Sunday, June 30, 2019

Is the LGBT community "actually" treated poorly?

Americans Still Greatly Overestimate U.S. Gay Population
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- U.S. adults estimate that nearly one in four Americans (23.6%) are gay or lesbian. Gallup has previously found that Americans have greatly overestimated the U.S. gay population, recording similar average estimates of 24.6% in 2011 and 23.2% in 2015. In each of the three polls in which Gallup has asked this question, a majority of Americans estimated this population to be 20% or greater.
Americans' estimate of the proportion of gay people in the U.S. is more than five times Gallup's more encompassing 2017 estimate that 4.5% of Americans are LGBT, based on respondents' self-identification as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.

So, the irony of all of this is that for a group of people who make up approximately 1/22nd of our population, they sure garner a lot of attention, a lot of special treatment, a lot of fanfare, and an almost cult following in the hollywood media culture. So wonder people believe that their numbers are actually much larger than they are.

To put this in perspective. The average person is statistically more likely to be a millionaire than part oft the LGBT community. You are almost twice as likely to meet someone at a Party with a Masters degree than to meet an LGBT person. You are four times as likely to run into a fundamental Pentecostal Christian than you are to run into an LGBT person on the street.

Of course in Hollywood, the only time you would see a Pentecostal character is when it is someone you make fun of (like Sheldon's mother on the Big Bang Theory).

By all accounts society as a whole is way harder on millionaires, Pentecostals, and a whole slew of groups who are by all accounts much larger than the LGBT community. But there is nobody standing up for those groups, protecting them from discrimination, or demanding we rearrange the world for them. The reality is that there may have never been a smaller group provided more specific special treatment than the LGBT community has been provided.

Perhaps instead of constantly complaining about how rough society is on them, they should count their blessing that they are not treated the way many want to treat an average every day Pentecostal Christian.

Voter preference changes from the debates:

Now according to 538, and a rather complicated model, grid, spreadsheet, etc... there was some pretty significant movement. Most notably from Harris (up), and Biden (down). I agree that Harris will get a bump, and Biden might falter a little. But whether or not other polling confirms the large movement that Silver sees is up for grabs.

Of course, Nate Silver spends about 20,000 words and has a dozen or so graphs and charts explaining what happened during the two debates. If you want to go check that out, please do over at 538 ( It's generally worth the read for most people who understand these sorts of things.

But if you want the bottom line in how voter preferences were affected:

Kamala Harris - increase of 8.7%
Bernie Sanders - increase of 2.9%
Liz Warren - increase of 1.8%
Spartacus Booker - decrease 0.2%
Pete Buttigieg - decrease 1%
Beto O'Rourke - decrease 1.4%
Joe Biden - decrease 10%

These are the top seven. None of the others (Castro, Yang, Klobuchar, Gabbard, Ryan, De Blasio, Gillibrand, Hickenlooper, Delaney, Inslee, Bennett, Williamson, & Swalwell) really moved themselves into contention. Their support (according to 538) all falls below the two percent that will be needed to move into the second debate.

That being said, I would still look for a few of those in the second tier to possibly make the second debate, considering that they only need to get 2% in "some" polling and continue to draw donors.

UPDATE: The first official post-debate poll (Politico/Morning Consult) came out and showed Biden dropping from 38% to 33%. Harris's support doubled (from 6% to 12%). Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, and Booker stayed pretty much where they were at. Beto dropped from 4% down to 2% and would appear to have joined the second tier that will be fighting for a shot at the second debate(s).

Morning Consult was also the pollster working with 538, but obviously this poll was commissioned a bit differently.

Sunday Funnies

Saturday, June 29, 2019

Kamala Harris proves Democratic field is weak

So my oh my how the liberal pundits love to fawn over the flavor of the month. First it wes Betomania, then it was Buttomania, and now it appears we have Kamania. I wonder if there is room in the mix for a spiritual advisor to break out of the pack before this whole thing is said and done.

The truth is that Kamala Harris had a couple of good debate moments at the expense of Joe Biden. That's pretty much it. Those moments neither change the fundamental nature of who she is, or what her campaign stands for. That being said, Democrats (especially liberal media Democrats) have always had an overinflated regard for how much someone's ability to "debate" actually matters.

We are now hearing and reading about how Harris is the sort of candidate who can "stand up to the President" or the type of candidate who could "tear him apart" in a debate. You know, sort of like how Hillary Clinton wiped the floor with a sniffling Donald Trump, or Al Gore blew George W Bush away in their debates.

But the reality is that campaigns have and always will be about messaging and policy. I don't think Kamala Harris being the 432,098th Democrat to call Trump a racist is going to be the one that finally makes it all "sink in" for people. Nor is it going to help to bring up sexual allegations, Russian collusion, or tax returns. These sorts of gotcha issues have come and gone. They won't make the difference.

The candidate with the best chance of beating Trump isn't going to be the one who can most effectively repeat what everyone else has stated about Trump all along. The candidate with the best chance of beating Trump will be the one who comes into the campaign with a message that resonates better with the American public than the message Trump will deliver.

The problem right now for the Democrats isn't that they don't have anyone who could win a debate. The problem is that the entire field has moved so far over to the left, that they would need a road map and about six tanks of gas to get back to the middle. While some of these issues (open borders, free healthcare for illegals, abortions up till delivery, green new deal) are very popular with the rank and file Democrats, they are horribly unpopular with the electorate at large.

You don't win elections telling Americans that you are going to tax the middle class so that you can provide free healthcare for illegal immigrants. You don't win elections demanding that we need more low income migrants, when we have an alarming number of American citizens living in tents, because they cannot find affordable housing. You don't tell Americans dependant on fossil fuels that we need to eliminate them, because you want to do "something".

And you won't beat the "bad orange man" by simply calling him a "bad orange man".

Jeepers, I actually agree with Andrew Sullivan?

The Democratic Candidates Are in a Bubble on Immigration
There is now a photograph that sums up everything wrong about America’s broken and overwhelmed immigration system. You’ve seen it, and it is hard to let it leave the mind or the conscience. Together with the accounts of horrifying abuse of children in detention — and “abuse” is not hyperbole — we can see the crisis as it is. We can no longer look away.
The starkness of the crisis is a good thing, though. Until now, many have denied that any crisis existed at all. They have, in fact, denied that the highest levels of mass immigration since the Bush years are an issue at all. As Byron York has noted, Speaker Pelosi called the arrival of close to a million asylum seekers “a fake crisis”; Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said that hundreds of thousands of men, women, and many children, overwhelming any attempt to process them with the current resources, was “a crisis that does not exist.
Last month alone, 144,000 people were detained at the border making an asylum claim. This year, about a million Central Americans will have relocated to the U.S. on those grounds. To add to this, a big majority of the candidates in the Democratic debates also want to remove the grounds for detention at all, by repealing the 1929 law that made illegal entry a criminal offense and turning it into a civil one. And almost all of them said that if illegal immigrants do not commit a crime once they’re in the U.S., they should be allowed to become citizens.
I suspect that the Democrats’ new position — everyone in the world can become an American if they walk over the border and never commit a crime — is political suicide. I think the courts’ expansion of the meaning of asylum would strike most Americans as excessively broad. I think many Americans will have watched these debates on immigration and concluded that the Democrats want more immigration, not less, that they support an effective amnesty of 12 million undocumented aliens as part of loosening border enforcement and weakening criteria for citizenship. And the viewers will have realized that their simple beliefs that borders should be enforced and that immigration needs to slow down a bit are viewed by Democrats as unthinkable bigotry.

This is really one of the gifts that may win Donald Trump a second term. The fact is that Democrats have completely gone over the edge on immigration (and to a lesser degree abortion). While everyone (in principle) believes that immigration is an important part of the American culture, and that there should be safe access to the rare abortion, nobody really agrees with the excessiveness of the Democrat's position on either of these issues.

On the point of immigration, the Democrats are pretty much for open borders. Realistically this is a view point shared by very few Americans outside of the hardcore liberal primary voters. If the Democrats are going to continue to push the radical agenda on immigration, and the no-holds-barred idea that any and all abortions should be legal (even the gold old fashioned trans-gender abortion), and that is what they decide to hang their collective hats on, 2020 is going to be a whitewash... or should I say redwash?

Friday, June 28, 2019

Oh, btw... there was a Democratic Debate last night! Part II

Was this a bad night for the frontrunners?
Bernie going to raise your taxes?
Will Pete even stay in the race?

Perhaps Harris had a decent night?

So, the biggest takeaway from last night (according to the highlights) is that whoever wins is going to push to decriminalize illegal border crossings and then have the American taxpayer foot the bill for everything associated with all these new migrants, including their healthcare costs.

You can't fix stupid.

Another Liberal Myth Exposed...

Facts First: Obama’s ICE Chief Sets The Record Straight On When The ‘Kids In Cages’ Policy Started 
“I’ve been to that facility, where they talk about cages. That facility was built under President Obama under (Homeland Security) Secretary Jeh Johnson. I was there because I was there when it was built,” said Thomas Homan, who was Obama’s executive associate director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement for nearly four years.
At an immigration conference today, Homan, under consideration for a new position of “border czar” in the Trump administration, grew visibly angry answering a question about “cages” often cited by Democratic critics of the president.
He cited one Democratic chairman who asked a Trump official, “You still keeping kids in cages?”
Homan, at the conference hosted by the Center for Immigration Studies, said, “I would answer the question, ‘The kids are being housed in the same facility built under the Obama administration.’ If you want to call them cages, call them cages. But if the left wants to call them cages and the Democrats want to call them cages then they have to accept the fact that they were built and funded in FY 2015.”

Of course, none of this is going to convince crazy gaslighted liberals who are suffering from TDS. They will still insist (facts be damned) that the "cages" were personally built out of spite by the "bad orange man" himself.

Not only are half the pictures you see pre-Trump, the other half are still using the same facilities and equipment that was built and used by the Obama Administration. Liberals should either be upset with Obama for building them, or not be upset at Trump for using the same facilities in the same way.

But liberals cannot help themselves. Overwhelmed by TDS., and once again, proving the point that hypocrisy is the bedrock of liberalism.

Thursday, June 27, 2019

Oh, btw... there was a Democratic Debate last night!

  • Beto O'Rourke won by his own accounts. Said he gave himself  an A+ and was compared to Obama.
  • Liz Warren was dynamic, Presidential, and also won the night. 
  • Cory Booker was the second coming of MLK and his debate performance will likely make him the favorite
  • Amy Klobuchar was Amy Klobuchar. 
  • Julian Castro hit a single, double, triple and home run or he hit into a double play. Not sure.
  • And the rest... they were all awesome! Everyone one improved their chances, and likely the whole field will now be in double digits (even though it's mathematically impossible.
Seriously, I couldn't have cared less. But by all accounts O'Rourke and Warren were bad, Booker was good and pretty much everyone else was forgettable. 

SCOTUS - cannot use Citizenship Question (for now)

Supreme Court: No census citizenship question for now, need clarified agency explanation
In a complicated ruling, the Supreme Court substantially upheld the inclusion of a census question regarding citizenship, but procedurally held that more inquiry was needed into C0mmerce Dept. reasoning in seeking to add the question.
In Convoluted Ruling, SCOTUS Blocks Citizenship Question On Census
This is very complicated and I’m not going to try to describe in detail every aspect of the decision. There were multiple parts to this and multiple votes on those parts. The short of it is that SCOTUS ruled that the question itself is constitutional and does not violate the Census Act, but they also ruled that the Commerce Department did not give a sufficient explanation during judicial review, thereby they can’t use the question.
Or was it remanded back to the lower court as some are suggesting?

Okay, right back to where we started.  We had a portion of this 5-4 with Roberts with the liberals on another part, and 5-4 with Roberts with the other conservatives on another part, While it was 7-0 in terms of whether or not the question was legally valid.

But as the dissent suggests, the court did not just want to decide the legal issue (7-0). They waded into more uncharted legal areas which is where they split multiple times.

According to some legal analysts, this is not so much a hard decision, as it is a delay. There may (or may not) be enough time for the Commerce Department to give a better explanation or there may not be a better decision available.

 It seems ironic that they determine "not" to wade into the Gerrymandering cases (due to lack of jurisdiction). But decide to wade into this one (which isn't legally a partisan issue). This seems to be a challenge to the idea that courts only overrule legislative or executive decisions when those decisions are "arbitrary".

From one of the dissents:
In March 2018, the Secretary of Commerce exercised his broad discretion over the administration of the decennial census to resume a nearly unbroken practice of asking a question relating to citizenship. Our only role in this case is to decide whether the Secretary complied with the law and gave a reasoned explanation for his decision. The Court correctly answers these questions in the affirmative. Ante, at 11–23. That ought to end our inquiry.
The Court, however, goes further. For the first time ever, the Court invalidates an agency action solely because it questions the sincerity of the agency’s otherwise adequate rationale….
The Court’s holding reflects an unprecedented departure from our deferential review of discretionary agency decisions. And, if taken seriously as a rule of decision, this holding would transform administrative law. It is not difficult for political opponents of executive actions to generate controversy with accusations of pretext, deceit, and illicit motives.
What's clear as mud here is that nobody really knows what the $%^* this ruling means. This has been an unfortunate staple of the "Roberts Court". Whenever Roberts decides to break with the conservatives on some highly political issue, it takes about 500 pages, and legal acrobatics to defend what he is doing. That almost always means a murky (if not outright incorrect) legal finding.

Big court case decided 5-4

Breaking: SCOTUS Rules Partisan Gerrymanders Can’t Be Challenged In Court
In one of the major cases of this term, the Supreme Court has refused to provide a role for federal courts in deciding so-called partisan gerrymandering cases. That is, cases in which the federal courts pass judgment on the political process that gave rise to sometimes unfair districts benefiting one party or another.
It was a straight 5-4 conservative-liberal split.
The judgments of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina and the United States District Court for the District of Maryland are vacated, and the cases are remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

I guess I spoke too soon? Just after commenting on how the Court has slipped into a hodgepodge of  Majority Minority break downs, the court falls back on the 5-4 conservative split on one of the biggest cases this session.

The folks at Legal Insurrection believe that this shuts down the District Court Judges in these sorts of cases, but I wouldn't deposit that check in the bank quite yet. The way things are going with the Obama Judges, they will work hard to get around this, possibly by citing something (other than partisanship) as their excuse to rule against Trump or the GOP.

Wednesday, June 26, 2019

Perhaps Roy Moore is not a threat after all

The President, McConnell and others were slated to go down to Alabama and campaign for pretty much any Republican not named Roy Moore. But if this poll is any indication, they may not have to worry. Did Alabama Republicans forget that Moore just lost to Doug Jones a couple of years ago?

Democrats desperate?

Mueller to testify publicly on July 17
Special counsel Robert Mueller will publicly testify in front of the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees on July 17 following a subpoena, the panels’ chairmen said Tuesday.
“Pursuant to subpoenas issued by the House Judiciary and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence tonight, Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III has agreed to testify before both Committees on July 17 in open session,” Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the chairman of the Judiciary panel, and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the chairman of the Intelligence panel, said in a joint statement issued late Tuesday.
So there is little call from anyone to revisit this again. Mueller has already stated the obvious. Which is that what he wrote in his 440 page report is what he will testify to. Anyone thinking he will say something "other" than what he stated on the report (as far as conclusions) is engaged in wishful thinking.

As far as direct questions as to "why" he did or didn't go down a particular direction or investigate a particular person are not the sorts of questions that will help the Democrats politically. Or if asked to clarify certain things, it will also not work in their favor.

In fact, Democrats are likely setting themselves up to lose the only real TPM they took out of this, and that was to suggest that Mueller found same evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign, the Russian Government, and/or the Russians who committed the criminal action. Just not enough to press criminal charges.

I am quite certain when asked directly if his statement in page one of his executive summary is correct (that they found "NO" evidence) that he will reiterate such. If asked to explain the two different statements, he will, and that will undercut that whole line of  reasoning.

Democrats would have been better off letting sleeping dogs lie. The idea of trying to bring this back into the spotlight is an act of desperation, more than anything else. The apparently cannot seem to let the whole issue go, and eventually they will be seen as obsessive.

New Press Secretary

Stephanie Grisham 

Tuesday, June 25, 2019

This is getting a bit strange....

U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Ban on "Immoral" or "Scandalous" Trademark Registrations
The majority opinion in Brunetti, authored by Justice Kagan and joined by Justices Thomas, Ginsburg, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanagh, stated that the “immoral” or “scandalous” bar is likewise unconstitutional because it similarly discriminates on the basis of viewpoint.
Justices Roberts, Breyer, and Sotomayor each wrote opinions that concurred in part and dissented in part. All three dissenting Justices agreed that the prohibition on “immoral” material was unconstitutional, but each would have permitted a narrow viewpoint-neutral application of the prohibition against “scandalous” material to prohibit marks that are obscene, vulgar, or profane.

Um... Kagan, Thomas, Ginsburg, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh in the majority with Roberts, Breyer, and Sotomayor dissenting? What fresh hell did we just enter here folks? Up is down, black is white, and Roger really has an above average IQ?

This is just one of quite a few recent examples of decisions where there has been crossover on both sides. Just the other day, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh agreed with most of the liberals (not all, because one of them sided with Roberts, Thomas, & Alito).

It's like picking you letters in scrabble, where you just randomly pick five or six Justices and put them in the majority?

I have a gut feeling that these are just unique and interesting cases with a great deal of nuances. I also feel like Gorsuch and Kavanaugh may be tied to certain principles that are somewhat unique to them, which is why you may see one or the other crossing over occasionally.

Overall I believe this is healthy for the court. I say that coming from someone who would generally like the 5 Conservative Justices to stick together on most important decisions. But for the long term credibility of the court, the more these Judges float back and forth from issue to issue the less partisan the public will see them.

Unfortunately, not that many people will follow these sorts of cases. Likely the next time we have something politically charged, it will turn out 5-4 again, and that's all people will remember.

Trump to E. Jean Carroll

Eeewwww.... You're not even my type!!!

I hate to admit it...

So much that when I do, I take it back!
Yet another surprising move from the Mexican government on improving U.S. border security popped up yesterday. In fact, it was so shocking to CNN’s Nick Valencia that he initially tweeted this comment but later apparently deleted it.

The truth is that across the board, everything that the "critics" suggested would backfire on the President has actually beared fruit. Whether it be Iraq, North Korea, Mexico, Canada, or where ever, the critics told everyone that Trump was screwing everything up, only to end up garnering concessions and coming out with a better deal for America. 

Sometimes results matter more than the manner in which those results are achieved. AKA: the ends justifies the means more times than not. When the means are dishonest, unethical, amoral, or illegal, then it rarely justifies the end. But when those means are simply unconventional, or a break from what "Obama did" - then the ends are way more important than the means.

The average American who is affected by all of this doesn't worry about style points. They just want the job done.

Monday, June 24, 2019

More liberal lies!

Actually a recycled lie. But amazing what the left gets away with! 

These pictures were originally circulated prior to the 2018 elections, and probably convinced unsuspecting people that Trump himself went and wrapped a bunch of kids in tin foil.  Problem was he wasn't President and these are actually thermal blankets (most people should be so lucky).

Since it worked so well the first time, why not pull the same garbage again with the upcoming 2020 elections? I am sure it "still" convinced the CHT liberal stooges that it's all Trump's fault.

Does anyone have the resume for this?

Anyone dumb enough to believe this?

Why The Author Accusing Trump Of Rape Won’t Bring Charges
Bringing the charge would be “disrespectful to the women who are down on the border who are being raped around the clock down there without any protection,” Carroll said in an interview with MSNBC’s “The Last Word With Lawrence O’Donnell.”
“It would just be disrespectful,” Carroll said in the interview Friday. “Mine was three minutes. … I can handle it. I can keep going. My life has gone on. I’m a happy woman, but for the women down there and for the women — actually around the world, and every culture this is going on.”
Carroll has had an advice column in Elle magazine called “Ask E. Jean” since 1993.

Let's be honest here. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the dumbest excuse of a reason anyone could possibly come up with, and 10 being the sort of aha moment that would convince everyone, I might offer that this strains to make it to a 1.

For one,  anytime you have these sorts of allegations that only surface at the very time that someone is writing (and selling) a book, it's a pretty safe bet that it's a publicity stunt. But secondly, how does allowing a so called "rapist" run free help anyone? How would potentially throwing a rapist in jail actually disrespect anyone?

Now I have never been personally raped, but those I know who have (and I know a couple) are never upset when someone is convicted and pays the price for their crime. They do, however, become upset when they believe another rapist has gotten away with something. So the reality (as far as I have known it) is the flip opposite of what this person is suggesting?

Thirdly, the statute of limitations has likely expired. The woman has zero collaboration. She would be hard pressed to prove that Donald Trump was within miles of her during the events she describes.

Lastly, the reality is that this is a story. A fable. A made up event to garner attention. There is no more reason to believe this story, than to believe that there once was a wooden puppet to came to life and that his nose would grow every time he told a lie.

Saturday, June 22, 2019

Friday, June 21, 2019

An important Special Council

I heard they asked, but Robert Mueller was not interested 
Breaking: Senior Cook County judge appoints special prosecutor to probe handling of @JussieSmollett investigation and prosecution, citing “unprecedented irregularities.” #Chicago #JussieSmollett

Another 9th circuit "shock"

Yes, again with the 9th! Little chance the USSC will overrule this. 

While there will be much pearl clutching on  the left, the reality here is that there will be just as much money provided by the Government for women's health as at any other time. The difference is which types of facilities will be receiving it.

In the past, when tasked with the decision as to which facilities to give give money to, Planned Parenthood (which provides abortions, but does not have facilities to do many other types of women's services) was always at the top of the list. Possibly because of their known access to abortions. But with the new allocation of funding, more money will go to women's healthcare centers that offer more in the line of cancer screenings, and other types of medical services that is not offered at Planned Parenthood.

Since Planned Parenthood has always suggested that no Federal money was being spent on abortions, I don't see how this will lower access for women to actually still have that service performed. They still should be able to continue to fund those abortions with their other funding (as they always claimed they were).

I wonder how we got to the point when did women's health care become almost singularly associated with little more than birth control, STD testing, and abortions? Because that sounds a lot more like sexual health care, than women's health care.

Thursday, June 20, 2019

Bombshell? Are the walls closing in on Joe Biden?

Desperation exposes new liberal norm regarding the courts

Federal judge says census citizenship question merits more consideration in light of new evidence
A federal district judge in Maryland on Wednesday ruled that new evidence in the case of a census citizenship question merits more consideration, opening the possibility that the question could come before the Supreme Court again even after it rules as expected this month.
Civil rights groups who had sued the government over its addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Census had asked U.S. District Court Judge George J. Hazel to reconsider his ruling on whether the government was guilty of conspiracy and intent to discriminate after new evidence in the case emerged last month.

Now there are few points to make here:

  • The first is that this new information would not change this Judge's ruling. George J. Hazel (an Obama appointee) had already ruled against the Administration on the question of the census question. This new information would certainly "not" convince him differently. 
  • Secondly, the USSC has not ultimately ruled on the merits of this case, so Hazel doesn't even know what the result of the appeal even is. Why ask for a do over of something that isn't yet settled?
  • Lastly, this new information was already presented to the USSC as a supplement to the arguments. What good does reconsidering something at a district court level, when the USSC is already considering the new information?

This seems to be an ongoing issue with liberal Judges (and especially Obama Judges) since Trump has become President. Which is to say that these District Court Judges and certain District Appeals Courts seem to act as if they work on equal footing with the USSC, and do not see themselves as being bound by any USSC precedent that they don't agree with themselves. Again and again, District Judges have ignored black and white laws, and obvious judicial precedents to simply rule against the President for what almost appears to be "spite" or "resistance". They may see these actions as justified opposition to the President, but they are actually actions that go against Judicial norms, and ultimately disrespect the constitutional authority of the USSC. 

The fact that a District Judge would decide to effectively weigh in and suggest that the upcoming ruling from the USSC on this subject should be immediately reconsidered (if it does not correspond with his personal beliefs) seems beyond arrogant. The legal buck stops at the USSC. This is not a question of trying to get the USSC to possibly reconsider rulings and precedents from decades ago based on changing facts. This would be a flat out attempt to have a District Judge effectively "overrule" a just provided USSC decision, likely in order to attempt to delay the implementation of that particular high court decision (that the Judge in question does not agree with).

So how about this as a fundamental legal and constitutional quandary. The USSC rules (as expected) that the Citizenship question can be added to the 2020 Census, and then a District Court Judge issues another injunction against the Federal Government effectively telling them not to follow that decision, because he wants to restart the process with what he believes are "new" facts (even though those facts were introduced in the USSC proceedings)? 

Now, prior to 2016, no District Judge in the country would ever do something so blatantly arrogant an blatantly constitutionally wrong. A bigger part of the quandary is that the right District Judge in the right Circuit Court could conceivably have his decision upheld by the Appeals Court (as a matter of spite or resistance to the President) only to have the exact same case placed back at the High Court for them to "reconsider" because the lower courts were not happy.

But there is no "appeal" of a USSC decision. No matter how you try to go about it.

The President and his executive branch would almost certainly ignore a lower court injunction in favor of the USSC overriding decision and move forward with the Census question. No doubt this would lead to kicking and screaming across the board over what many would consider a blatant "constitutional crisis" being pushed forward by the President.  But in fact the real constitutional crisis is already happening on the Judicial level, being pushed forward by angry Obama Judges who seem to have issues following black and white laws or Judicial precedents that they don't personally like.

It was just a matter of time before you move from ignoring USSC precedent to coming up with creative ways to ignore the end result decisions of the USSC in real time. In this case, we see the desperation of an Obama District Judge, who is effectively making preemptive attempts to "overrule" a yet to be made Supreme Court decision if it doesn't go his way. 

Destined to lose?

Wednesday, June 19, 2019

So is Lemon brainwashed or attempting to brainwash?

 Don Lemon shows hypocrisy by repeating the "good people on both sides" lie!

So Don Lemon is bound and determined to justify his comparison of Trump to Hitler, by pointing out that it all starts with little lies, which grow to bigger lies, which can lead to brainwashing, eventual political corruption, and then apparently it leads to a President becoming a homicidal monster such as Hitler.

I wonder out loud why Lemon thinks it's okay for him to lie about the person he is demanding is Hitler (because of course Lemon believes Trump lies). Either Lemon is brainwashed himself (to still believe the debunked "good people" nonsense), or is working to brainwash others (by repeating the well debunked lie on cable news).

Now that might be a "little lie" or perhaps not. Certainly the dishonest branding of Trump as an agent of Russia is a "big lie". Certainly the continued attempts to say he conspired with Russia in the 2016 election (after five investigations failed to find any evidence of such conspiracy) is a "big lie". The dishonest smears against a respected two time Attorney General who used to run the Office of Legal Counsel for the DOJ is a "big lie".

So when do we start to compare Don Lemon and the rest of the liberal media to Hitler and the Third Reich?

Trump opens his campaign

Orlando Florida Kickoff!

Meanwhile - the dwarfs plow ahead!