuse them with those looting and committing acts of violence, including the shooter who was arrested for murder. Make no mistake, we will not let these vigilantes and extremists derail the path to justice.

Yet she actively supports violent gangs like BLM.

I actually believe that “Black Lives Matter” has been the most significant agent for change within the criminal justice system[.]

This is what we can expect, even more widely spread, under a Progressive-Democrat, a Biden-Harris, administration that so bluntly supports “peaceful protesters.”

A Supreme Court Selection

Posted on by
Reply

Leslie Marshall thinks Judge Amy Coney Barrett ought not be confirmed—ought not even be considered—as a Supreme Court Justice.

She’s wrong.

Barrett could also cast a key vote on cases involving the upcoming presidential election….

That’s part of the point of getting a ninth Justice quickly confirmed—to avoid the possibility of tie votes on such important decisions.

…she has little in common with Ginsburg.

Nor is she required to have; she’d be her own Justice, just like the other eight each are their own Justice. Contrary to Marshall’s apparent belief, the vacant seat isn’t Ginsburg’s seat, nor is it a liberal’s seat. It’s the people’s seat on We the People’s Supreme Court.

Replacing a white Jewish woman with a white Catholic woman on the Supreme Court does not bring more diversity to the court.

This is wholly irrelevant. The role of Supreme Court Justices—of all judges in the American legal system—is to rule on what our Constitution and the statute before them say, not on what the Justices think those items should say. Diversity for diversity’s sake has no place on a court—especially on a court, where consistency in the application of law is a Critical Item.

Senate Republicans now suddenly have no problem with the idea of a rushed confirmation of a justice….

What rush? Prompt isn’t the same as rushed. And unprecedented, as she also suggested? This is plain nonsense. The precedent is the Constitution with its stated obligation for the President to nominate to fill a vacancy and for the Senate to advise and consent or withhold consent. Full stop.

A big fear is that she will vote to overturn Roe v Wade….

What Marshall is carefully ignoring in her worry that Barrett adheres too closely with Scalia is the latter’s respect for and adherence to precedent and his belief that once a precedent has been accepted by the people, it’s a legitimate law whatever anyone might think of that precedent.

Barrett is unlikely to overrule Roe unless there’s clear reason.

Her rulings as a judge have been very pro-gun rights and she has made decisions unfavorable to undocumented immigrants nearly 100% of the time.

A judge and a potential Justice obeying her oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution and ruling on the basis of what the text of our Constitution and the text of a statute actually say instead of what she might wish either to say—imagine that.

Threaten the rights of millions of Americans? On the contrary: a Justice who applies our Constitution and the statute before her as they are written would preserve the rights of all Americans, the rights acknowledged in our founding principles statement as being endowed in all men by our Creator and as laid out in our blueprint that tightly circumscribes our government in order to keep the men–of any generation–who populate that government from altering them, weakening them, eroding them into oblivion.

Marshall’s piece is just another hysteria-mongering article of nonsense.

Lynching and Hate Crimes Generally

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump, in his Platinum Plan for revitalizing black communities and freeing them from the Progressive-Democrats’ welfare cage, says he wants to make lynching a national-level hate crime.

That’s on the right track, but it is IMNSHO wide of the mark.

I don’t think there should be any hate crime definitions at all. The crime is the crime, and the victim is just as robbed, just as beaten, just as dead, his property just as destroyed regardless of motive or depravity of motive.

The hate aspect of a crime cannot be ignored, though: the appropriate time to consider this aspect is during the sentencing phase, given conviction.

Science Agency and “Diversity”

Posted on by
Reply

Heather Mac Donald wrote about “woke science” in a number of Federal agencies in her Thursday op-ed.

Her thesis centered on the…foolishness…of allegedly science-supporting agencies like NIH, NSF, and CDC diverting taxpayer monies toward efforts at agency diversity for diversity’s sake. For instance,

Earlier this year the NIH announced a new round of “Research Supplements to Promote Diversity in Health-Related Research.” Academic science labs could get additional federal money if they hire “diverse” researchers; no mention was made of relevant scientific qualifications.

Mac Donald closed her piece with this:

Mr Trump should order that federal science initiatives return to a color- and sex-blind basis.

Indeed. If NIH, NSF, CDC (et al.) were serious about improving “diversity” (whatever that is), they would devote their diversity efforts and funding to improving the pre-K and K-12 education opportunities for our children, with particular emphasis on those stuck in “underserved communities.”

Absent that, those agencies, diverting themselves from their missions like they are, are wastes of taxpayer money, and they should be disbanded (not merely defunded) and replaced with other, newly constituted agencies whose personnel will be serious about their actual missions.

Illegitimacy

Posted on by
Reply

One of a President’s duties is to fill vacant seats in his cabinet and in the Federal judiciary—especially the latter. Yet today’s Progressive-Democrats in Congress are actively attempting to block President Donald Trump from fulfilling that duty as it applies to the Supreme Court with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death. Filling that seat is especially important given that those same Progressive-Democrats have committed to challenging the election outcome if it doesn’t give them the proper outcome, and an empty seat on the Court leaves it unable to resolve tie votes on the upcoming election lawsuits.

Not only are they seeking to block the filling of that vacancy, they’re threatening retaliation if they don’t get their way. Beyond that, the Progressive-Democrats’ supporters are threatening outright violence and widespread destruction.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D, NY):

If Senator McConnell [R, KY] and @SenateGOP were to force through a nominee during the lame duck session—before a new Senate and President can take office—then the incoming Senate should immediately move to expand the Supreme Court[.]

Here’s Hillary Clinton’s (D) Presidential campaign press secretary Brian Fallon:

Any Supreme Court with a Trump justice confirmed to Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat at this point in the calendar would be fundamentally illegitimate, and Democrats must be prepared to act accordingly[.].

Here’s ardent Progressive-Democrat supporter Reza Aslan:

If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire f—–g thing down[.]

And in response to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R, KY) vow to hold a vote on President Trump’s nominee:

Over our dead bodies, literally[.]

And fellow ardent Progressive-Democrat supporter Aaron Gouveia:

F–k no. Burn it all down.

And Wisconsin Ethics Commission member (!) Progressive-Democrat Scot Ross directly to Senator Ed Markey (D, MA):

F—–g A, Ed. If you can’t shut it down, burn it down[.]

This has been the drumbeat of the Progressive-Democrats since November 2016. Nothing is “legitimate” unless it’s done by Progressive-Democrats. They’ve been attacking our government, and through that, our nation ever since:

  • in Congress; with their sham investigations and “impeachment”
  • in the courts with their obstructionist lawfare
  • in the streets with their grassroots supporters’ rioting, looting, and street-painted graffiti
  • with one group of supporters in particular threatening that “if this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it”
  • House Progressive-Democrats threatening to fundamentally alter the Supreme Court if Evil Republicans fill an empty seat with someone and at a time that Progressive-Democrats personally disapprove
  • supporters’ threats “burn Congress down”
  • to mailing ricin-laced letters to the President.

This puts an enormous premium on voting all up and down the ballot in November.