Politics

From the American thinker.

 

The First Amendment has undergone a refreshing rebranding under the Clinton administration.  “Hate groups, hateful individuals and hate speech will no longer be permitted to hide behind the Bill of Rights, like terrorists using civilian children as human shields” (also alleged but not disputed).  Accordingly, all universities that accept federal funding, or that accept students who have taken federal student loans or grants, have been advised to follow the leadership of the University of California, Berkeley in setting standards for who may be allowed to speak on campus.  Dozens of “Tea Party” groups have lost their tax-exempt status.  “Lois Lerner was too lenient,” one staffer remarked off the record.  “We are cracking down for real this time.”

Gun violence should be seeing a substantial reduction under the Clinton administration now that the national gun registry database is actively integrating records from state-level sales and other sources, and with mandatory universal enrollment required of all firearm owners before year’s end.  At least one source close to the administration has said candidly off the record that “the die is cast.  Before the end of the first HRC term, we’ll have [confiscated] all of their guns.”  When asked what about those gun owners who would not be willing to give up their guns regardless of cost to themselves, the same staffer shrugged.  “Then they will pay that cost.

Read it all.

Even if Trump falls short of our expectations, we dodged a bullet.  America as we had known it would be gone.

 

From  Frontpage magazine.

By Daniel Greenfield

An excerpt.

The Democrats artificially created another America. They built it in the elitist urban and suburban enclaves of the left. They drew it with urban welfare ghettoes and with mass immigration. But despite the vast financial, political and cultural power invested in this “New America” it did not represent the majority of the country. And democratic elections dealt repeated setbacks to this Anti-America.Political maps show these alien concentrations of blue amid a vast national sea of red. Democrats have lost much of the country. They have been wiped out at the state level. They retain power only because they have illegally concentrated them in undemocratic political, financial and cultural centers.

Democrats responded to the latest string of defeats by denying the legitimacy of the election and calling for the elimination of the Electoral College. The original Americans hadn’t died out on schedule so it was time to further dilute their electoral influence in favor of the left’s cultural and financial centers of power all the while protecting the mass immigration program that was meant to replace them.

The Two Americas are now in a state of war.

Anti-America lost an election, denied the outcome and is running a separatist shadow government of sanctuary cities and activist judges. The various attacks on the Trump administration and Congress are expressions of “patriotism”, not to America, but to the alternate Anti-America that they are truly loyal to.

This is not just a power struggle. It’s a clash between two Americas. And only one America can survive.

Read the whole thing.

Of course the democrats still retain several power based. California, the rest of the West coast,  meaning Portland and Seattle and the Northeast.

Vermont in particular. But we all knew that.

 

 

For Senator Patrick Leahy.  Why? Because Senator Leahy has nothing but contempt for the constitution and the founders who wrote it.

I’ve long known the senator was an advocate of a “living constitution”, one that can be shaped and molded for modern conditions. A first amendment where speakers whose views one group doesn’t agree with can be labeled as “hate speech” and shouted down, often with violence. I don’t recall our senior Senator making any remarks about that recent confrontation at Middlebury College. I gather by his silence that that he approved.

Quoting Senator Leahy.

“It has been 25 years since an originalist has been nominated to the Supreme Court. Given what we’ve seen from Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas and Judge Gorsuch on record, I worry that it goes beyond being a philosophy and it becomes an agenda.”

“It’s important to understand — determine whether  you understand the court has a profound impact on small businesses and workers, on law enforcement and victims, on families and children across America,” Leahy said.

“It is not contrary to the duties and obligations of a Supreme Court justice to consider the effects of their rulings,” he added.  (He said nothing about Congress considering the effects of its laws.)

Leahy said the confirmation hearing will help the Senate decide if Gorsuch is “committed to the fundamental rights of all Americans”:

“Will you allow the government to include our Americans’ personal privacy and freedom? Will you elevate the rights of corporations over those of real people? And will you rubberstamp a president whose administration has asserted that executive power is not subject to judicial review?” he asked.

Mr. Leahy doesn’t seem to recall a little thing called the “bill of rights”“, which in some ways is very similar to the “Ten Commandments” in that it’s full of “thou shalt not’s” .  It tells the government want it can’t do, “congress shall make no law…” etc .

A Constitutional “originalist” is just what we need to protect everyone’s rights .  Poor and the rich, majority or minority.   Lady Justice is supposed to be blind. With a  “living constitution” the blindfold comes off.  Which in this present age of political correctness perhaps its already removed.

Leahy’s college Senator Dianne Feinstein of California also chimed in.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the committee’s ranking member, also expressed concern about “originalist” philosophy:

“Judge Gorsuch has also stated that he believes judges should look to the original, public meaning of the Constitution when they decide what a provision of the Constitution means. This is personal, but I find this originalist, judicial philosophy to be really troubling,” Feinstein said. “In essence, it means that judges and courts should evaluate our constitutional rights and privileges as they were understood in 1789.

“However, to do so would not only ignore the intent of the framers, but the Constitution would be a framework on which to build. But it severely limits the genius of what our Constitution upholds. I firmly believe the American Constitution is a living document, intended to evolve as our country evolves.”

Aside from the fact that the Constitution can and does evolve, through the process of Constitutional amendments of which there are 27. But this isn’t good enough for these two would be commissars who seem to embrace the idea that though all people are equal,   some people are more equal then others.

Democrats are more equal then Republicans.

Muslims, liberal billionaires, radical feminist, trans genders, Jews in name only, gay people, are much more equal then straight (white or minority) Christian males and females.

If only the Constitution could be amended by a simple decree and to have the force to enforce. Like the old Soviet Union that they long admired.

I have nothing but contempt!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And this story Jan 19th NYT on line edition.

I’ve heard rumors that the NYT has scrubbed the word “wiretapped” from a prvious online  edition. It now says “Intercepted Russian Communications”

So what does this say about Trumps accusations.