Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next »


Profile Information

Name: Mike
Gender: Male
Member since: Tue May 20, 2014, 11:32 AM
Number of posts: 49,021

About Me

US Navy Retired, Aerospace worker. All around good Dude. Eternal Foe of the work ethic

Journal Archives

Are you now, or were you ever....a Catholic?

How much do Democrats ignore the Constitution?, This much

One way to understand the Democratic opposition to the judicial nomination of Brian Buescher over his membership in the Catholic group the Knights of Columbus is as a test run in preventing their worst nightmare: the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.

Democratic senators Kamala Harris (Calif.) and Mazie Hirono (Hawaii) targeted Buescher during his confirmation hearing and in written questions late last year, suggesting that his Catholic beliefs would lead him to rule against abortion rights, as well as that his membership in the Knights could be enough to disqualify him from serving as a judge at all. Hirono went so far as to demand that he drop his membership and recuse himself from any case on which the organization has taken a position.

At the simplest level, this is rank bigotry against American Catholics. Buescher’s opponents have pointed to no “extremist” positions that the Knights of Columbus takes, other than positions that it takes precisely because those are the positions of the Catholic Church. Opposing Buescher on these grounds implies that every Catholic who adheres to the Church’s moral teaching should be held in intense suspicion and might even be unfit for public service, especially on U.S. courts.

The Democratic focus on Buescher’s membership in the Knights is tied not to anything inherently sinister about the organization — which is wholly innocuous and, in fact, most widely known and respected for its charitable work and donations — but to their desire to use it as a proxy for his adherence to Catholicism, which they believe will lead him to rule against their pet precedents.

This should sound familiar. In the fall of 2017, Coney Barrett faced similar scrutiny from Democratic senators as a result of her Catholic faith, and some of their questioning centered around her membership in a small group called People of Praise, which has many practicing Catholic members.

“You have a long history of believing your religious beliefs should prevail,” Senator Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) told Barrett during the confirmation hearing. “When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country.”

By “big issues,” of course, Feinstein was referring to abortion rights. The Democratic furor over Barrett in 2017 and over Buescher now was not about troubling activities on the part of People of Praise or the Knights of Columbus; it was about their fear that judges who are committed Catholics would refuse to uphold the judicially imposed regime of abortion on demand.

In raising a similar fuss over Buescher’s nomination, Democrats have revealed the basis of their strategy for what surely will be an all-out campaign to stop Coney Barrett from being seated on the Supreme Court, should President Trump have the chance to make another nomination and should he choose the Seventh Circuit judge.

This is a dangerous precedent, and one with implications that the Democrats may not like. Feinstein, Harris, and Hirono are proposing that if a judicial nominee belongs to a civil institution that holds differing views from our legal status quo, he or she is necessarily incapable of upholding the law. Such a standard would prevent members of any religious faith, not only Catholics, from serving as judges, as well as cast in suspicion members of political advocacy groups whose positions differ from established law or jurisprudence.

This standard is as incoherent as it is untenable. And, ultimately, it betrays the radical way that an increasing number of Democrats view the courts. They are concerned that a faithful Catholic will use his or her position as a judge to impose private preferences stemming from religion — and they don’t want any judge on the bench who holds different private preferences than their own — because they have ceased to view judges as neutral arbiters of the law and of the Constitution.

So Traditional Marriage is now an "Extremist Position" in Harris and Hirono's America?
Posted by Gunslinger201 | Sun Jan 13, 2019, 06:11 AM (19 replies)

Mecca's Grand Mosque Plagued by Swarms of Locust

Posted by Gunslinger201 | Sat Jan 12, 2019, 05:56 PM (4 replies)

U.S. Media Really, Really, R.E.A.L.L.Y. Need Everyone to Know that Justice Ginsberg is Healthy

“The more he spoke of his honor, the faster we counted the spoons“… That’s the first sense that comes to mind as left-wing media narrative engineers keep pushing a story that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is “recovering”.

How far would the left-wing apparatus go to ensure that President Donald Trump does not have an opportunity to replace another supreme court justice? As far as needed…. There are no boundaries too extreme on this issue. None.

If the far-left political and institutional apparatus; including associates within the DOJ and FBI; were willing to work with allies in DC to frame an incredulous “rape gang” narrative against nominee Justice Kavanaugh; knowing their allied media would incredulously push the most absurd claim imaginable;… well, enough said.

Justice Ginsburg will be “working” from home, invisibly, for a year or more… even if in a coma; hooked up to breathing apparatus, and being force-fed through a tube. Watch.
Posted by Gunslinger201 | Sat Jan 12, 2019, 10:55 AM (15 replies)

Justice Democrats (same group that elected Occasional Cortex) begins targeting Democrats

Go After Nancy next!
Posted by Gunslinger201 | Sat Jan 12, 2019, 09:57 AM (15 replies)

Report-FBI Opened Inquiry into whether Trump was working for the Russians

The New York Times reports that “in the days after President Trump fired James B. Comey as F.B.I. director, law enforcement officials became so concerned by the president’s behavior that they began investigating whether he had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests.” The Times cites “former law enforcement officials and others familiar with the investigation.” They say the FBI investigation ended when Robert Mueller was appointed. If this specific charge remained under investigation, Mueller did the investigating.

If it’s true that the FBI undertook the investigation described by the Times, this tells us plenty about the FBI. It tells us nothing about Trump.

The Times doesn’t say who at the FBI ordered the investigation into whether Trump was (in the Times’ words) “knowingly working for Russia or had unwittingly fallen under Moscow’s influence.” Presumably, it was Andrew McCabe, the Trump-hating partisan who is now under criminal investigation. After all, he was the number two man under Comey.

Others who might well have been involved were Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Jim Baker, then the general counsel of the FBI. Baker had met with Democratic Party lawyers to talk about allegations of Donald Trump-Russia collusion weeks before the 2016 election, and before the bureau secured a search warrant targeting Trump’s campaign.

Clearly, Comey’s cronies, anti-Trumpers all, were outraged that Trump had fired their guy. The investigation reported by the Times looks like an over-the-top method of striking back at Trump.

The Times tries to make it seem like there was more to it than that. Its source for the story informed the Times that two events in connection with the Comey firing triggered the decision to investigate whether Trump was an agent of Russia (or its stooge). As discussed below, these events provide no rational basis for such an investigation. The FBI’s reliance on them reveals its shocking bad faith.

The first bit of behavior was Trump’s draft of a letter to Comey thanking him for his service and for having told him he was not a subject of the FBI’s Russia investigation. It’s obvious what Trump was trying to do here. He was trying to memorialize and gain maximum mileage from the fact that Comey had told Trump he wasn’t a subject of the Russia investigation.

That Trump wanted it on the record that he wasn’t a subject of the Russia investigation isn’t evidence that he was working on behalf of the Russians. Any president who was operating under the cloud of collusion claims would want it known that he wasn’t a subject of the investigation into collusion.

Trump wasn’t trying to help Russia here, he was trying to help himself and his presidency. FBI leadership chose, in effect, to view Trump’s insistent denial of guilt as evidence of guilt — a ridiculous inference.

The second bit of behavior was the president’s interview with NBC News in which he said that the firing of Comey was related to the Russia investigation. It almost certainly was. As noted, Trump was furious that Comey wouldn’t say publicly what he had told him privately — that Trump wasn’t a subject of the investigation. He might also still have been angry about the treatment of Michael Flynn.

But how does this demonstrate that Trump was acting on Russia’s behalf? If Trump were a Russian agent, why would he admit that the firing was about Russia when Rod Rosenstein was offering a different justification — Comey’s handling of the Clinton email matter? I doubt this approach to espionage is part of the Russia spy handbook.

During the same interview, Trump said:

I might even lengthen out the investigation, but I have to do the right thing for the American people.
is the wrong man for that position.

Thus, in the very interview the FBI relied on, Trump made it clear that the firing of Comey did not mean the end, or even the shortening, of the investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 election and possible collusion between the Russians and the campaign. At best, the interview was a pretext for going after Trump out of revenge for the Comey firing.

The deep state is real. Jack Goldsmith has acknowledged as much. It is also deeply partisan and utterly vicious. The Times’ story is yet another reminder of this sad reality.

Finally, I’d like to know whether top Justice Department officials outside of the FBI knew about this investigation. Rod Rosenstein, in particular.

We’re not likely to find out. Those who leaked this story to the Times don’t want us to know.

Think about the pure corruption brought on America by Obama when you look at the Democrat Party. We MUST clean out the Viper nest

Posted by Gunslinger201 | Sat Jan 12, 2019, 04:19 AM (6 replies)

What part of when he said as long as it takes was not clear?

President Donald Trump’s insistence on obtaining full funding for his proposed wall along the southern border will officially result in the longest lapse in federal government funding in U.S. history.

The dispute centers on a high stakes fight between Trump and Democratic lawmakers over wall funding, with the president demanding 5.7 billion dollars and the opposition offering up only 1.6 billion. Trump has made several counter-offers to Democrats to try and breakthrough in negotiations, but Democrats have insisted that they will not offer up a single dollar more than 1.6 billion unless the federal government is fully reopened

The dispute reached its apex during a Wednesday meeting in the Situation Room when Trump asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi point-blank if he reopened the government whether she would then agree to negotiate somewhat on appropriating more funds for a border wall. When Pelosi replied “no,” Trump by his admission put his hands up in exasperation and said “bye bye.”

Trump is serious
Posted by Gunslinger201 | Fri Jan 11, 2019, 11:55 AM (1 replies)

We will give you Justice Merrick Garland if you will fund the Wall

Fully fund the wall and Trump will nominate Merrick Garland
Posted by Gunslinger201 | Fri Jan 11, 2019, 06:59 AM (33 replies)

Pie are Round, Cornbread are Square

Putting the Pi in pies: Twitter user stuns the internet with math that proves one 18-inch pizza has more in it than TWO 12-inch helpings

Um, when I went to school they taught us how to figure that out, now they waste time teaching that some women have Penises
Posted by Gunslinger201 | Fri Jan 11, 2019, 06:39 AM (15 replies)

Once you see it....

Posted by Gunslinger201 | Thu Jan 10, 2019, 03:00 PM (1 replies)

Balls or Crazy? You make the call

That Boyz got mad skilz
Posted by Gunslinger201 | Thu Jan 10, 2019, 11:58 AM (8 replies)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next »