I won’t be at home much longer canvassing the news, but this is out and available to everyone. I am very disappointed to see, however, that FOX has refused to pick it up.
Category Archives: Reposted
Mo Brooks sticking by Moore: GOP agenda ‘vastly more important than contested sexual allegations’
Updated 8:24 PM; Posted 7:31 PM
By Howard Koplowitz
“America faces huge challenges that are vastly more important than contested sexual allegations from four decades ago,” Brooks said in a text message to AL.com. “Who will vote in America’s best interests on Supreme Court justices, deficit and debt, economic growth, border security, national defense, and the like? Socialist Democrat Doug Jones will vote wrong. Roy Moore will vote right. Hence, I will vote for Roy Moore.”
Moore has been accused by two women of initiating sexual encounters with them when they were 14 and 16 years old and Moore was in his 30s as an assistant district attorney in Etowah County. Moore has denied the allegations, saying the claims are politically motivated.
While Brooks said he would vote for Moore, he declined to say whether he still endorses the embattled Republican candidate. He also would not say whether he believes Moore or the women making the allegations, although he pointed to the Duke University lacrosse case as an example of sex claims that have been proven wrong.
“As a Duke grad, I vividly remember the false accusations against and defamation of the Duke lacrosse team. The players were horribly treated by the news media until the truth finally came out and totally exonerated them,” he said. “As an attorney, I know accusations are easy. Proving them to the satisfaction of a judge, a jury, or here, voters, is another thing. I do not know enough of the evidence to know with confidence what the true facts are.”
Although Moore’s first public accuser, Leigh Corfman, is a Republican who voted for Donald Trump in 2016, Brooks suggested there is plenty of political motivation to make false claims.
“I do believe this, there are millions of people in America who would lie in a heartbeat if it meant adding another Democrat to the Senate,” he said.
The Huntsville congressman earlier told Roll Call that he would be voting for Moore because of policy issues.
“I have seen what a lot of people have said. A United States senator from Alabama is going to have a huge effect on national public policy issues and the votes that will be cast on the Senate floor will determine the future of our country. That is my primary concern,” he said.(emphasis mine-Cat)
Brooks, who was a candidate for the Senate seat in the Republican primary, was ambiguous about whether he would mount a write-in campaign for the Dec. 12 special election. Brooks went on to endorse Moore.
“As long as Roy Moore is our nominee, a Republican cannot wage a write-in campaign, under Alabama Republican Party rules, and be on the ballot as a Republican in the future,” he said.
Meanwhile, conservative pundit Ann Coulter, who endorsed Brooks in the primary, advocated on Twitter for Moore to be replaced on the ballot with Brooks:
Brooks declined to say whether he would be open to that idea.
The more I read the more I question, but I refuse to convict anyone absent more proof and a chance for Moore to defend himself. Furthermore, I agree with the candidate I voted for in the first place. Moore is better than a socialist democrat and it IS a very short term.
Transgenders in the military – who decides: Congress, the president, or federal judges?
By Publius Huldah
6 November 2017
In a case now pending before the US District Court for the District of Columbia,1 the trial judge recently granted a preliminary injunction which purports to temporarily stop the Trump Administration from banning so-called “transgender” persons from serving in the Military.
But we will look at the real issue: Does the Judicial Branch of the federal government have constitutional authority to require the Legislative and Executive Branches of the federal government to permit transgender persons to serve in the Military?
Instead of going along with what everybody says – or expounding on one’s personal views on the topic – let us consult and obey the U.S. Constitution:
- Article I, Section 8, clauses 11–13 delegate to Congress the powers to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, make rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; raise and support Armies; and provide and maintain a Navy.
- Article I, Section 8, clause 14 delegates to Congress the power “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;”
- Article II, Section 2, clause 1 says, “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States….”
In Federalist Paper No. 69 (6th para), Alexander Hamilton says:
“…The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States…. [H]is authority…would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy….”
So! All the powers over the military which have been delegated by the Constitution are vested in the Legislative and Executive Branches of the federal government.
The Judicial Branch has no role to play in the organizing and operation of the military forces.(emphasis mine-cat)
Pursuant to Article I, Section 8, clauses 11-14, Congress alone has the delegated authority to decide who may serve in the military. If Congress issues rules banning transgender persons from serving, then it is the President’s job, as Commander in Chief, to enforce those rules.
Accordingly, instead of participating in the litigation before the federal district court, the Trump Administration should instruct the federal judge on the long-forgotten concept of “Separation of Powers” and advise the court, “You have no jurisdiction over the military – we will not participate.”
1. Military courts and military lawyers in a nutshell
The Judicial Branch of the federal government was created by Article III, U.S. Constitution. That Article created the Supreme Court, and authorized Congress to ordain and establish, from time to time, such inferior courts as needed. Pursuant to that authority, Congress has established 94 federal district courts (where most federal trials are conducted), and 13 U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals.
The U.S. military has its own court system which is not part of the Judicial Branch of the federal government. The military courts are “Article I Courts” created by Congress in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).2 They consist of trial courts where courts-martial are conducted; each Branch of Service has its own “Court of Criminal Appeals”; and the “U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces” hears appeals from the Services’ Courts of Criminal Appeals.
And when military commanders need legal advice, they get it from their own Service lawyers (this is one of the duties of lawyers in the Judge Advocate Generals’ Corps).
The Judicial Branch of the federal government has no constitutional authority over the U.S. military.
2. Federalist Paper No. 80 and the meaning of “arising under”
Some may assert that the Judicial Branch has authority to determine who may serve in the military because Article III, Section 2, clause 1 says,
“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases…arising under this Constitution and the Laws of the United States….”
But they would be wrong. In Federalist No. 80, Alexander Hamilton explains the jurisdiction of the courts created by Article III: In the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 13th paragraphs, he shows that the purpose of the language quoted just above is to authorize the Judicial Branch to enforce the Constitution – not re-write it; and to enforce constitutional federal laws – not re-write them.(emphasis mine-cat)
Furthermore, in Federalist No. 81 (8th para), Hamilton addresses judicial encroachments on legislative authority, and reminds us that such encroachments need never be a problem because of the courts’ “total incapacity to support its usurpations by force”; and because Congress may protect the country from usurping federal judges by impeaching, trying, convicting, and removing them from office.
3. Political questions
Accordingly, when a power is vested by the Constitution in the Legislative or Executive Branches [the “political branches”], the federal courts [the “legal branch”] have traditionally refused to interfere.
In Martin v. Mott, 25 US 19 (1827), the Supreme Court considered the Militia Act of 1795, which authorized the President to call forth the militia when he judged it necessary to repel an invasion.3 The Court pointed out that the power had been confided [entrusted] by Congress to the President, and”We are all of opinion, that the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen, belongs exclusively to the President, and that his decision is conclusive upon all other persons.”
In Foster v. Neilson, 27 U.S. 253 (1829), which involved a dispute between the United States and Spain over territory, the Court held that once those departments [Executive and Legislative Branches] “which are entrusted with the foreign intercourse of the nation” have asserted rights of dominion over territory, “it is not in its own courts that this construction is to be denied.” “A question…respecting the boundaries of nations, is…more a political than a legal question; and…the courts of every country must respect the pronounced will of the legislature.”
Likewise, the power to determine who may serve in the military has been delegated to the Legislative Branch of the federal government – i.e., Congress. The Judicial Branch may not substitute its judgment for the will of the Legislative Branch; and if it attempts to do so, Congress should employ the remedies suggested by Hamilton in Federalist No. 81.
4. The President’s “check” on the federal courts
Finally, let’s look at Federalist No. 78 (6th para) where Hamilton – unlike the pundits of today – tells us the truth about the powers of federal courts:
“…The judiciary…has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments
An informed President who is a manly man will ignore ultra vires orders of the Judicial Branch.
Let us put the federal courts in their proper place! Congress and the President have the recognized power to refuse to go along with unconstitutional or ultra vires acts of the Judicial Branch; and their oaths of office require them to do so. Congress also has the power to rid us of usurping federal judges via the impeachment process.
1 The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia was established by Congress pursuant to Art. III, §1, U.S. Constitution.
2 Congress’ authority to create the Military Courts is derived from Art. I, §8, cl. 14, U.S. Constitution.
3 Article I, §8, clause 15, delegates to Congress the power “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”
4 I trust you see why Hamilton is viciously smeared. The relentless attacks on our Framers have a purpose: Take them down – and our Foundation is destroyed. Hamilton wrote most of the Federalist Papers, which Madison and Jefferson recognized as the best evidence of the genuine meaning of our Constitution. What effect do these constant attacks on Hamilton have on peoples’ respect for the Federalist Papers? Beware of false friends who undermine our foundation; and of jealous men whose claim to fame is that they attack Hamilton.
© Publius Huldah
My full apologies to the author since I do not have the knowledge to transfer the article to WordPress EXACTLY with her formatting. Please read her original (and other most worthy contributions) http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/huldah/171106
A PROTEST WITHOUT A PURPOSE ISNT A PROTEST, IT’S A TANTRUM The Birmingham News – October 13, 2017
By State Rep. Rich Wingo (R – Tuscaloosa), who serves House District 62 in the Alabama Legislature. Wingo was a member of the University of Alabama football team from 1974 to 1978, and played for the Green Bay Packers from 1979 to 1986.
As a former linebacker for the NFL’s Green Bay Packers and the University of Alabama, I had the opportunity to play for two of the finest men to ever serve as head coaches – Paul “Bear” Bryant and Bart Starr.
One of the most important lessons Coach Bryant and Coach Starr taught me was plain and simple respect — respect for ourselves, respect for our coaches and teammates, and respect for our great nation. They also stressed showing your class in every situation and being humble.
The current “protests” being staged against our nation’s flag and anthem by players throughout the NFL violate every principle of respect those two great men drilled into players like me during their careers. The NFL is currently suffering from a complete lack of good leadership and it hurts me to watch it happen. The two coaches under whom I played simply would not have allowed the current situation to come to pass, and, instead, would demand that their players show proper respect for the patriotic symbols of our nation and its people. Like many Americans, I do not view the act of NFL players “taking a knee” during the National Anthem as an acceptable form of protest.
Most of the players who have chosen to sit or kneel have not outlined a specific reason, stated a goal, or defined what constitutes a victory in their eyes. If they have no goals to achieve by kneeling, how can they know when to start standing again?
A protest without a purpose is not a protest – it’s a tantrum.
The sadness of the situation was only compounded when players for the Baltimore Ravens and Jacksonville Jaguars took a knee when the “Star Spangled Banner” was played before their recent game on foreign soil in London, but they stood at attention during “God Save The Queen.”
I do believe that every American has the right to protest or to have their voice heard, but they must be prepared to accept the consequences. Americans are likely to abandon the NFL by the millions if players continue to betray and insult our nation and its enduring symbols of freedom.
There are other, more effective and less offensive methods players may utilize to express their dissatisfaction with whatever is angering them. They could easily stage a rally, hold a press conference to protest, or, more importantly, invest or volunteer in their communities and do something constructive to change lives for the better.
We do not have to look too far into our nation’s past to see where the disrespect for American values and symbols took root. Activist judges and weak leadership in past generations forced the Pledge of Allegiance and prayer to be taken out of our children’s classrooms, and Hollywood has joined forces with the mainstream media to promote a radical social agenda that has turbocharged moral decay. Millions of brave men and women have fought, bled, and died on foreign battlefields across the globe in order to defend our nation and the symbols that define it.
In my opinion, the NFL players’ actions are one step away from burning an American flag on the 50-yard line, and the commissioner, team owners, and coaches need to do what Coach Bryant and Coach Starr would have done by demanding an end to the on-going sideline shenanigans immediately.
note: I would like to add that I remember “Bear” Bryant having a very low tolerance for disrespect, bad behavior or breaking team rules. His players were mostly proud to be held to tough standards and high expectations. It may have been old school, but many have continued on to have successfull and fulfilling careers. -cat-
Trump is right, Socialism doesn’t work
Larry Alex Taunton | FoxNews.com
Published on September 24, 2017
On Tuesday, President Trump addressed the United Nations and, shocking to no one save left-of-center news agencies, he expressed his strong belief in his own economic policies; in America—its people, way of life, and the Constitution which governs it; and in business enterprise as a path to freedom and prosperity. Trump’s speech, optimistic and pro-American as it was, falls in the mainstream of American presidential tradition. Indeed, it is the stuff of a Truman or a Reagan.
But you’d never know it from how it was reported.
The Guardian called it “a blunt, fearful rant.”
That is a more apt description for The Guardian itself. (Trust me, I know. I’ve been trashed by them no less than twice for a claim I never made and they never bothered to verify.)
Salon said Trump “careened wildly from some warped form of principled realism to threats of mass annihilation and back again.”
Perhaps Salon, careening wildly from one Trump attack-piece to another, is unaware of the fact that America has been threatened with “mass annihilation” by a declared enemy with an increasing capability to do it. Someone should tell them.
Slate characterized it as “the most hostile, dangerous, and intellectually confused—if not outright dishonest—speech ever delivered by an American president to an international body.”
We live in an age of hyperbole and this is an excellent example of it. I encourage you to read the full text of Trump’s speech and decide for yourself if it was “the most hostile, dangerous … speech ever” or if this is the worst reporting in the history of human civilization. Ever.
Then there is John Haltiwanger’s article in Newsweek titled, “Trump was laughed at by world leaders for dissing socialism.”
This column caught my attention both for its content and lack of content. The title alone intrigued me—as good titles are supposed to do—but for all the wrong reasons. I mean, really? I know we live in the age of 24/7/365 news cycles and the hunger for fresh web content is relentless, but has Newsweek sunk so low that an article that feels like dialogue lifted from the script of “Mean Girls”is now counted as serious journalism?
Let’s consider Mr. Haltiwanger’s argument, such as it is.
As the title indicates, his critique of Trump’s speech centers on the president’s “dissing” of socialism. Haltiwanger writes:
When President Donald Trump criticized socialism during his speech Tuesday at the United Nations, he seemed to expect roaring approval from the audience. Instead, world leaders responded with laughter and weak applause. It was perhaps the most awkward moment of Trump’s speech.
Speaking on the recent crisis in Venezuela, Trump said, “The problem…is not that socialism has been poorly implemented but that socialism has been faithfully implemented.”
“From the Soviet Union to Cuba to Venezuela, wherever true socialism or communism has been adopted, it has delivered anguish and devastation and failure,” Trump added.
In the middle of his comments, Trump paused to take the room’s temperature, but it was apparent world leaders were unmoved by the rebuke of the worker state. The room was silent. It was reminiscent of Jeb Bush’s “please clap” moment…. Video of the [president’s] speech has immortalized the uncomfortable moment.
That Trump would do such a thing is, for Haltiwanger, evidence of the president’s buffoonery, lack of sophistication, and his failure to properly read “the room’s temperature.”
He includes a screenshot of a tweet from someone named Jordan, which reads, “The /#UNGA [United Nations General Assembly] just LAUGHED at Trump for criticizing socialism.”
I laughed at Mr. Haltiwanger’s article, but this is no proof that it is logically flawed (though logically flawed it is). The Left has always been overly sensitive to what the world thinks of America and its president. They need global affirmation, it seems. Obama was, for them, urbane, glamorous, “a gentleman,” as an acquaintance at the New York Times has often characterized him to me, as if these are defining characteristics of great national leaders.
By contrast, Trump is, for them, a national embarrassment with his comb-over, trademark scowl, and unfashionable patriotism. How are we to stand toe-to-toe with France and Canada when they have socialist beefcakes like Macron and Trudeau? Winston Churchill, who was neither a gentleman nor glamorous—and whose scowl was likewise perpetual—seems to have worked out rather well as Prime Minister. Moreover, Churchill biographer Paul Reid has said that Churchill, ever a reactionary, “would out-tweet Trump.”
Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that Trump expected, as Haltiwanger maintains, “roaring approval from the audience.” According to a 2015 Freedom House study of 195 nations—and, at the moment, there are precisely 195 nations in the world—only 46 percent of them are deemed free. Worse, that same report says the world is trending away from freedom — 193 of the countries included in this report are member states of the United Nations, North Korea and Venezuela among them. Trump “seemed to expect roaring approval”? Please. Ann Coulter will sooner get applause at Berkeley than Trump before such an audience as this one.
Of course, the reason the author tells us that UN “leaders responded with laughter and weak applause” is because he is, in the spirit of an adolescent, inviting us to join in the mockery and scorn of this president.
Mr. Haltiwanger, who is clearly infatuated with the undeliverable promises of socialism, concludes his argument with what he apparently thinks is his article’s mic-drop moment, proving once and for all that socialism works and that Trump is an idiot for thinking otherwise:
Most industrialized countries, for example, have implemented universal health care. Moreover, Norway was recently ranked the happiest country in the world, and it pointed to its strong state-support programs as crucial to achieving this accolade…. Several other Scandinavian countries, including Denmark, Iceland and Sweden, were also among the top 10 happiest countries in the world, according to the most recent figures…. The U.S., however, can’t even make it into the top 10 happiest countries. It’s ranked at No. 14.
Icelandic and Scandinavian happiness.
Let’s drill down on this a bit and the inference that socialism is the reason for it. Norway’s designation as the “world’s happiest country” is based on a United Nations report. You might think that this ranking comes from simple “yes” or “no” responses to the question, “Are you happy?” It isn’t. That is essentially what Gallup did and guess who dominated the top ten? Paraguay and Latin America. Neither Iceland nor a single Scandinavian country appeared in Gallup’s top ten.
So how did the guys at the UN produce entirely different results? After spending an afternoon reading the UN report, that is still is unclear to me. This is because their study is 184 pages of abstruse data and reads like this:
The U.S. corruption index rose by 0.10 between 2006/7 and 2015/6. With a coefficient -0.53 in the happiness regression, the negative effect on U.S. happiness is 0.054. Reversing the rise in perceived corruption would therefore raise happiness by 0.054….
Drilling down still more, we find that this report, as with any UN report I’ve ever read, has a very definite political agenda. It concludes:
To escape this social quagmire, America’s happiness agenda should center on … an expanded social safety net, wealth taxes, and greater public financing of health and education…. [A]cknowledge and move past the fear created by 9/11 … Trump’s ban on travel to the United States from certain Muslim-majority countries is a continuing manifestation of the exaggerated and irrational fears that grip the nation.
So, from a haze of data on global happiness the report makes the illogical leap to America, Donald Trump, and the lack of “a social safety net”—i.e., lack of socialism—as the sources of unhappiness? They could have saved themselves time, money, and the clever use of dubious statistics and just interviewed Maxine Waters—or Kim Jong Un.
Should we really be surprised that the UN, the body that commissioned this report, didn’t like Trump’s speech?
As for the myth that Iceland and Scandinavia are socialist utopias, it is interesting to note that these countries rank highest in the use of antidepressants. Iceland holds the top spot while Denmark, Sweden, and Norway are all in the top ten. It seems they rank high because they are, well, high.
While speaking at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen rejected the idea that his country is socialist even though it has a much larger social welfare system: “I know that some people in the U.S. associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.”
I am currently going around the world investigating the question of national greatness. In the last month, I have been in Japan, Singapore, and China. Traveling across Asia, you quickly discover that no one outside of Pyongyang has faith in the tenets of Marx and Lenin anymore. Not even China is truly socialistic. That is because they knowsocialism doesn’t work.
No, the people who believe in that naïve, unworkable, utopian ideology no longer live in Beijing, Moscow, or Hanoi. On the contrary, socialism’s modern advocates reside in such places as London, Paris, Brussels, Berlin, and, increasingly, Washington.
Since we are using happiness as an indicator of socialism’s emotional influence, let’s look at Gallup’s least happy country: Ukraine. I’ve spent a lot of time in that country. Indeed, I’ve written a book on it, and I can tell you that Ukraine has been economically, intellectually, and spiritually assassinated by socialism. Five more socialist (or formerly socialist) countries make Gallup’s bottom ten.
Trump is right to say that “wherever true socialism or communism has been adopted, it has delivered anguish and devastation and failure.”
The failure of socialism is a wholly unjustified confidence in human government. It is, as Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky observed long ago, “the tower of Babel built without God, not to mount to Heaven from earth, but to set up Heaven on earth.”
Larry Alex Taunton is the author of The Faith of Christopher Hitchens: The Restless Soul of the World’s Most Notorious Atheist (2016) and the Executive Director of the Fixed Point Foundation. You can follow him at larryalextaunton.com or on Twitter @ LarryTaunton.
©2017 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
It honestly reminds me of the Wizard from The Wizard of Oz, he stands behind the curtain and fools people into thinking that he is greater, smarter and more powerful than he truly is. Mark Levin wrote a book on the history of the Supreme Court which has some fantastic true stories about some of the looney tunes who have maintained a seat on the bench! There are some honestly great and fair minds on the bench who adhere to the Constitution as written. This post has nothing to say about them, but………
A retired teacher (72) who was searching for information on student district enrollment data year 2016 was sued by the Louisiana Department of Education merely because he requested the info. When finally released, the data actually demonstrated that there was an expanding gap in achievement between Louisiana’s poorest students and the majority percentage.A mother in Oregon who was looking into why certain employees at her local school had been paid to stay home for a while (one at least 3 years) was sued by this school her children attended for requesting information that the District Attorney had evidently previously ordered released.
Western Kentucky University filed suit against their own student newspaper after it requested the details of a sexual harassment case against a professor who resigned.
The above details courtesy of Ryan J. Foley – AP
I was skimming through the paper and noticed that educational institutions and governments are fighting FOIA and other reasonable public info requests by suing the people who request the data. Why not? As a weapon of choice it has worked very well for democrats fighting the immigration limits and other Executive Orders that they do not like. Find a judge that leans to your point of view and you are sure to win!
An Executive Order is issued from the executive and has never been intended to be for judicial review absent emergency circumstances. Courts were not established to police and set boundaries for the country. The three branches working together within the dictates of the Constitution are responsible for their own areas and should never be allowed to grab power by encroaching into another’s area of power and responsibility. I know I am being redundant as I must have said this in a dozen posts, but when we get away from the dictates of the Constitution we take on trouble.
Unfortunately, after systematically stuffing the federal courts with radically liberal judges who believe that the Constitution is a fluid living document, subject to loose interpretation according to the beliefs of the day, democrats and liberals of all stripes make use of those courts whenever possible. They use the courts to attempt control of the president, administrative agencies, senators, representatives, educational institutions, churches and now even citizens who ask for public information they are entitled to have. Our judicial system was never meant to be used as a weapon. Neither was it intended to be used to manipulate or control the remaining two branches of government, it is merely a check and a balance as the executive branch and the legislative branch are both also checks and balances against the judicial branch.
This is abuse of process! It is domination and rule by the courts and it must stop now! Like so many other things occurring in society now, this is hard to believe and harder to find a solution for. But, we cannot be free when we must submit to the rule of an unelected mob in mystic black robes operating outside of the Constitution.