Tag: Constitutional

Michigan Supreme Court rejects lawsuit to take Trump off the ballot

I think this is good idea, I will explain after the quote.

Via CNN:

The Michigan Supreme Court has rejected an attempt to remove former President Donald Trump from the 2024 primary ballot based on the US Constitution’s “insurrectionist ban.”

The outcome, which was generally expected, is a victory for the former president, though an effort to remove him could be renewed for the general election. Wednesday’s decision contrasts with the recent ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court, which kicked Trump off its primary ballot because of his role in the January 6 Capitol riot. That decision has been paused pending an appeal.

[…]

The Michigan Court of Claims judge who first got the case said state law doesn’t give election officials any leeway to police the eligibility of presidential primary candidates. He also said the case raised a political question that shouldn’t be decided in the courts.

His decision was upheld by the Michigan Court of Appeals, which said: “At the moment, the only event about to occur is the presidential primary election. But as explained, whether Trump is disqualified is irrelevant to his placement on that particular ballot.”

The order from the Michigan Supreme Court was unsigned, and the court did not release a vote count.

I know, I said that I would not be writing about Trump. However, this to me, is less about Donald Trump, and more about election law and the constitution.

The reason I believe that this is a good thing, not because I support Trump; I do not hate the man, I just did not like the way he acted, while he was in the White House. However, I feel that the voters should decide who wins the Primary election and not the courts.

I have never believed that the Government should ever decide election. Because that basically is federalized elections. Let the people decide, not the court. This is why I felt that the Supreme Court should have never gotten involved in the 2000 election, with Bush vs Gore.

So, for once, Michigan made a good decision.

Others: Townhall, The Hill, CNBC, Wall Street Journal, HotAir, The Daily Beast, The Messenger, Washington Times, Axios, Vanity Fair, NBC News, NPR, Bloomberg, Fox News, USA Today, Blaze Media, UPI, Breitbart, Reuters, PoliticusUSA, DNyuz, RedState, Raw Story, Twitchy, Detroit Free Press, ABC News, The New Civil Rights Movement, Semafor, Mother Jones, Michigan Advance, National Review, WFLA-TV, CBS News, New York Times, Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, Denver Post, Talking Points Memo, The National Pulse+, Election Law Blog and The Post Millennial

Supreme Court makes a good decision for Black Alabama voters

I think this was a good thing for black voters.

The Story:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday issued a surprising 5-4 ruling in favor of Black voters in a congressional redistricting case from Alabama, with two conservative justices joining liberals in rejecting a Republican-led effort to weaken a landmark voting rights law.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined with the court’s liberals in affirming a lower-court ruling that found a likely violation of the Voting Rights Act in an Alabama congressional map with one majority Black seat out of seven congressional districts in a state where more than one in four residents is Black. The state now will have to draw a new map for next year’s elections.

The decision was closely watched for its potential effect on control of the closely divided U.S. House of Representatives. Because of the ruling, Republican-led legislatures in Alabama and Louisiana will have to redraw maps so that they could increase Black representation.

Source: Supreme Court rules in favor of Black Alabama voters in unexpected defense of Voting Rights Act | AP News

As it has been said many times in the past, Politics — be it Liberal or Conservative, are an absolute reflection of our society as a whole. That being said, since the election of Donald Trump and his nuanced signaling of approval, towards the more hateful in our society; who are in fact, hateful toward Blacks, Jews and even other said minorities, there has been a uptick in more red states, such as in this case, Alabama — toward excluding those said people from the political process.

None of this is new, Alabama has a quite troubled history with racism and horrific treatment of its black citizens, dating back before the civil war. In fact, The United States of America fought a bloody civil war to end the horrific practice of slavery in Alabama and in other, now red states.  Now, we have Alabama Government which was and still is a big supporter of Donald Trump, who attempted to limit the black vote. This should be an embarrassment to the Republican Party; However, with the current leadership of the Republican Party, it is now. In fact, it is a source of pride, most likely.

The good part is, where in the past Blacks could not fight back against the systematic racial oppression. Now they can, and they did indeed, bring their case to the Supreme Court of the United States and they won, and won big.  Good for them, they deserve to be able to participate in the electoral process, just as much as the white man.

Now for those of you, who was see this posting and think that I am some sort leftist; I say to you — hogwash. I am full aware of the left’s nonsense. What with the foolish pursuit of the climate change agenda, and blaming of everything on it, from racism to smoke from Canada’s wildfires — is ridiculously stupid.  Not to mention the horrific critical race theory, which has its origins in the halls of the Frankfort School. I am also quite aware of the sodomite lifestyle and its proponents, which wish to indoctrinate our children with its satanic doctrines. I am fully aware of all of this.

However, it does not excuse the Republican Party’s and as a whole, the Conservative movements, satanic embrace of White Supremacy and the foolish approval of Conspiracy Theories, that has prevailed since the election of Donald J. Trump. Many years ago, people like William F. Buckley fought long and hard to run these sort of people out of the Republican Party and out of the Conservative Movement, for it they were labeled Neo-Conservatives, pied piper of the establishment and worse.

I am no William Buckley, But I am a Christian man, and I will speak out again this sort of nonsense, as long as I am able.

Others: Politico, Insider, Washington Examiner, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, RedState, The Root, Raw Story, CBS News, Associated Press, New York Daily News and NewsNation, The Messenger, The Leadership Conference …, New Jersey Online, Rolling Stone, Talking Points Memo and Arizona Capitol Times, The Hill, Alabama Reflector, Fox News, The Guardian, Washington Free Beacon, ABC News, Insider, USA Today, HuffPost, CBS News, NPR, UPI, Roll Call, Mother Jones, Iowa Capital Dispatch, Associated Press, Trending Politics Conservative, Kevin Drum, Joe.My.God., PoliticusUSA, Washington Times, Forbes, Just The News, New Republic and al.com, Slate, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg and CBS News, NBC News, The Hill, The Daily Beast, Conservative Brief, Jezebel and Politico

 

 

Ed Morrissey says that he is done with the GOP

This is big news, because Ed Morrissey has been a Conservative Republican for years.

Here is Ed writing at HotAir.com:

In the wake of the trauma of the last two months, two inescapable questions emerge. First, what does it mean to be republican? And second, does the Republican Party represent those values at all any more?

The answers to both have led me to disaffiliate myself from the GOP after the disgrace that took place in Congress last week, with not just tacit but explicit cooperation from party leadership. Granted, in Minnesota, it’s easy to disaffiliate as the state does not have any affiliation attached to its voter registration process, so the only action necessary is to just tell people you’re no longer a member of the party. Still, at this point it’s impossible to act as though Republicans are republican, especially while its leadership makes clear that it doesn’t care one whit about the party’s own foundational principles.

[….]

What we have seen from Republicans over the last two months — but especially on Wednesday — has violated every single one of these principles of republicanism and federalism. In our federalist system and as established in the Constitution, the states have full jurisdiction in elections, even those for federal office. Their certifications have always been accepted as proper unless challengers produce explicit evidence of specific fraud in a large enough number of ballots to where it calls the results into question. The burden of proof to overcome state certification rests with challengers to prove the fraud, not on the states to prove a negative, as is proper in American jurisprudence more broadly. And even then, the forum for those challenges are in state courts, not Congress, if one abides by republican and federalist principles.

Instead, what we saw on Wednesday were Republicans, including their House leadership, pandering to a mob by pretending that Congress had any authority at all over the certified results of elections in the states. They did so on behalf of a president who appears incapable of relinquishing power in an orderly and lawful manner, as though power was his birthright and any election results to the contrary were ipso facto invalid. Republicans in both chambers justified these actions not from any principle, but by explicitly citing the mobs of people that prefer to believe in conspiracy theories stoked by this president and his advisers. Rather than standing on republican and federalist principles, they lied to these supporters and led them to believe that Congress could actually change the results of these elections — and stoked the fury of the mobs when it didn’t happen.

[……]

Before this, questions had already arisen as to how republicanism could coexist with populism. This goes waaay beyond that question. The disgrace in Congress, even apart from the mobs, severed the connection between Republicans and republicanism in any meaningful American sense. They aren’t republicans now, but instead a radical form of small-D democrats whose only aim is gin up outrage in sufficient quantities to “own the libs.” That’s not just on Donald Trump; it’s now on the entire party and its leadership.

That’s their choice; my choice is very clear. I don’t choose to participate in such a nihilistic political party. I’ll stand on my own as an independent, ready to vote for responsible conservatives but under no obligation to vote for or support anyone else. Until the GOP comes to its senses and returns to true republican and federal principles, I will not be back.

I have to say that I agree with the assessment. I too, watched in disbelief, as the Capital Building was sacked by a bunch of pissed off Trump supporters, which was, as we know know, was aided by law enforcement and workers in the building itself.

I must say, that the GOP that I remember, that my Mom voted for in the 1980’s, when President Ronald Reagan ran for President; simply no longer exists. It was replaced, first of all, by Neoconservatives, like George H.W. Bush and then his son, George W. Bush.  Then because the candidate that ran after Bush, was basically a joke and President Obama was elected and the so-called “Tea Party” movement happened; which was really a sideshow that ended up being co-oped by the Republican Party —- We ended with a hyper-populist; who was, in reality, a egotistical jerk, who was a borderline fascist.

As with Ed, I too, live in a State where one does not have to declare one’s political party and I have in the past and did this past election, vote Libertarian.  I know they never win anything, at least nationally. But, I will be darned, if I will for someone, that I dislike.

So, to end this, I will simply say, Welcome to club, Ed. It’s nicer over here. I wish Ed luck, because if the comment section at HotAir.com is any indication; Ed’s going to have a long row of corn to hoe. (So to speak.)

DOJ seeks to Suspend Certain Constitutional Rights During Coronavirus Emergency

This is worse than what Michigan’s Governor is doing!

Via Politico:

The Justice Department has quietly asked Congress for the ability to ask chief judges to detain people indefinitely without trial during emergencies — part of a push for new powers that comes as the coronavirus spreads through the United States.

Documents reviewed by POLITICO detail the department’s requests to lawmakers on a host of topics, including the statute of limitations, asylum and the way court hearings are conducted. POLITICO also reviewed and previously reported on documents seeking the authority to extend deadlines on merger reviews and prosecutions.

A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment on the documents.

The move has tapped into a broader fear among civil liberties advocates and Donald Trump’s critics — that the president will use a moment of crisis to push for controversial policy changes. Already, he has cited the pandemic as a reason for heightening border restrictions and restricting asylum claims. He has also pushed for further tax cuts as the economy withers, arguing that it would soften the financial blow to Americans. And even without policy changes, Trump has vast emergency powers that he could legally deploy right now to try and slow the coronavirus outbreak.

The DOJ requests — which are unlikely to make it through a Democratic-led House — span several stages of the legal process, from initial arrest to how cases are processed and investigated.

In one of the documents, the department proposed that Congress grant the attorney general power to ask the chief judge of any district court to pause court proceedings “whenever the district court is fully or partially closed by virtue of any natural disaster, civil disobedience, or other emergency situation.”

The proposal would also grant those top judges broad authority to pause court proceedings during emergencies. It would apply to “any statutes or rules of procedure otherwise affecting pre-arrest, post-arrest, pre-trial, trial, and post-trial procedures in criminal and juvenile proceedings and all civil process and proceedings,” according to draft legislative language the department shared with Congress. In making the case for the change, the DOJ document wrote that individual judges can currently pause proceedings during emergencies, but that their proposal would make sure all judges in any particular district could handle emergencies “in a consistent manner.”

The request raised eyebrows because of its potential implications for habeas corpus –– the constitutional right to appear before a judge after arrest and seek release.

“Not only would it be a violation of that, but it says ‘affecting pre-arrest,’” said Norman L. Reimer, the executive director of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. “So that means you could be arrested and never brought before a judge until they decide that the emergency or the civil disobedience is over. I find it absolutely terrifying. Especially in a time of emergency, we should be very careful about granting new powers to the government.”

Reimer said the possibility of chief judges suspending all court rules during an emergency without a clear end in sight was deeply disturbing.

“That is something that should not happen in a democracy,” he said.

The department also asked Congress to pause the statute of limitations for criminal investigations and civil proceedings during national emergencies, “and for one year following the end of the national emergency,” according to the draft legislative text.

And….:

Another controversial request: The department is looking to change the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in some cases to expand the use of videoconference hearings, and to let some of those hearings happen without defendants’ consent, according to the draft legislative text.

“Video teleconferencing may be used to conduct an appearance under this rule,” read a draft of potential new language for Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(f), crossing out the phrase “if the defendant consents.”

“Video teleconferencing may be used to arraign a defendant,” read draft text of rule 10(c), again striking out the phrase “if the defendant consents.”

I have always suspected something like this might happen, irregardless of which party is in power. Now, it does say that the Democrats likely will not allow this to happen. But, you never know. I just find it amazing that a Republican lead Justice Dept. would do such a thing.

As Rick Moran at PJ Media said:]

Regardless, I’ll stick with Ben Franklin: ” They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Indeed.

Others: Outside the Beltway, Letters from an American, PJ Media Home, Raw Story, Redstate, Daily Kos, The Hill, Reason, The Moderate Voice, Rolling Stone

 

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer says, “I am not enacting martial Law”… but her words betray her

She says she is not: (via WXYZ-TV)

 

But, if she is not, what the hell do you call this?

(WXYZ) — Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer has signed a new Executive Order reducing the number of people allowed at assemblages and events.

The new Executive Order reduces the allowable number to 50. A previous Executive Order had reduced it to 250.

It comes on the heels of new guidance from the CDC and will go into effect Tuesday, March 17 at 9:00 a.m. and will remain in effect until April 5 at 5:00 p.m.

The order provides an exception from its prohibition on assemblages for health care facilities, workplaces not open to the public, the state legislature, mass transit, the purchase of groceries or consumer goods, and the performance of agricultural or construction work.

“My number one priority remains to protect the most people we can from the spread of coronavirus,” said Governor Whitmer in a news release. “We are all better off when all of us are healthy, and that’s especially true for the most vulnerable. These aggressive actions are aimed at saving lives. My administration will continue to do everything we can to mitigate the spread of the disease and ensure our children, families, and businesses have the support they need during these challenging times. We are going to pull through this together, just as Michigan has done in the past.”

Dear Mrs. Stupid Democrat,

You can not call it martial law, but when you issue an order, not allowing people to gather; that’s damned martial law.

First amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance

So, call it what you wish, but it is a forcing of the state government to force people to do something. That is martial law.

I cannot believe I actually voted for this man

Here is the letter, that President Donald Trump wrote to Nancy Pelosi. I am not a fan of hers either. But, this is some seriously stompy foot stuff here. 😒

Click here to read the letter, it’s a PDF file.

The President is on shaky ground. and he knows it.

Via New York Magazine’s Intelligencer

The Neocons in the Trump Administration are steering America into another war

This also includes the Saudi Government as well. I say this, because of this piece of news here, via YNetNews.com:

A state-aligned Saudi newspaper is calling for “surgical” U.S. strikes in retaliation against alleged threats from Iran.

The Arab News published an editorial in English on Thursday, arguing that after incidents this week against Saudi energy targets, the next logical step “should be surgical strikes.”

The editorial says U.S. airstrikes in Syria, when the government there was suspected of using chemical weapons against civilians, “set a precedent.”

It added that it’s “clear that (U.S.) sanctions are not sending the right message” and that “they must be hit hard,” in reference to Iran, without elaborating on what specific targets should be struck.

The newspaper’s publisher is the Saudi Research and Marketing Group, a company that had long been chaired by various sons of King Salman until 2014 and is regarded as reflecting official position.

It seems that John Bolton is behind much of this:

Donald Trump’s national security adviser John Bolton wants the United States to go to war with Iran.

We know this because he has been saying it for nearlytwodecades.

And everything that the Trump administration has done over its Iran policy, particularly since Bolton became Trump’s top foreign policy adviser in April of 2018, must be viewed through this lens, including the alarming US military posturing in the Middle East of the past two weeks.

Just after one month on the job, Bolton gave Trump the final push he needed to withdraw from the Iran nuclear agreement, which at the time was (and still is, for now) successfully boxing in Iran’s nuclear program and blocking all pathways for Iran to build a bomb. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – as the Iran deal is formally known – was the biggest obstacle to Bolton’s drive for a regime change war, because it eliminated a helpful pretext that served so useful to sell the war in Iraq 17 years ago.

Since walking away from the deal, the Trump administration has claimed that with a “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran, it can achieve a “better deal” that magically turns Iran into a Jeffersonian democracy bowing to every and any American wish. But this has always been a fantastically bad-faith argument meant to obscure the actual goal (regime change) and provide cover for the incremental steps – the crushing sanctions, bellicose rhetoric, and antagonizing military maneuvers – that have now put the United States closer to war with Iran than it has been since at least the latter half of the Bush administration, or perhaps ever.

And Bolton has no qualms about manipulating or outright ignoring intelligence to advance his agenda, which is exactly what’s happening right now.

In his White House statement 10 days ago announcing (an already pre-planned) carrier and bomber deployment to the Middle East, Bolton cited “a number of troubling and escalatory indications and warnings” from Iran to justify the bolstered US military presence. But multiple sources who have seen the same intelligence have since said that Bolton and the Trump administration blew it “out of proportion, characterizing the threat as more significant than it actually was”. Even a British general operating in the region pushed back this week, saying he has seen no evidence of an increased Iranian threat.

Pat Buchanan observes:

After Venezuela’s army decided not to rise up and overthrow Nicholas Maduro, by Sunday night, it was Iran that was in our gun sights.

Bolton ordered the USS Abraham Lincoln, its carrier battle group and a bomber force to the Mideast “to send a clear and unmistakable message to the Iranian regime that any attack on United States interests or those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force.”

What “attack” was Bolton talking about?

According to Axios, Israel had alerted Bolton that an Iranian strike on U.S. interests in Iraq was imminent.

Flying to Finland, Pompeo echoed Bolton’s warning:

“We’ve seen escalatory actions from the Iranians, and … we will hold the Iranians accountable for attacks on American interests. … (If) these actions take place, if they do by some third-party proxy, whether that’s a Shia militia group or the Houthis or Hezbollah, we will hold the … Iranian leadership directly accountable for that.”

Taken together, the Bolton-Pompeo threats add up to an ultimatum that any attack by Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, or Iran-backed militias — on Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE or U.S. forces in Iraq, Syria or the Gulf states — will bring a U.S. retaliatory response on Iran itself.

Did President Donald Trump approve of this? For he appears to be going along. He has pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal and re-imposed sanctions. Last week, he canceled waivers he had given eight nations to let them continue buying Iranian oil.

Purpose: Reduce Iran’s oil exports, 40% of GDP, to zero, to deepen an economic crisis that is already expected to cut Iran’s GDP this year by 6%.

Trump has also designated Iran a terrorist state and the Republican Guard a terrorist organization, the first time we have done that with the armed forces of a foreign nation. We don’t even do that with North Korea.

Iran responded last Tuesday by naming the U.S. a state sponsor of terror and designating U.S. forces in the Middle East as terrorists.

[…]

Today, Trump’s approval rating in the Gallup Poll has reached an all-time high, 46%, a level surely related to the astonishing performance of the U.S. economy following Trump’s tax cuts and sweeping deregulation.

While a Gulf war with Iran might be popular at the outset, what would it do for the U.S. economy or our ability to exit the forever war of the Middle East, as Trump has pledged to do?

In late April, in an interview with Fox News, Iran’s foreign minister identified those he believes truly want a U.S.-Iranian war.

Asked if Trump was seeking the confrontation and the “regime change” that Bolton championed before becoming his national security adviser, Mohammad Javad Zarif said no. “I do not believe President Trump wants to do that. I believe President Trump ran on a campaign promise of not bringing the United States into another war.

“President Trump himself has said that the U.S. spent $7 trillion in our region … and the only outcome of that was that we have more terror, we have more insecurity, and we have more instability.

“People in our region are making the determination that the presence of the United States is inherently destabilizing. I think President Trump agrees with that.”

But if it is not Trump pushing for confrontation and war with Iran, who is?

Said Zarif, “I believe ‘the B-team’ wants to actually push the United States, lure President Trump, into a confrontation that he doesn’t want.”

And who makes up “the B-team”?

Zarif identifies them: Bolton, Benjamin Netanyahu, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed.

Should the B-team succeed in its ambitions — it will be Trump’s war, and Trump’s presidency will pay the price.

Buchanan also writes:

After an exhausting two weeks, one is tempted to ask: How many quarrels, clashes and conflicts can even a superpower manage at one time? And is it not time for the United States, preoccupied with so many crises, to begin asking, “Why is this our problem?”

Perhaps the most serious issue is North Korea’s quest for nuclear-armed missiles that can reach the United States. But the reason Kim is developing missiles that can strike Seattle or LA is that 28,000 U.S. troops are in South Korea, committed to attack the North should war break out. That treaty commitment dates to a Korean War that ended in an armed truce 66 years ago.

If we cannot persuade Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons in return for a lifting of sanctions, perhaps we should pull U.S. forces off the peninsula and let China deal with the possible acquisition of their own nuclear weapons by Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.

Iran has no nukes or ICBMs. It wants no war with us. It does not threaten us. Why is Iran then our problem to solve rather than a problem for Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and the Sunni Arabs?

Nor does Russia’s annexation of Crimea threaten us. When Ronald Reagan strolled through Red Square with Mikhail Gorbachev in 1988, all of Ukraine was ruled by Moscow.

The Venezuelan regime of Nicolas Maduro was established decades ago by his mentor, Hugo Chavez. When did that regime become so grave a threat that the U.S. should consider an invasion to remove it?

During the uprising in Caracas, Bolton cited the Monroe Doctrine of 1823. But according to President James Monroe, and Mike Pompeo’s predecessor John Quincy Adams, who wrote the message to Congress, under the Doctrine, while European powers were to keep their hands off our hemisphere — we would reciprocate and stay out of Europe’s quarrels and wars.

Wise folks, those Founding Fathers.

Bolton must go, if Trump wants to remain President. because those who elected him, who do not subscribe to the neocon foreign policy doctrine, will vote for someone else or not at all.

 

A brutal take down of the so-called “Conservative Movement”

This is rough, tough, and brutal. I am in agreement with Vox Day on this one, he calls it “Devastating. Absolutely devastating” and he is very much correct. Yes, I know, I have had disagreements with Vox Day in the past. But, on this, he is spot on. (I cannot seem to locate the posts, I may have pulled them.)

This article by a John Kludge over at ricochet basically sums up my feelings as well:

Let me say up front that I am a life-long Republican and conservative. I have never voted for a Democrat in my life and have voted in every presidential and midterm election since 1988. I have never in my life considered myself anything but a conservative. I am pained to admit that the conservative media and many conservatives’ reaction to Donald Trump has caused me to no longer consider myself part of the movement. I would suggest to you that if you have lost people like me, and I am not alone, you might want to reconsider your reaction to Donald Trump. Let me explain why.

First, I spent the last 20 years watching the conservative media in Washington endorse and urge me to vote for one candidate after another who made a mockery of conservative principles and values. Everyone talks about how thankful we are for the Citizens’ United decision but seems to have forgotten how we were urged to vote for the coauthor of the law that the decision overturned. In 2012, we were told to vote for Mitt Romney, a Massachusetts liberal who proudly signed an individual insurance mandate into law and refused to repudiate the decision. Before that, there was George W. Bush, the man who decided it was America’s duty to bring democracy to the Middle East (more about him later). And before that, there was Bob Dole, the man who gave us the Americans with Disabilities Act. I, of course, voted for those candidates and do not regret doing so. I, however, am self-aware enough to realize I voted for them because I will vote for virtually anyone to keep the Left out of power and not because I thought them to be the best or even really a conservative choice. Given this history, the conservative media’s claims that the Republican party must reject Donald Trump because he is not a “conservative” are pathetic and ridiculous to those of us who are old enough to remember the last 25 years.

It is this part here that really sticks out:

Third, there is the issue of the war on Islamic extremism. Let me say upfront that, as a veteran of two foreign deployments in this war, I speak with some moral authority on it. So please do not lecture me on the need to sacrifice for one’s country or the nature of the threat that we face. I have gotten on that plane twice and have the medals and t-shirt to prove it. And, as a member of the one percent who have actually put my life on the line in these wars movement conservatives consider so vital, my question for you and every other conservatives is just when the hell did being conservative mean thinking the US has some kind of a duty to save foreign nations from themselves or bring our form of democratic republicanism to them by force? I fully understand the sad necessity to fight wars and I do not believe in “blow back” or any of the other nonsense that says the world will leave us alone if only we will do that same. At the same time, I cannot for the life of me understand how conservatives of all people convinced themselves that the solution to the 9-11 attacks was to forcibly create democracy in the Islamic world. I have even less explanations for how — 15 years and 10,000 plus lives later — conservatives refuse to examine their actions and expect the country to send more of its young to bleed and die over there to save the Iraqis who are clearly too slovenly and corrupt to save themselves.

The lowest moment of the election was when Trump said what everyone in the country knows: that invading Iraq was a mistake. Rather than engaging the question with honest self-reflection, all of the so called “conservatives” responded with the usual “How dare he?” Worse, they let Jeb Bush claim that Bush “kept us safe.” I can assure you that President Bush didn’t keep me safe. Do I and the other people in the military not count? Sure, we signed up to give our lives for our country and I will never regret doing so. But doesn’t our commitment require a corresponding responsibility on the part of the president to only expect us to do so when it is both necessary and in the national interest?

And since when is bringing democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan so much in the national interest that it is worth killing or maiming 50,000 Americans to try and achieve? I don’t see that, but I am not a Wilsonian and used to, at least, be a conservative. I have these strange ideas that my government ought to act in America’s interests instead of the rest of the world’s interests. I wish conservatives could understand how galling it was to have a fat, rich, career politician who has never once risked his life for this country lecture those of us who have about how George Bush kept us safe.

Donald Trump is the only Republican candidate who seems to have any inclination to act strictly in America’s interest. More importantly, he is the only Republican candidate who is willing to even address the problem. Trump was right to say that we need to stop letting more Muslims into the country or, at least, examine the issue. And like when he said the obvious about Iraq, the first people to condemn him and deny the obvious were conservatives. Somehow, being conservative now means denying the obvious and saying idiotic fantasies like “Islam is the religion of peace,” or “Our war is not with Islam.” Uh, sorry but no it is not, and yes it is. And if getting a president who at least understands that means voting for Trump, then I guess I am not a conservative.

This is what you would call a political smack down and it is about time someone said it. This here too, is something that I high agree with:

Lost in all of this is the older strain of conservatism. The one I grew up with and thought was reflective of the movement. This strain of conservatism believed in the free market and capitalism but did not fetishize them the way so many libertarians do. This strain understood that a situation where every country in the world but the US acts in its own interests on matters of international trade and engages in all kinds of skulduggery in support of their interests is not free trade by any rational definition. This strain understood that a government’s first loyalty was to its citizens and the national interest. And also understood that the preservation of our culture and our civil institutions was a necessity.

I put in bold, underlined and turned that quote red to make a point. This above is what happened to the Conservative movement. It started after Ronald Reagan left office and got really crazy after the election and ultimate defeat of George H.W. Bush. After that, Conservationism went straight loony after that. Conservatives have no one to blame, but themselves. They put in a President, who went soft on taxes, and whom proceeded to usher in the “new world order.” and the Reaganites; which consisted of Fundamentalist Christians, like myself — went running for the hills. They knew then, that they had been duped.

Now, this many years later; along comes Trump and he dares to challenge those in the ivory towers that have created what we have now —- and the vultures are out for blood. They know that the current existing state of affairs in Washington D.C. is being threatened and they are doing everything they can to stop Donald Trump.

The question is, can Donald Trump fight them effectively enough to win the nomination?

The 2016 Presidential Race Begins: Iowa caucuses are today

The first step of the 2016 election starts today.

Video:

The Story via Fox News:

As Iowans prepare to cast the first votes in the presidential nominating process Monday, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders hoped to defy the polls and pull off upset victories in Monday night’s caucuses.

After months of campaigning and more than $150 million spent on advertising, the race for supremacy in Iowa is close in both parties.

Among Republicans, the latest polls show real estate billionaire Donald Trump holding a slim edge over Cruz. Cruz, who became the first major candidate from either party to enter the presidential race 315 days ago, has pinned his hopes to a sophisticated get-out-the-vote operation. Cruz has also modeled his campaign after past Iowa winners, visiting all of the state’s 99 counties and courting influential evangelical and conservative leaders.

“If you had told me 10 months ago that the day before the Iowa caucuses we’d be in a statistcal tie for first place I would have been thrilled and exhilarated,” Cruz told Fox News late Sunday.

The Republican caucus is also the first test of whether Trump can turn the legion of fans drawn to his plainspoken populism into voters. The scope of the billionaire’s organization in Iowa is a mystery, though Trump himself has intensified his campaign schedule during the final sprint, including a pair of rallies Monday.

I predict that Trump will come in first, with Cruz second and Rubio third on the Republican side. On the Democrat side, I think that one could be a surprise. Sanders has a good deal of support, while Hillary has the name and the money. So, that one is a toss. It will be interesting to see to say the least.

On Donald Trump’s Statement on Muslim Immigration

Here’s the statement in its entirety:

(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, — Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing “25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad” and 51% of those polled, “agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah.” Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won’t convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.

Mr. Trump stated, “Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again.” – Donald J. Trump

Here is the problem with this idea. It is, in fact, a total violation of our First Amendment. Not to mention it is straight up discrimination.

If trump was elected and he tried to do this, the ACLU would have a field day with it and lawsuits would fly like crazy. The reason I say that it is a First Amendment, is because if the Federal Government gets in the business of telling which religions can enter the Country, we put the First Amendment in jeopardy.  There is also this thought from the Southern Baptist leader Russell Moore:

The United States government should fight, and fight hard, against radical Islamic jihadism. The government should close the borders to anyone suspected of even a passing involvement with any radical cell or terrorist network. But the government should not penalize law-abiding people, especially those who are American citizens, for holding their religious convictions.

Muslims are an unpopular group these days. And I would argue that non-violent Muslim leaders have a responsibility to call out terror and violence and jihad. At the same time, those of us who are Christians ought to stand up for religious liberty not just when our rights are violated but on behalf of others too.

Make no mistake. A government that can shut down mosques simply because they are mosques can shut down Bible studies because they are Bible studies. A government that can close the borders to all Muslims simply on the basis of their religious belief can do the same thing for evangelical Christians. A government that issues ID badges for Muslims simply because they are Muslims can, in the fullness of time, demand the same for Christians because we are Christians.

I may have disagreements with the SBC on many things, mostly because they’re evangelical and I happen to be an old Fundamentalist Baptist. However, on this issue here, he is right. We simply do NOT want the United States Government getting involved in religion at all.

What should happen is this: There should be a 10 year moratorium on ALL immigration in this Country or at least until this Country figures out a way to screen every last person coming into this Country and figures out a way to share information with other Countries as to the background of all persons coming into this Country. Furthermore, the United States of America should be going after the Muslims that are suspected of having ties to extremists, who are living here already.

Furthermore, we should be stepping up to the fullest extent possible, the surveillance of Mosques here in America that are suspected of preaching radical jihad; and the Imams who are preaching this sort of thing, should be arrested, tried and deported out of the Country, never again allowed to return to America. If they are from the United States, they should be tried with promoting hate speech. Also, their connections and money trails should be fully investigated as well.  If the Imams are found to be taking money from radicals, they should tried for that as well.

The point is this: We already have the means and the ability to track these things and put a stop to them. The problem is that political correctness stopped it and now, we are paying the price. The blood of all those killed in London, San Bernardino and everywhere else, so far; is on the hands of the political correct and civil rights people. Protection of the Republic of the United States, and its people come first. This President has failed horrible on this issue, because he wishes to placate the liberal wing of his Party. Because of this, people have been killed and if President Obama is not real careful, that will end up being his legacy.

Others: Talking Points Memo, New York Times, BuzzFeed, USA Today, Salon,FiveThirtyEight, Breitbart, NBC News, CNN, Washington Post, MSNBC, Vox, Press Enterprise, RH Reality Check, The Hinterland Gazette, Power Line, Slate, The Week,Bloomberg Business, The Gateway Pundit, Political Wire, Gothamist, Taylor Marsh,Hot Air, Guns.com, Scared Monkeys, SaintPetersBlog, Political Insider blog, BizPac Review, Mashable, Towleroad, ImmigrationProf Blog, Daily Kos, The Hill, KRQE-TV, Mother Jones, TalkLeft, Fox News Insider, The American Conservative, Center for Security Policy, The Moderate Voice, Independent Journal,Le·gal In·sur·rec· tion, PoliticusUSA, Althouse, No More Mister Nice Blog and Politico (Via Memeorandum)