Monday, March 21, 2016

America’s Choice: A Third Obama Term or Ted Cruz  

On one hand, we have had plenty of Republican presidential debates, and they have yielded little insight into what kinds of policies a president Donald Trump would implement.  On the other hand, the debates have revealed what kind of president Trump would be: rude, cartoonish, duplicitous, unprincipled, insulting, anti-intellectual, demagogic, superficial, and on and on. But, he knows how to buy politicians, on that we can believe him.

In contrast, the remaining candidates, Ted Cruz and John Kasich, have provided principled and detailed policies.  We voters can make informed decisions, partly based on our intellect and partly on our intuition.

The problem with the cult of personality is that intellect and intuition are thrown out the window at 70 m.p.h.  Whether Barack Obama or Donald Trump, a cult of personality is based on pure emotion.  It is like being in love: the object of your desire can do no wrong, and all signs to the contrary are conveniently disregarded.  If the sales axiom is correct, that we make decisions with emotion and justify them with rationale, then the Obama-Trump phenomena are the hallmark of political salesmanship.  If Bill Clinton was the used-car salesman of politics, then Obama and Trump sell timeshares in Phoenix.

This axiom applies to the Democratic race, too, because Hillary Clinton’s thirty-year history with scandal and governmental abuse of power, as well as incompetence, and Bernie Sanders’ thirty-year history of little achievement but growing the federal deficit to the detriment of the American economy and moral incentives, prove that Americans are not thinking.  They are reacting with emotionalism. 

Voters are emotionally invested in these candidates and have attached their identities to the candidates.
On Sunday, President Obama and his family arrived in Cuba for the first presidential visit to the country in 88 years. Ahead of the visit, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), the son of Cuban immigrants, took to Facebook to explain why he feels as though the visit is "one of the most disgraceful trips ever taken by a U.S. president." 
 
Take a look at the full, blistering, takedown:

Senator Marco Rubio
on Saturday
On Sunday, President Obama will touch down in Cuba for what promises to be one of the most disgraceful trips ever taken by a U.S. president anywhere in the world. This is an Obama presidential trip whose ultimate results will be giving away legitimacy and money to an anti-American regime that actively undermines our national security interests and acts against our values every single day. President Obama’s entourage will sleep in hotels controlled by the Cuban military that w...
See More
 
13,553
2,826
6,017
 
Rubio makes fair points. Obama's itinerary for his Cuba trip is basically a kid's gloves, least controversy as possible type of visit. Everyday Cubans are still living under a dictatorship, and it's entirely possible that all the visit is going to do is stoke the egos of the people in power--not improve things for the little guy.

SC bill would hold sponsors liable if refugees from terror states commit crimes, Hamas-linked CAIR enraged
By Robert Spencer / Jihad Watch

 

SC bill would hold sponsors liable if refugees from terror states commit crimes, Hamas-linked CAIR enraged
If you try to protect yourself from a jihad terror attack, you’re liable to be called “un-American” by Hamas-linked CAIR’s Ibrahim “Honest Ibe” Hooper. Foes of the bill “say the measure is out of character for a state that often espouses the importance of Christian hospitality and loving your neighbor.” Is Christian hospitality, then, a […]
 
Read in browser »

share on Twitter Like SC bill would hold sponsors liable if refugees from terror states commit crimes, Hamas-linked CAIR enraged on Facebook Google Plus One Button 

Muslim Police in France Refuse to Protect Synagogues

Pamela Geller / Atlas Shrugs

You have made our killing Jews an act of worshipThis is just the first hint of what is to come. Daniel Greenfield writes: “At least they’re not bombing them. Yet.” But they will be, and soon. Islamic Jew-hatred. It’s in the quran. And now it’s in in France, and all over Europe, courtesy the European Union’s feckless and suicidal immigration policies.
“Muslim Police in France Refuse to Protect Synagogues,” by Daniel Greenfield, FrontPage, March 19, 2016:
At least they’re not bombing them. Yet.
As Gatestone’s Yves Mamou reports, the growing support for Jihad among Muslim settlers in France is affecting law enforcement.
A leaked confidential memo from the Department of Public Security, published by Le Parisien,details 17 cases of...
     

Pro-Israel Policy Conference Nervously Awaits Trump Speech
NEWSMAX

As America's leading pro-Israel group prepares to hear from nearly all the presidential candidates, most eyes in the crowd of thousands of participants will be on GOP front-runner Donald Trump.

He's the wild card whose previous comments about Israel have created some anxiety among many who will attend the American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference this week in Washington.

Expect Republicans Ted Cruz and John Kasich to espouse standard conservative fare. Democrat Hillary Clinton probably will stick to well-known positions. Rival Bernie Sanders — trying to become first Jewish candidate to win a major party's presidential nomination — is skipping the event.

Much like the American electorate at large, the pro-Israel community in the United States is anything but monolithic, and this year's conference appears set to highlight those different constituencies, including socially liberal Democratic Jews, establishment Republican Jews, and conservative evangelical Christians.
In a broad sense, all the candidates confirmed to speak on Monday fall into one of those categories. Except Trump — and therein lies the angst.

"Trump has said a lot of things about Israel over the years, most of it favorable but some of it more ambiguous," said Josh Block, a former AIPAC official who now heads The Israel Project. "This will be an opportunity to address the ambiguity before a serious foreign policy audience."
Op-ed: 
No Considering, No Hearing, No Vote, No Nothing...Period 
By: Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / Right Side Patriots on http://www.americanpbn.com

“You’re going to be surprised at how hard we’re going to work to make sure this is on the front pages of all the papers.” 
- Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid on Obama and the Democrats efforts to get Merrick Garland appointed to the Supreme Court

So Obama went and did what we knew he would do...as in the midst of a hotly contested election cycle he went and nominated someone...Chief Judge of the D.C. Circuit Court Merrick Garland...to be his choice to move the Supreme Court to the far left and assure his liberal legacy on the High Court for decades to come. Garland, a former U.S. Attorney and a federal judge since 1997, was appointed to the circuit court by President Bill Clinton... was once considered for a cabinet post and clerked for ubber liberal Justice William Brennan...and this is who Obama hopes will fill the vacancy left by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia's recent death.

And while Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his fellow Republicans in the Senate have said in no uncertain terms will they even consider, hold hearings, or vote on Garland’s nomination until the next president takes office, they are on shaky ground for the fact is that the GOP hold on the Senate is tenuous at best, what with some Republican senators who are fighting to keep their seats saying that they are at least willing to meet and talk with Garland as a way to fend off the continuing Democratic attacks that they are being unfair. And that includes Senator Ron Johnson from Wisconsin who said, “I’ll meet with the guy, but trust me: We’re not going to let the Supreme Court flip,” adding that, "And this nominee obviously would flip the court, particularly on an issue that is pretty important in Wisconsin." And joining him in those sentiments are Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy and Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota...just to name a few.

And so to that affect, we now have Obama's people putting together what's known as 'The Constitutional Responsibility Project' for the sole purpose of advocating for Obama's nominee, and this group has said they will work with MoveOn.org...and we all know about them now don't we...who is planning 'MoveOn Days of Action' that being rallies in states with 'vulnerable' Republican senators to gain support for the nomination. And the Ohio teachers union will be doing what's being called 'Your Job Learn-ins' in an effort to convince Republican Senator Rob Portman to vote for Garland. And in Pennsylvania, unions for nurses and firefighters will hold rallies to try and force Senator Pat Toomey to meet with Garland and back a hearing.

But no matter the advocacy, the fact remains that it's the Senate who holds the trump card on appointees while it's Congress who decides how many justices make up the High Court at any given time by simply voting on it. This means the still for now Republican controlled Congress may either increase, decrease, or keep the number static as per the now number of nine...knowing that eight would split the ideologies of the Court straight down the political middle resulting in nothing being accomplished. But it is imperative that whatever they do they keep said number on the conservative side or it will take generations to undo what a liberal leaning Court can and most likely would do.

And it seems 'We the People' agree on the 'political complexion' of the Court as a recent survey found that a majority of people believed the High Court should be more conservative in its leanings than it being liberal in its leanings...as in wanting this Supreme Court to be a constructionist court where the justices interpret the law as laid down in the Constitution instead of it being a judicially active court who as expected would push a liberal agenda.

And in deciding a nominee to place on the bench it must never be forgotten that the job of the Supreme Court is to invalidate legislation, lower court rulings, or executive actions which, in the High Court's 'considered judgment' conflict with the Constitution. And here is where Obama's nominating Democratic party member Merrick Garland...who he calls a centrist and consensus-builder who in reality is anything but...crosses over into very dangerous grounds for with the Supreme Court being primarily an appellate court...which means that it decides whether lower courts made 'correct decisions' about the law during trials or earlier appeals...they can with the wrong majority cause serious harm or even invalidate our Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms."

And with Obama still our president...a president who has nothing but contempt for the Second Amendment and for we law-abiding gun owners...our Constitutionally given right to “keep and bear arms” is indeed in serious jeopardy, what with Obama's constant cries and his lobbying for even more gun control than there already is. Now add to that the simple fact that with the wrong balance of political power the Court's decision and Antonin Scalia's majority opinion in the 'District of Columbia v. Heller'...considered by gun rights activists to be the most important Second Amendment case in history...can and most likely would be overturned. And that folks is why Obama is pushing so hard to nominate Merrick Garland...a liberal learning, gun-hating justice post haste. Remember, this decision was the one which forced the District of Columbia...ground zero for Obama...to permit it's 'law-abiding' citizens their right to "keep and bear arms” and was soon followed by 'McDonald v. Chicago,' where Scalia joined with Justice Alito's opinion stating that the individuals right to “keep and bear arms” is a fundamental right and applies to all Americans regardless of where they live.

But what must be noted here is that both decisions were 5-to-4 party line decisions, and while both these decisions allowed our Second Amendment rights to stand as our Founders and Framers intended...much to Obama's chagrin and consternation...know that these most important of rulings can be overturned with a majority shift on the bench as most people forget that the Supreme Court can legally overrule and reverse itself when and if a different case involving the same Constitutional issues as the earlier case...in this instance 'District of Columbia v. Heller'...is reviewed by the Court and seen in a new light because of changing social and political situations...which in turn would have a domino affect on 'McDonald v. Chicago.' And know that Obama has the cases he needs lined up and currently working their way through the lower courts, assuring their presentation to the High Court the minute the majority shifts to the left.

“This is not a good nomination and should not be confirmed,” said Alan Gottlieb of the 'Second Amendment Foundation.'

And Alan Gottlieb is right for Merrick Garland's stance on gun rights is indeed the most compelling reason...but there are others as well...as to why he must never be appointed to the Supreme Court for Garland is not now nor has he ever been an advocate of our Constitutionally given Second Amendment right “to keep and bear arms.” And one only has to look at his record of opposing gun rights as a federal judge...a record which includes his 2007 vote to undo the D.C. Circuit Court decision that struck down Washington D.C.’s strict handgun ban. Voting to undo 'Parker v. District of Columbia'...the predecessor to the 'District of Columbia v. Heller'...Garland was one of four dissenting judges who voted to reconsider the ban on handguns. The other six judges on the appeals court voted not to rehear the case, and the Supreme Court went on to rule in 'District of Columbia v. Heller' that the Second Amendment does indeed guarantee an individual’s right to "keep and bear arms."

And Garland has indicated he might consider revisiting these cases, and know that the four liberal justices currently sitting on the bench would give him the majority power to do so. So much for our Second Amendment rights and Obama knows well that this is exactly how the scenario will play out.
 
Remember too, that 'Parker v. District of Columbia' is not the only time Merrick Garland has ruled against gun rights. In 2000, in NRA vs. Reno, Garland ruled against the National Rifle Association (who said they would lobby against Garland’s appointment) in a lawsuit challenging the Department of Justice's handling of gun purchaser’s information. As per then AG Janet Reno's argument that it was both necessary and allowed under the Brady Act for information to be retained for six months in order to audit the background check system, Garland ruled in her favor saying that it was indeed permissible for the DOJ to keep said records from the National Instant Background Check System (NICS) for the time period stated. And he did so over the NRA’s (rightful) argument that this practice effectively created an illegal national registry...which it indeed would have.

"Judge Garland is the kind of nominee people get when you make deals in Washington, D.C.,” so says Ted Cruz, Republican presidential candidate...and how right he is.

And so the bottom line remains that Barack HUSSEIN Obama would never nominate anyone who was not a leftist as his hatred for the right clouds every call he makes. This makes it imperative that Republicans stand strong and united against anyone Obama nominates as those in the Republican hierarchy must be made to know that it's 'We the People'...that it's we voters...who should be the ones weighing in on that decision by electing a new Republican conservative president who in turn will be the one choosing a new conservative nominee. Remember, the wrong appointee could very well alter the direction of the court and our beloved country for a generation or more.