Don't you wonder how McAuliffe got elected in Virginia in the first place. I find it neatly impossible to believe the people of Virginia are this poorly educated on democrat politics.
And when this guy has proposed allowing 250,000 felons to vote in this election, I wonder how many of these felons voted to get him elected?
And when you have a serial criminal standing next you, it's called collateral damage when that criminals record is transferred to you.
And when your record with the progressive liberal party has a proven corruption that he used during that election, what else can we expect from a democrat.
But why would we think it would be anything otherwise but corrupt no matter what democrat it is.
If nothing is private anymore, why wear cloths? Why not just everyone go naked if they want to. Who cares, right? But again, this is Mr Ogbjma's agenda and ideology for civil and now biological transformation of society through chaos and ultimately division among the population.
What ever happened to the right to privacy of the majority? One person decides they are female, forcing all other females to give up their right to privacy. What's happening to our common sense and just basic logic?
Worse, what's happened to our justice system? Could it possibility be that progressive socialist liberal democrats have infest the system with their corrupt agenda and ideology!! WOW - who knew?
Supreme Court Enters Legal Battle Over Gender Identity and the Purpose of Restrooms Matt Sharp /
Why do we make our restrooms and locker rooms private? Each of us performs a variety of necessary life functions in front of strangers every day. We eat in public restaurants, we work in public offices, and as anyone who ever has been stranded in an airport can attest, we even sleep in public. There is no shame or embarrassment in doing such activities in front of complete strangers. Yet when it comes to activities that involve a measure of undressing, we realize that most people are not comfortable doing them in public—and especially not in the presence of members of the opposite sex.
So as a society, we set apart designated areas—restrooms, locker rooms, showers, changing rooms—for individuals to perform these intimate activities. In other words, private facilities exist because privacy matters. But according to the federal government and LGBT activists, the primary function of private facilities is not privacy; it is affirmation of a person’s gender identity. And now the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a related case out of Virginia.
In December 2014, the Gloucester County School Board made what should have been an uncontroversial decision. In response to a request to use the boys’ restrooms from a female high school student who asserts that she is male, the school board adopted a policy stating that the girls’ and boys’ restrooms can be used only by students of the designated sex. The school board concurrently made several single-stall, unisex restrooms available for anyone, including the self-described transgender student who was uncomfortable using the communal facilities at Gloucester High School.
The board otherwise allowed the student, Gavin Grimm, to live as a male, dress like a male, and use a male name and pronouns. And by offering accommodations, the school district guaranteed that Grimm would be afforded privacy—whether Grimm chose to use the single-stall facilities or the female communal restrooms with others of the female sex.
But Grimm, 17, rejected this solution. Relying upon guidance from the U.S. Department of Education, which for several years quietly had pushed the idea that schools must treat a student consistent with his or her gender identity, Grimm sued the school district. The suit argues that under federal Title IX and its regulations, the school must affirm Grimm’s male gender identity by allowing use of the boys’ restrooms.
The lawsuit received immediate support from the Education and Justice departments, which ultimately issued the now infamous “Dear Colleague” letter in May 2016. In it, the departments threatened to strip federal funding from any school that does not use its locker rooms, showers, restrooms, and even overnight accommodation on school trips to affirm a student’s gender identity.
The Gloucester school board courageously stood against the full might of the federal government, recognizing that complying with Grimm’s demands would violate the constitutional privacy rights of other students, to whom the board owed a duty of care. While the school board won in lower court, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision and found that the government’s re-interpretation of Title IX and its regulations should be given deference.
Under this re-interpretation, a law that allows schools to maintain separate locker rooms and restrooms on the basis of sex becomes one that orders schools to open up these facilities to anyone who asserts he or she is of the designated sex. The school board immediately asked the Supreme Court to review the case.
On Friday, the high court accepted the case, and the implications of its eventual ruling likely will be historic and affect millions of schoolchildren across the country.
Two aspects of the case are noteworthy. First, the Supreme Court previously issued a stay, allowing the school board to maintain its policy that protects student privacy in communal facilities. The stay, which remains in effect, recognizes that there would be irreparable harm if students were suddenly forced to share locker rooms and restrooms with the opposite sex.
Second, the court declined to take up the issue of whether “Auer deference”—the legal doctrine relied upon by the federal government to claim that its nonbinding guidance interpreting Title IX have the force of law—should be overturned. Instead, the court will examine whether the interpretation itself is consistent with Title IX and should be given deference. As a result, the privacy implications of the federal government’s lawless actions are likely to play a prominent role in the case.
And it is clear that the federal government’s interpretation of Title IX has no foothold in the law, whether one looks to the text of Title IX and its regulations (which authorize schools and colleges to maintain separate dorms, locker rooms, and restrooms on the basis of sex); the law’s legislative history (where concerns over privacy and safety were addressed by allowing sex-specific facilities); or subsequent court decisions interpreting the law (the overwhelming majority of which reject the claim that Title IX extends to gender identity or requires schools to affirm a student’s self-perceived gender).
Indeed, when you research the purpose of Title IX, it is apparent that Congress sought to affirm the equality of women by guaranteeing them equal access to educational opportunities. One’s sex is irrelevant in the classroom or science lab. Yet by recognizing that sex-specific facilities are permissible when privacy is needed, Congress communicated that women are not disaffirmed as being equal to men nor denied equal educational opportunities by the commonsense recognition of biological differences and the need for privacy that those differences necessitate.
The same is true in the Gloucester County case. The school board has shown incredible compassion and accommodation to Gavin Grimm. Yet Grimm and the federal government are not seeking privacy or equal educational opportunities; Grimm is receiving both. Instead, they are demanding affirmation of Grimm’s decision to identify as a male.
But locker rooms and restrooms are not for affirmation; they are for privacy. And schools should remain free to put the privacy of their students above political agendas.
Who knew? Ignorance and out right stupidity knows no bounds, especially in California. Progressive democrats believe the best way to stop gun crime is to take the guns away from law abiding citizens. It's the law abiding citizen that are causing all the problems by committing all of the crimes in the community.
What? Really?
And by making buying ammunition for the law abiding citizen nearly impossible and costly, as it will be the law abiding citizen that will bear the cost of back ground checks, the progressive socialist liberals are succeeding in their quest for disarming the population. One of the main objectives of the progressive liberal agenda and ideology. A population that can't defend its self is doomed to be subjected to government tyranny.
Know this, Proposition 63 is political and about control, and as witness the biggest supporters of gun control and nationally known progressive liberal democrats Feinstein and Boxer are right up front on the issue.
Gun Control Measure Divides California’s Politicians, Law Enforcement Fred Lucas /@FredLucasWH/
A gun control measure on California’s ballot Nov. 8 is pitting sheriffs, police chiefs, and prosecutors against most of the state’s political establishment.
“This initiative would do nothing to stop criminals from acquiring ammunition, guns, or large-capacity magazines,” @michele_hanisee says.
A state that already has some of the strictest limits on gun ownership in the nation is asking voters to impose regulations on ammunition sales and make it a crime not to report a stolen gun.
Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, introduced the “Safety for All” measure, officially known as Proposition 63. Newsom said the law will “help save countless lives.”
“Since we announced Prop. 63, over 10 mass shootings have occurred, along with so many other deaths that never made the headlines,” Newsom wrote in an op-ed published in the Orange County Register, adding:
Ammunition is the most lethal part of a gun, yet there is no regulation surrounding its sale. Currently, under state law, you can sell ammunition anywhere: a hospital, day care center, restaurant, school, or church. Prop. 63 will change that by treating ammo the way we treat guns. It will require ammo purchasers to pass a background check and require sellers to obtain a business license and submit sales records to law enforcement.
Supporters of the gun measure include the state’s two U.S. senators, Democrats Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer. They also include California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, state Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, numerous mayors, and the state’s two largest newspapers, the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle, and the fourth-largest newspaper, The Sacramento Bee.
Among those lined up against them in opposition to the measure are the California Police Chiefs Association, California State Sheriffs’ Association, Association of Deputy District Attorneys for Los Angeles County, California Correctional Peace Officers Association, California Fish & Game Wardens Association, California Reserve Peace Officers Association, Western State Sheriffs’ Association, Law Enforcement Action Network, San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association, and Law Enforcement Alliance of America.
“We see this as a continued erosion of what we believe are Second Amendment rights,” Kern County Sheriff Donny Youngblood, president of the California State Sheriffs’ Association, told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “California has the strictest gun laws now and they have no impact on crime because senators aren’t going to follow the law.” Youngblood said his own personal experience showed why these laws would be bad policy. “I’ve been the victim of a gun theft, and I didn’t realize it for several days,” Youngblood said. “I would have been in violation.”
The measure would require a license to sell a box of ammunition and a background check to purchase one. It also would create a new database. The proposal would allow authorities to confiscate magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, something Californians already are prohibited from buying, according to the Los Angeles Assistant District Attorneys Association, one of the law enforcement groups opposing the measure.
Six-time Olympic shooting medalist Kimberly Rhode is among the highest-profile opponents.
“Only bureaucrats would believe that criminals and terrorists would jump through these hoops to buy ammunition,” Rhode said in a written statement sent to members of the National Rifle Association, adding:
The enormous expense and time to enforce this proposition will fall on the taxpayers. Fact is, this proposal is nothing more than an anti-gun power grab: Newsom hasn’t gotten us to give up our guns, so he’s trying to take away our ammunition instead.
The measure seems likely to pass, as a California Counts poll of 959 voters in August found that 93 percent of Democrats and 60 percent of Republicans support the measure. While California Gov. Jerry Brown hasn’t weighed in on the matter, in 2013 the Democrat vetoed a bill that would have mandated the reporting of stolen guns. Brown said at the time:
I am not convinced that criminalizing the failure to report a lost or stolen firearm would improve identification of gun traffickers or help law enforcement disarm people prohibited from possessing guns. I continue to believe that responsible people report the loss or theft of a firearm and irresponsible people do not.
It’s wrong to make a criminal out of someone who may not even realize his or her gun is stolen or missing, said John Malcolm, director of The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. “This law could make criminals out of people who are morally blameless,” Malcolm told The Daily Signal. “These are special taxes and background checks on ammunition, just to make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. It’s an assault on the Second Amendment.”
Some opponents of the measure agree with a provision to make the stealing of a firearm from a misdemeanor to a felony. However, the Association of Deputy District Attorneys for Los Angeles County pointed out that Newsom previously supported Proposition 47, which made it a misdemeanor to steal a gun valued at less than $950. The measure would do nothing to deter crime, Michele Hanisee, the group’s president, said. “For one thing, this initiative would do nothing to stop criminals from acquiring ammunition, guns, or large-capacity magazines. But it would make it prohibitively difficult for responsible gun owners to obtain ammunition for sport and home defense,” Hanisee said, adding:
As prosecutors, we would enthusiastically support any proposed law that promised to be a realistic tool against gun violence. But Prop. 63 is simply bad public policy. Its passage would have zero effect on criminals—other than to encourage them to commit more crimes. At the same time, it would criminalize the conduct of ordinary citizens.
More bad news for America and it's people - Thank you Barack and his unscrupulous progressive democrat liberal hacks that brought us OgbjmaCare. What a great reason to vote for more of the same.
It seems many voters can't help themselves, they have to vote democrat even if it means self destruction. But what's worse, there are more of them that want destruction for themselves and their families then of us who have a grip on reality. We will all suffer the same fate as the brain dead democrats.
Post-Obamacare, These People Are Leaving Their Jobs Melissa Quinn /@MelissaQuinn97/
Following the public release of rates for health insurance plans under Obamacare for 2017, brokers from around the country began fielding calls from angry clients, many of whom were panicked about the rising cost of their health insurance. But separate from the worried voices of clients on the other end of the telephone, many brokers themselves are looking toward 2017 with anxiety as health insurers have slashed or eliminated the commissions that helped them make a living.
“It’s gotten more aggressive and competitive with those who are still left because everyone is fighting for survival,” Scott Leavitt, of Scott Leavitt Insurance & Financial Services in Boise, Idaho, and the former president of the National Association of Health Insurance Underwriters, told The Daily Signal. “The carriers are bleeding, agents are losing commissions, things are tougher than they’ve been before this,” he continued. “[Obamacare] did nothing to keep the cost of health care low.”
Brokers and agents play a crucial role in helping clients research and ultimately purchase a health insurance plan, and insurers have typically paid those brokers a commission—a set percentage per plan—when they enrolled a customer into their plans. But in the years since Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, the commissions those brokers received have continually lessened. Now, some insurers like Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City and Cigna will not offer commissions for 2017 exchange plans, a decision that has brokers scrambling to figure out new ways to help their clients but also make ends meet.
Aetna announced this month that it won’t be offering broker’s commission for 2017 in 14 states.
Others, like Humana, will pay a 3 percent commission to agents that help clients enroll on exchange plans. Coventry will not offer a commission for brokers in Kansas, but will for those selling plans off of the exchanges in Missouri.
A June report from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 49 percent of brokers surveyed said some insurers have stopped paying commission on all policies sold on Obamacare’s exchanges, and 17 percent said most or all insurers have ended their commissions. Leavitt said he estimates roughly one-third of agents have left the industry because they are struggling to make money post-Obamacare. “We’re being pushed out,” Leslie Kahle, a Kansas City, Kansas, broker and the vice president of the Kansas City Association of Health Underwriters, told The Daily Signal.
Cut in Half
Most brokers and agents that sell health insurance plans can point to the specific aspect of the Affordable Care Act that changed the industry: the medical loss ratio. Starting in 2011, insurers were required to meet minimum medical loss ratio standards, which mandated the portion of premiums that had to be allocated for medical benefits and administrative costs.
Before the Department of Health and Human Services finalized regulations for the medical loss ratio, brokers and agents urged the federal government to reclassify their commissions so they wouldn’t be included in the administrative portion of the medical loss ratio. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners also issued its own warning to the government and insurers, urging Congress and the Department of Health and Human Services to “preserve consumer access to insurance agents and brokers” by adjusting the medical loss ratio.
But their efforts were ultimately unsuccessful, and the Obama administration released its final regulation in December 2010, stating insurers had to allocate 80 percent of premiums for medical benefits and 20 percent for administrative costs, which included commissions. “Overnight, agents were making half of what they were making before,” Leavitt said. “I don’t think people realize what that one component did.”
Tom Morrill, head of Morrill Insurance Group in Kansas City, Missouri, said that in the months after the government’s regulations were finalized, brokers began receiving letters from large insurers—Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Humana, Coventry, and UnitedHealthcare—notifying them their commissions would change. Additionally, insurers interviewed by the Government Accountability Office said they were reducing commissions to respond to Obamacare’s medical loss ratio requirements, according to a July 2011 report issued by the nonpartisan agency. After insurers began slashing commissions, Morrill, who became a broker in 2004, said his business was cut in half, and his income dropped to $30,000 a year.
When he first started out, Morrill said commissions were around 20 percent of the price of a premium, which for him averaged $20 per plan. But over the years, they fell to 9 percent, then to 5 percent, and then to 3 percent. “People really thought insurance agents made $250,000 or more,” Morrill said. “No, agents only make $60,000, and my income was going to be cut in half.”
But it’s not only the medical loss ratio that’s hurt brokers and agents. Obamacare created navigator positions that were designed to help consumers shop for and enroll in coverage on the exchanges.
In 2016, the federal government awarded organizations in 34 states navigator grants to help people enroll.
Ed Haislmaier, a senior research fellow in health policy studies at The Heritage Foundation, said the navigators are “superfluous.” Haislmaier said the structure of commissions for brokers should’ve been altered so they’re paid per person regardless of the plan—and the value of that plan—selected.
“Pay the brokers, and pay them to be buyer’s agents, not seller’s agents,” he told The Daily Signal, “that way the incentives to do what’s best for the customer are there, yet the customer still benefits from the broker’s knowledge and expertise.”
Enroll America, an organization supportive of Obamacare, also agrees that it’s best for consumers if they have assistance in navigating the health insurance landscape, whether that’s in the form of brokers, navigators, or agents. In a September report, Enroll America said those with in-person assistance are more likely to successfully enroll in a plan. But Kahle, the broker in Kansas, said that the navigators have emerged as a competitor. “They’re taking away all my business,” she said.
A May study from the Kaiser Family Foundation, though, found that those who received help with enrolling in a health insurance plan turned to brokers more than they did the navigators. Fifteen percent of people surveyed who received assistance said they used a broker or an agent, compared to 8 percent who turned to navigators. Additionally, 34 percent of those people who switched plans from 2015 to 2016 used a broker or agent, compared to just 7 percent who used a navigator.
‘What Am I Getting Out of This?’
Unlike other insurance agents and brokers, Morrill was able to grow his business in the five years since his commissions were initially cut. Morrill joined networking groups in the Kansas City-area as a way to meet new potential clients, and he went from 150 to 350 clients. He also became involved in the National Association of Health Insurance Underwriters, an association for brokers and agents, and later was elected president of the organization’s local chapter. But 2017 presents a new challenge to Morrill, as many insurers are doing away with broker commissions outright.
He predicts his income is going to drop by 50 percent next year, and Morrill said he’ll be lucky if he takes home $35,000. Plus, he’s also experiencing the same problems as many of his clients regarding his own health insurance. Morrill’s plan with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City was canceled for 2017, and he said his only options are plans costing at least $560 per month and with deductibles of at least $5,500.
Morrill isn’t eligible for a subsidy, which means he’ll be paying full price for his coverage.
“In the past, I never cared about what I was getting paid,” Morrill said. “But now, when you have some [insurers] paying $0, you have to look and say, ‘What am I getting out of this?’”
To compensate for income lost because of slashed commissions, brokers and agents have two options, Morrill said: they can charge each client a flat “consulting” fee for enrollment assistance or they can continue to help clients for free. Morrill is leaning toward charging a fee, as is Kahle.
Kahle already notified her clients that they’ll have to pay $75, plus an additional hourly fee if they have issues that need mediation. But Kahle worries that some of her clients won’t be able to afford that fee, and she’s already had people offer to trade artwork and hair appointments for her services.
Leavitt, too, said has thought about charging a flat fee, but also worries that some may not be able to afford it.
Instead, he’s diversified his portfolio of products he sells to make money. “It’s been really tough,” Leavitt said. “A lot of people are now selling car and auto insurance investments, life insurance. A lot of 50- to 65-year-olds are changing careers or retiring early.”
The progressive socialist liberal, or even worse if that's possible and I believe it is, Mr Ogbjma has demonstrated that the abstention on the resolution by our UN ambassador, to condemn the Untied States' embargo on Cuba, his love for mass killers and tyrants of all kinds with his unabashedly demand for the terrorist Castro brothers and their communist agenda of enslavement to be set free of any restriction.
That Mr Ogbjma would so outwardly show his support for communist Cuba and other rogue communist countries like Venezuela, is his inner desire for absolute power to control and comply with his past life's history of obedience to a higher power.
It's about getting absolute power to control all outcomes.
Little wonder then as well he is on track with his religious jihad for transformation of American civil society to once and for all force the population of America to it's collective knees in reverence to the greater power that drives Mr Ogbjma to believe this is his destiny and legacy.
Mr Ogbjma is not one of us and never was. He is not from around here or anywhere else where the freedom to chose is the rule of law.
Here’s Why It’s Wrong That America Refused to Defend Its Embargo on Cuba at the UN Ana Quintana /@Ana_R_Quintana/ Brett Schaefer /
For the first time ever, the United States abstained from voting on a United Nations resolution condemning America’s embargo on Cuba. This breaks decades of bipartisan support for U.S. law on the international stage. It shows just how far the Obama administration is willing to take its misguided and ill-informed Cuba policy.
For the past quarter century, the Castro regime annually introduced a U.N. General Assembly resolution blaming America’s trade embargo for the island’s chronic economic and social problems and calling for the end of the embargo. Until Wednesday, the U.S. always has voted against the resolution, often standing virtually alone in defense of human rights and democracy for the Cuban people. President Barack Obama’s administration has abandoned this bipartisan position. Ben Rhodes, deputy national security Adviser, stated there was “no reason to defend a failed policy.”
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power celebrated the abstention by declaring the U.S. was closing the door on “50-plus years of pursuing isolation,” in favor of choosing the “path of engagement” in order to be better able to empower the Cuban people.
This is no cause for celebration. The U.S. embargo is not the source of the suffering of ordinary Cubans, but rather the Castro regime and its economically destructive policies. Over 190 countries do not observe the U.S. embargo and engage with Cuba economically and diplomatically, and yet there has been no positive change on the island.
If “engagement” with the rest of the world has not alleviated economic hardship or produced positive political change in Cuba, then the Obama administration and the international community must realize that it has been the policies of the Castro regime itself that have led to the deplorable conditions on the island.
The Obama administration made this exact argument as recently as 2014, when U.S. Ambassador Ronald D. Godard stated in explanation of America’s vote against the Cuba resolution:
The Cuban government uses this annual resolution in an attempt to shift blame for the island’s economic problems away from its own policy failures … the Cuban economy will not thrive until the Cuban government permits a free and fair labor market, fully empowers Cuban independent entrepreneurs, respects intellectual property rights, allows unfettered access to information via the internet, opens its state monopolies to private competition, and adopts the sound macroeconomic policies that have contributed to the success of Cuba’s neighbors in Latin America. …
The United States strongly supports the Cuban people’s desire to determine their own future, through the free flow of information to, from, and within Cuba. The right to receive and impart information and ideas through any media is set forth in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is the Cuban government’s policies that continue to prevent enjoyment of this right. …
This resolution only serves to distract from the real problems facing the Cuban people, and therefore my delegation will oppose it … We encourage this world body to support the desires of the Cuban people to choose their own future. By doing so, it would truly advance the principles the United Nations Charter was founded upon, and the purposes for which the United Nations was created.
Abruptly abandoning America’s principled position of championing the Cuban people against the repression of its government is a disgrace. Repealing the embargo, which is the aim of the U.N. resolution on which the U.S. abstained Wednesday, will do nothing but further empower the brutal Castro regime. It would also serve to diminish the leverage we would bring to any engagement we have with Cuba. The U.S. must recognize that it is the Castro regime that needs to change its policies first, not the other way around.
It is one thing for the Obama administration to pursue its reckless policy toward Cuba domestically, but quite another to fail to defend our nation against a U.N. resolution attacking America’s laws and established policy. It demonstrates a shocking disregard for its responsibility to loyally represent and defend our nation and its policies in international organizations.
Unfortunately, the potential for damage by the Obama administration in the U.N. is not limited to fecklessness on nonbinding Cuba resolutions in the General Assembly. The Palestinians are reportedly sounding out the Security Council in another attempt to secure full U.N. membership and demand a halt to Israeli settlements. Would anyone be surprised if the Obama administration changed its position on this as well?
When you hate the Jews, anything you want to do to cause them harm is okay. This is the message that is plain and direct from the progressives.
influence
Look what Mr Ogbjma is doing with Iran - he is assuring a nuclear war that could or will destroy Israel.
Mr Ogbjma doesn't even try to hide his disgust for the Jews, and for that matter, anyone else that doesn't fall under the influence of Iranian power.
Mr Ogbjma has no love for or worst, for the British as well. That's part of his up-bringing under the influence of his communist father's hate for the British influence in Algeria, and elsewhere, where the communists were seeking an advantage and native Algerians were seeking independence.
But I believe he has a special and intense dislike for Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu. Make no mistake, Mr Ogbjma finds the Jewish nation sinister. Maybe it's not entirely because they are Jews, but because they are a powerful nation dedicated to freedom and liberty which stands in direct opposition to the ultimately power that Iran and Mr Ogbjma invasions in the middle east.
It's clear to me Mr Ogbjma will leave no stone unturned to accomplish his goal of bringing total chaos to all middle eastern countries, and at the same time, doing his part to accommodate the Iranians surge for power by bringing America to it's collective knees through his personal agenda and ideology for transformational religious jihad to make sure America will not find a reason to become involved in any conflict as a result of Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Little wonder then why Mr Ogbjma has reduced military spending by more then 25% leaving our millenary smaller then it was back in 1941 just before the second world war. Mr Ogbjma promise of ''fundamental change'' to American civil society and national identity is neatly complete.
I wonder which one would be the most painful. But no matter which one we pick, they will be a pain the rear.
As many before me have stated, the choices that are presented for us to chose for our next leader of the free world is beyond the pale.
Never in our history have the choices been this bad, one is catastrophic to be exact, for the future of our nations and the entire western world of free nations.
But now, if we have to pick one, and we do, we can't just decide to stay home as it is our duty to vote for the best candidate among the three and that's Donald Trump.
He is the least dangerous of the three to sit behind the desk in the Oval Office.
Now Trump is not my guy in this election primary, my favorite lost out almost immediately, Bobby Jindal. I favored others as well but Jindal seemed to have the needed steadiness and religious faith to back up his intelligence and personal foundation to make the hard decision that will be required as Mr Ogbjma leaves office and the world in chaos.
The absolute disasters that Mr Ogbjma has created domestically and in foreign affairs will demand a very solid character makeup. The pressure will be immense from all sides for solutions. But given the three choices, Trump will have the best chance to make decision that will not be influenced easily by politicians that have personal agenda's that have nothing to do with saving our county but mostly with enriching themselves and the partiers they represent.
Enter Hillary Clinton. Okay, we really don't know who or what Donald Trump is or what he will actually do if he is elected, but suffice it to say, he isn't a criminal or has no known criminal intentions that can be identified as belonging to Trump. Where as the Clintons can be shown to have decades of a proven criminal history that have established the legacy of Hillary and Bill Clinton.
We don't know who Donald Trump is for the most part, but we sure know the Clintons and what they will being to the leadership of our country.
I don't mention Gary Johnson as he isn't a viable candidate, and if he was, his agenda of hiding America's light from that shining City on the hill is not an option for success in a world of chaos. It's easily to run but you cannot hide in today's world.
How is it that so many among us are mentally challenged enough to vote democrat even when the facts are presented clearly and multiple times.
Of course, much of the information this group of people receives, I can't refer to them as individuals as they exhibit little in the way of individual thought or actions, but are members of what is called a collective, which was the favored term used to identify members of the socialist party in the old Soviet Union.
Ever wonder why the right side of aisle is constantly fighting with each other over policy? It's because its the law of individual thought, they are dynamic, not stagnate or dead to the outside world where real people live.
The progressive liberal voters can't seem to understand how important it is to evaluate and then quantify that evaluation to what they believe against what is real and what is fantasy.
Unfortunately, progressive socialist liberal democrats cannot, not that they won't, but they cannot process any information that has not been first sanitized by their leaders. The ability to reason is not part of their DNA, their genetic make up demands they wait patiently for other to decide their fate.
But the question that remains is, are the voters aware they are about to find out just how dishonest, deceptive and delusionally immoral Mr Ogbjma and the progressive socialist liberal democrats really are?
Do stalwart democrat voters know or care that they have been duped again, yet again and again?
That these faithful voters have been lied to over and over again, for decades, and yet they line up to be duped once again.
What's wrong with this situation? How is it that so many are so easily lead into believing just about anything they hear from their preferred news sources and favored politicians, but find all other sources of information unreliable as truth tellers?
The basic reason I believe Mr Ogbjma is threatening to veto the Military NADD bill, he understands there can be only one god for the people, and that is the god of a centralized and all powerful government. To allow a Christian God to have the power to control peoples lives is unacceptable, and will stall his agenda for a religious jihad for fundamental transformation of America's civil society.
That the Russell Amendment will provide more legal support for religious affiliation in providing services to the needy is of no concern to Mr Ogbjma or his progressive liberal democrat supporters in congress. The veto threat is because he is uncomfortable with Christians.
That denying the most basic and natural human distinction of being a male or female, and that they are not different is ludicrous on the face of it. Yet Mr Ogbjma seeks to deny even this most basic feature of our existence, being male or female and the freedom to have separate and private identities.
This is about transformation. This about the destruction of America's civil society that is based on the Christian ethic of a God for all people and HIS guidance for our lives through HIS teachings. The success of the Western culture IS because of our Christian heritage that has served us well for the last 240 years.
For Mr Ogbjma, this is in total opposition to his religious jihad for a fundamental change of the Amerian society, and to make his point and his demand for obedience, he is more then willing to put our nation at risk to external forces with his veto.
Obama Threatens to Veto Military Bill Because It Protects Religious Groups Roger Severino / Melanie Israel /@Melanie_Lea/
Term limits is a great idea and has been floating around for decades, especially around election time, but the chances for common sense and logic to prevail in congress as Senator Perdue advocates for his term limits bill is next to none. As most new members of congress come into office, no matter what they say they will do to change things, it's mostly always the same result, once in the grip of power, none escape it's grip.
The power to control outcomes for most people to great once they have it in their hands. And given the benefits of having served only one year in congress reaps great reward for a free ride for retirement.
To change the landscape of Washington's power brokers would take more energy and commitment then I believe is available in Washington and among even the voters that claim this is what they want. The consequences of such an upheaval in the Washington power structure would be to revealing and will be fought by nearly all members congress now in power.
When Senator Perdue says his bill has bipartisan support begs the notion such support is at best just more Washington speak, words and more words but little or no action.
Washington Should Be More Concerned About the Next Generation Than the Next Election Sen. David Perdue / @sendavidperdue /
It’s no secret that Americans are fed up with Washington’s lack of results. Less than 20 percent of respondents in a recent Gallup survey said they trust the federal government to do its job.
You know what, they’re right.
Somebody has to be responsible for the mess in Washington. For too long, career politicians have focused more on advancing their own careers than helping the people they were elected to serve. The Washington bubble and an unending cycle of gridlock stand in the way of real results at a time when our country is facing both a national debt crisis and a global security crisis. Now, more than ever, we should usher in the return of the citizen legislator. It is finally time that we impose term limits on members of Congress.
Politicians should go to Washington, do their best, and then come home to live under the laws they’ve passed. It’s just that simple. Our Founding Fathers never imagined the rise of the career politician. They envisioned citizen legislators. Elected office was never meant to be a career, nor was it meant to be a vessel for the centralization and maintenance of federal power.
Yet right now, 60 members of the U.S. Senate have held elected office for more than 20 years and 36 have held office for more than 30 years.
The broken seniority system in Congress rewards years in power, not results produced. Because of that, Washington has no sense of urgency or focus on results. Too little is being done to deal with our national debt, restore our standing in the world, and roll back the regulations crippling our free enterprise system.
When I ran for the U.S. Senate in 2014, I promised Georgians I would fight to pass term limits for members of Congress. Immediately after being sworn in last year, I co-sponsored a constitutional amendment doing just that: two six-year terms in the Senate and six two-year terms in the House. I personally have pledged to serve no more than two terms in the U.S. Senate.
Imagine citizen legislators coming to Washington—from all walks of life—fighting for the priorities that truly represent the interests of folks back home. They would bring fresh ideas and a new sense of urgency to finally begin to deal with the crises jeopardizing our country’s future. Citizen legislators could work outside the political establishment to bring a fresh perspective to how burdensome government policies negatively affect people’s everyday lives.
They could apply their practical experience to solving our nation’s toughest problems, and because they would only serve a short time, citizen legislators could approach solving problems with a sense of urgency instead of kicking the can down the road for the sake of political security.
Support for term limits is bipartisan. Another Gallup survey showed that 75 percent of voters—Republicans and Democrats alike—back legislation limiting the time people can serve at the highest levels of government. Given the polarizing climate crippling Washington today, there is something to be said about an idea that overwhelmingly unites both parties.
Enacting term limits will be an uphill battle because those currently in power thrive on the status quo. There is growing support in Congress, however, for term limits and many members on both sides are committed to going forward, no matter how long it takes. Career politicians created this moment of crisis America faces today. They aren’t the ones who are going to solve it.
Term limits will help break this vicious cycle of gridlock that is stopping Congress from getting things done. It’s time to finally make sure Washington is more concerned about the next generation than the next election.
When a federal judge questions reasons for decisions being made by a federal agency, it's a signal that something is wrong. And in the light of Mr Ogbjma's past history of allowing refugees from war torn areas of the world like Syria into this country in mass numbers without back ground checks explains a lot about the judges reasoning.
It makes no sense to allow potential terrorists into our country simply because our magnificent leader deems it proper and necessary to show the world we are doing are part. And when in the light of Mr Ogbjma's history of statements concerning Christians and their history as he highlighted at a past Prayer Breakfast , and how Mr Ogbjma treated the Israeli leader when he was at the White House, little is left to understand why Muslims are getting a free ride into our country.
And in the face Mr Ogbjma's Iranian nuclear deal that will bring catastrophic war between the Persians of Iran and Jews of Israel, one has to know and understand, there is no love lost for Christians or Jews in the heart of Mr Ogbjma.
It's clear enough from Mr Ogbjma's his historical past to know he has an agenda and an ideology that requires him to act as he does and has. This is what a religious jihad looks like.
Federal Judge Asks Why Obama Administration Isn’t Admitting Christian Syrian Refugees Hans von Spakovsky /@HvonSpakovsky/
In an otherwise unremarkable opinion over the federal Freedom of Information Act, a federal appellate court judge has issued a sharp rejoinder to the Obama administration over an issue that has been discussed in the news—the almost complete lack of Syrian Christian refugees being brought over to the U.S.
The Heartland Alliance’s National Immigrant Justice Center, a progressive liberal advocacy organization “dedicated to ensuring human rights protections” for immigrants and asylum seekers—including apparently terrorists—filed a FOIA lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security.
The lawsuit claimed that DHS was refusing to release the identity of Tier III terrorist organizations, unlike the identities of what are defined as Tier I and Tier II terrorist groups that are publicly identified. Tier III terrorist organizations “tend to be groups about which the U.S. government does not have good intelligence, making it essential that [DHS] be able to obtain information about them during screening interviews that are as focused and complete as possible.”
The government argued that Tier III terrorist organizations are exempt from disclosure under FOIA because it would disclose “techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations.”
Individuals in Tier III groups are more likely than other asylum seekers “to commit violent or otherwise unlawful acts.” The court accepted the government’s assertion that if immigrants become aware of the identity of these Tier III organizations, which the Heartland Alliance made clear it intended to publicize, then members of the groups would “have a very strong incentive to falsify or misrepresent ” their “encounters, activities, or associations” with the terrorist groups.
If the immigrants don’t know a terrorist organization they have been associated with has been identified by the government, they are “likely to be less guarded in answering questions about [their] activities or associations with the organization.” All three members of the panel agreed that the FOIA exemption applied, particularly because the Heartland Alliance could not “explain what the government would gain by pretending that harmless organizations are actually terrorist groups.”
The Heartland Alliance also made it clear that “its goal in the litigation” was to “discredit” the government’s classification of terrorist organizations, according to the court. Both “the tone and content” of its briefs “signals its disbelief that the government has secrets worth keeping from asylum seekers and their helpers.” However, in a spirited concurrence written by Judge Daniel Manion, the judge expressed his “concern about the apparent lack of Syrian Christians as a part of immigrants from that country.”
According to Manion, it is “well-documented” that the refugees are not representative of that “war-torn area of the world.” Ten percent of the Syrian population is Christian and “yet less than one-half of 1 percent of Syrian refugees admitted to the United States this year are Christian.”
President Barack Obama set a goal of resettling 10,000 Syrian refugees in the U.S., and by August that goal had already been exceeded. But of the “nearly 11,000 refugees admitted by mid-September, only 56 were Christian.” Yet Christian Syrians have been one of the primary targets of the Islamic jihadists infesting Syria and butchering, murdering, and killing civilians. The Islamic State has made it clear that it is going after Christians because it intends to “conquer Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women.”
Thus, one would expect that Christian Syrians would represent a significant portion of the Syrians being accepted into the U.S. as refugees. But that hasn’t been the case, and, according to Manion, the Obama administration has no “good explanation for this perplexing discrepancy.” Thus, we “remain in the dark as a humanitarian catastrophe continues.”
This is also relevant to the complaints of various states about the Obama administration settling Syrian refugees in them without providing any information about the people arriving. As Manion points out, “the good people of this country routinely welcome immigrants from all over the world. But in a democracy, good data is critical to public debate about national immigration policy.”
The courts and the Obama administration “demand high evidentiary burdens for states seeking to keep their citizens safe, and then prevent the states from obtaining that evidence” on these refugees. That creates a catch-22 for state governments.
So while the administration brings Syrian refugees into the country by the thousands, it is concealing basic information about those refugees behind a wall of government secrecy. This, despite the fact that the Syrian refugee crisis has been the catalyst for the infiltration of terrorists into Western Europe. Yet the administration refuses to tell the American public or the states how it is making its decisions on who it is accepting for resettlement in the U.S., or even what steps it is taking to ensure we don’t have the same infiltration here.
Or why, in a religious civil war where Christians are one of the main targets of the Islamic terrorists engaging in indiscriminate slaughter, it is bringing in almost none of those victims of one of the worst human rights atrocities of the new century.
What Mr Ogbjma is doing with the 'reinsurance payments' with taxpayer monies to make up for the loses of OgbjmaCare, is nothing more the a money laundry operation much like the solar industry, and the bail out of the big banks wasn't just to save the banks. Mr Ogbjma give the bailouts to the insurance company to make up for their losses because of bad decisions to actually believe Mr Ogbjma was telling the truth that he would take care of them.
But does any of this matter to taxpayers, of course it does, especially now as premiums are going through the roof and families will be hard pressed to find the money. And what is the response form the Ogbjma administration, 'nothing to see here, all is well. Pay no attention to the guys behind the curtain pulling the levers'.
Mr Ogbjma and the progressive liberal democrats stealing the taxpayers blind.
In Desperate Push to Save Dying Obamacare, President Wants to Bail Out Insurers William Wolfe /@WilliamWolfe11/
Oh wait - isn't it the progressive socialist liberal democrats that on a daily basses scream about how those horrible fossil fuel companies are destroying the earth with their CO2 emissions, and killing the Polar bears by melting the polar ice caps??? But they are unaware of dumping sewage in to a storm drain????
Maybe it's because they didn't give a dam - after all they are are damocrats and above the law and having to take sewerage to a proper dumping place is for the small people, not for the brightest and smartest. But follow the law, nonsense.
And will anyone go to jail, not a chance . Remember how many EPA people went to jail for damaging a sluice berm, dumping 2 million gallons of toxic mine waste into the Colorado river and to this day nothing has been done to clean up that mess. And why not, they are democrats that are responsible!!!
Now that the police chief is turning over the incident, local, state and federal crime to the EPA, one can rest assured, it will all go away. And who runs the EPA, why of course, progressive socialist liberal democrats!!!!!
DNC’s ‘Honest Mistake’ Defense of Dumping Sewage Hasn’t Worked for Average Americans John-Michael Seibler /@JSeibler/
Dumping raw sewage into a storm drain is a federal crime that has landed some unaware Americans in prison. Someone aboard a bus chartered by the Democratic National Committee, which depicted the Democratic presidential and vice presidential candidates, reportedly dumped sewage into a storm drain in Lawrenceville, Georgia.
A DNC spokesperson described the sewage dump as “an honest mistake,” but it is actually a crime, and individuals have been criminally prosecuted for similar “honest mistakes” in the past. This incident presents a familiar problem (one raised by the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2015 Animas River spill), that the government must choose: either stop prosecuting ordinary citizens for “criminal negligence” or enforce the same laws against more powerful or well-known parties.
At around 9:30 a.m., a man reported seeing someone get out of a DNC-chartered bus “and dump ‘it’s sewage into the storm drain.’”
Crime
The witness told Fox 5, “You don’t pull up and dump raw sewage on the street and in the storm drain. You just don’t do that.” In fact, if you do, it is a crime. Police Capt. Jeff Smith told Fox 5, “There is a city violation for dumping materials into the storm drain system, obviously this feeds into streams.” The Lawrenceville ordinance prohibits dumping pollutants into the storm sewer system.
These discharges, according to city officials, “impact waterways individually” and “can have cumulative impacts on receiving waters. The impacts of these discharges adversely affect public health and safety, drinking water supplies, recreation, fish and other aquatic life, property values, and other uses of lands and waters.”
Unsurprisingly, the discharge from the DNC bus may also be a federal crime, depending on where that particular drain leads. Just ask Lawrence Lewis.
Prosecution Lawrence Lewis escaped the projects of the District of Columbia, whereas his three older brothers were caught up in our criminal justice system and eventually murdered. Lewis worked for the District school system as a janitor while taking night classes, eventually becoming chief engineer for the Knollwood military retirement center. He was also a caretaker for his elderly mother and a role model for his two daughters.
Unfortunately for Lewis, the retirement home had recurring problems with sewage backup. After one backup, trying to protect the home’s patients from harm, Lewis did what his predecessors had often done and rerouted backed-up sewage into a storm drain. Lewis believed that the storm drain flowed into city sewage treatment facilities, but unbeknownst to him, the storm drain runs into Rock Creek, which flows into the Potomac River.
The Clean Water Act makes it a federal crime to negligently discharge sewage without a permit into “waters of the United States,” including Rock Creek and the Potomac River. Lewis avoided a felony conviction and a long-term jail sentence by pleading guilty to a misdemeanor, for which he was sentenced to one year of probation.
The Democratic National Committee says that dumping sewage into a storm drain “was an honest mistake and we apologize … We were unaware of any possible violations.”
‘Honest Mistake’
Now, the DNC seeks to use an “honest mistake” defense that was unavailable to Lewis, because it is not a recognized defense under the Clean Water Act. It did not work for Edward Hanousek either, who was also criminally prosecuted under the Clean Water Act for negligent discharge without a permit after employees he supervised accidentally spilled 1,000 to 5,000 gallons of oil into Alaska’s Skagway River.
Hanousek was off-duty and at home when the accidental spill occurred. Nonetheless, a district court “sentenced him to six months in prison, another six months in a halfway house, another six months on supervised release, and imposed a $5,000 fine.”
The man who reportedly saw someone dump waste into a Lawrenceville storm drain said, “It’s wrong, it’s absolutely wrong. I don’t care whose name is on the bus.” But as Lewis, Hanousek, and many others know, it is also a federal crime, regardless of who is responsible for the discharge.
Federal courts have held—as the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in West Virginia Highlands Conservancy v. Huffman (2010)—that the provisions of the Clean Water Act “apply to anyone who discharges pollutants into the waters of the United States,” including the folks on the DNC-chartered bus.
As Heritage Foundation scholars have argued elsewhere, “the government should be put to a choice: either abandon criminal liability based on negligence,” or bring charges against powerful parties “at the scene and up through the responsible chain of command. Sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander.”
Already, however, The Washington Post reports that “Lawrenceville police told Fox 5 that they are not filing charges, but opted to hand over the investigation to the state’s Environmental Protection Agency.”
For the progressive socialist liberal democrats to gain power is to follow their basic instincts and use their motto that has work for them in decades past, get and keep power 'by any means necessary'. There are no limits. There are no restrictions.
Hillary is proof enough of how well this motto works for progressive democrats.
But this attack on religion in Georgia is not the first as the mayor of a large Texas city, a progressive liberal democrat and a Lesbian, demanded pastors turn over the sermons to her to scrutinize them for their content.
The fact that she didn't care what the public thought about her actions and that is was unconstitutional was of no concern. It's just who they are. Lawless, unscrupulous, unethical and immoral.
The Reason This Pastor Isn’t Handing Over His Sermon Transcripts to the Government Leah Jessen /@_LeahKay_/
A public health official who also is a lay minister says he will not turn over his sermons and related documents to the state of Georgia, which he contends fired him for what he preached from the pulpit of his church. “My faith has fueled me,” Dr. Eric Walsh, who served as an associate pastor and still preaches, said at a press conference Wednesday at the Georgia State Capitol in Atlanta. “I want to be able to protect the faith of others, so I really have no intention of turning over the sermons.”
Walsh, 45, accepted a job as district health director with Georgia’s Department of Public Health in May 2014. He expected to start work around the middle of June, according to his lawyers at First Liberty Institute. But a week later, officials with the health agency requested copies of sermons Walsh had preached before congregations of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
After reviewing the contents of the sermons, the agency fired Walsh, according to First Liberty, a legal organization that defends religious freedom. Walsh’s sermon topics include compassion for the poor, health, marriage, sexuality, world religions, science, and creationism, his lawyers say. In 2014, the Los Angeles Times noted a controversy over his sermons on homosexuality and evolution.
The ‘Chilling’ Reason This Doctor Says Georgia Fired Him
Walsh previously served as director of the Public Health Department in Pasadena, California, for four years. He has a medical degree and a doctorate of public health and is a former member of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS. As The Daily Signal previously reported, Georgia Department of Public Health spokeswoman Nancy Nydam said Walsh’s religious beliefs “had nothing to do with the decision to withdraw the [job] offer.” In an email to The Daily Signal, Nydam wrote:
During the background check process, DPH learned Dr. Walsh failed to disclose outside employment to his previous public health employer, which also was in violation of California law. Due to violation of both California state law and DPH policy, the offer to Dr. Walsh was rescinded. During his interview, Dr. Walsh disclosed his religious beliefs to DPH staff and indicated that he preached at his church in California. Dr. Walsh’s religious beliefs had nothing to do with the decision to withdraw the offer.
Walsh has said the situation was “devastating.” “It has been and would be very difficult for me to work in public health based on the things that have transpired,” Walsh told The Daily Signal in a phone call Wednesday before his press conference.
On behalf of Walsh, First Liberty Institute and the Atlanta law firm of Parks, Chesin & Walbert sued the Georgia Department of Public Health in April for religious discrimination. “What’s really shocking right now is the state of Georgia is requiring this pastor to turn over his sermon notes and transcripts,” Jeremy Dys, senior counsel for First Liberty Institute and counsel for Walsh, told The Daily Signal. “There’s no subject limitation. There’s no time limitations … every sermon he’s produced since he was about 18 would have to be turned over to the state of Georgia.”
In late September, the state of Georgia requested as part of the legal case that Walsh hand over copies of his sermon notes and transcripts, along with other documents related to his ministerial training, service as a pastor, and publication or postings of his sermons online.
“This is an incredible intrusion upon the sanctity of the pulpit.” —@jeremydys
“Any document that has a note or a transcript having to do with his sermons are required to be produced,” Dys told The Daily Signal. “That means that the notes he writes in the margins of his Bible—the Bible has to be produced now. Anything he’s written on his computer has to be turned over. … This is an incredible intrusion upon the sanctity of the pulpit.”
Walsh’s lawyer added:
I think every pastor, every rabbi, every church leader in the state of Georgia should be very concerned when their government is refusing to pass laws that would protect their religious liberty and now ransacking the pastor’s study to try to find information and evidence that they can use to justify their illegal behavior in firing Dr. Walsh. That’s wrong. It’s illegal.
A spokeswoman for the Georgia Department of Public Health told The Daily Signal Wednesday the agency does not comment on pending litigation.
In a press release, Dys said it was “clear” the Georgia agency “fired Dr. Walsh over his religious beliefs, which is blatant religious discrimination.” Also Wednesday, the Family Research Council, a Christian policy organization based in Washington, called on Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal, a Republican, to “correct this egregious overreach of the state into church affairs.” “This is something that I would have expected to see in a communist country, not America,” Tony Perkins, president of the council and an ordained pastor, said in a written statement. “The pulpit is to be governed only by the word of God. Government scrutiny of speech in the pulpit is unconstitutional, and unconscionable.”
Okay - take a break from the bull crap of politics and the riggers of making a living, and even if you aren't a dog lover, this one will bring a smile on your face.
And for those of us that understand the progressive jihad for solidifying their voter base, this will have special significance.
Want to see the face of the true progressive democrat party member that will scare you even if it isn't Halloween?
Halloween is here for real - this one doesn't go away - Hillary has her riding double on her broom stick.
Children will run screaking in fear to hide behind their dads, who in turn will being shaking in fear as they well know the evil in that mask is for real.
Just the thought of an unbalanced Supreme Court in favor of the progressive socialist liberal democrats should be enough to scare real people to not vote for democrats in November. Voting for a democrat will mean the court will be changed from a institution mandated to decide the Constitutionally basis of laws to a compliant and obedient arm of the progressive liberal democrat collective.After reading this article and what Mr Thomas has gone through to get where he is and what it means to have such a clear thinking and Constitutional judge like Clarence Thomas on this court, little is left to understand how important it is to have a judge that believes our Constitution is actually the basis for our success as a nation.The forces that are currently attempting to destroy the very foundation for law and order in our country, including four judges that are currently sitting on this court, to allow a fifty jurist to take the court into generations long progressive decline can be seen as a dereliction of duty for the American citizen voter.The country will be forever changed, transformed as Mr Ogbjma's religious jihad promised to ''fundamentally change America''.
17 Things on Clarence Thomas’ Mind During Rare Public Remarks Ken McIntyre /@KenMac55/
It is important for the Supreme Court not only to base its decisions on the Constitution but to issue opinions that address the questions of everyday Americans, a relaxed Clarence Thomas said Wednesday night as an honored guest speaker at The Heritage Foundation.
In a deep, resonant voice, Thomas talked early in the hour long program about the wisdom of writing opinions in plain language, of making the Constitution “accessible.” “I think we hide it from them when we write in language that is inaccessible,” Thomas said. “We owe it to people to present to them their Constitution in a way they can understand it, to enfranchise them.” Supreme Court justices, he said, are “obligated to work with” what is in the Constitution, and owe Americans a clear explanation of their decisions based on it.
Sunday marked the 25th anniversary of Thomas’ swearing-in.
Thomas, who drew an early laugh by saying he is “not a navel-gazer,” is the ninth eminent jurist to be asked to deliver the think tank’s Joseph Story Distinguished Lecture, and the first to do so in a conversational format rather than in formal remarks.
The annual lecture is named for Story, the celebrated advocate of judicial restraint who served 33 years on the Supreme Court following his appointment by President James Madison. Thomas, 68, spoke casually as he answered questions posed by John Malcolm, director of Heritage’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and the Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson senior legal fellow. The two men sat on a stage before an audience of 200 guests, including about 30 of Thomas’ former law clerks, in the think tank’s Allison Auditorium.
Recalling his long association with Justice Antonin Scalia, the fellow staunch conservative and “originalist” justice who died unexpectedly in February, Thomas characterized him as “pretty aggressive on the Fourth Amendment.” In one opinion, he said, Scalia referred to Thomas’ own view as “a liberty-destroying cocktail.” At a later meal, he said, Scalia hesitated over what alcoholic beverage to order. Thomas broke up his friend by suggesting he have “a liberty-destroying cocktail.”
Meese, the former U.S. attorney general and Heritage’s Ronald Reagan distinguished fellow emeritus, introduced Thomas in his role as host.
The previous leader of the legal center at Heritage that bears his name, Meese hailed Thomas as “one of the clearest writers we have ever had on the Supreme Court.” Thomas returned the compliment, referring to Meese’s grace under pressure as counsellor to Reagan and, later, as attorney general.
Thomas, the second black justice to sit on the court, laughed heartily at times. Once was while retelling the story of being approached—during one of his annual trips to Gettysburg with law clerks—by a man who asked him to sign one of his opinions.
Agreeing that the Civil War was a pivotal point in American history, he quipped to Malcolm, who is white: “If Lee had won, that would have been a problem. It would have been a problem more for me than you.” Here are some of Thomas’ other observations and one-liners during the conversation, the entirety of which may be found on the accompanying video:
1) On any particular decisions that he recalls with pride: “I don’t think about them when I’m done.” 2) On the process of writing opinions in cases: “The ones where I’m not sure are probably the ones I agonize over the most. … You [also] agonize over it if it’s a technical opinion.” 3) On trying to get other justices to see it his way: “I really don’t spend a lot of time on that. … You don’t change your underlying view or underlying principle. … When I write separately, I try to be thoughtful.” 4) On his friendship with Scalia: “I didn’t go to the Kennedy Center to see operas with him. I told him I like opera, I just don’t want to be around the people who like opera.” 5) On his refusal to go hunting with Scalia: “No good comes of being in the woods.” 6) On their working relationship: “We trusted each other. … We almost never talked about cases before we’d vote. It was very rare.” 7) On improving the judicial confirmation process: “There’s always hope, but this city is broken in some ways. I’ve been here most of my life now, and I think we’ve become very comfortable with not thinking things through and debating them”—and instead trying to “annihilate” the other side.
“We’re destroying our institutions, and we’re undermining them,” he added. 8) On the loss of public confidence in the presidency, Congress, and even the Supreme Court because of politics: “What have we done to gain their confidence? I don’t think people owe us, reflexively, confidence. … You simply try to live up to the oath you took … to show fidelity to the Constitution.” 9) On his belief that the Declaration of Independence informs the Constitution and helps explain it: The concept of ordered liberty, he said, “starts in the declaration.” 10) On his tendency not to be intimidated by “stare decisis,” the legal principle of upholding precedent: “Like that is supposed to stop you, like the boogeyman or something.” He added, to applause: “I think the Constitution is the ultimate stare decisis.” 11) On the criticism he attracts for this approach: “Stare decisis I care about, criticism I don’t.” 12) On whether the court should hear more than 75 or so cases a year, down from about 150 in the 1970s: “I think about 100 or 110 would be good. … But I don’t see any prospects, with our discretionary jurisdiction, that that’s going to come any time soon.” 13) On Obamacare, just in passing and prompting laughter: “The Affordable Care Act seems like something of a misnomer, given what’s been going on.” 14) On the importance of the court’s duty to provide administrative review of the actions of government agencies: “When we don’t review things, we abdicate our responsibility. As a constitutional matter, we are obligated to be more exacting in our review.” 15) On whether he reads every amicus brief: “No.” He added that he does read “credible ones,” whether from “the ACLU” or federal or state government—but not necessarily one from, say, “Law Professors for a Better World, that sort of just one-off kind of group.”
He did recall one brief, from “Electrical Engineers Supporting Neither Party” that he said explained “the grid” to the justices in a way the parties to the case failed to do.
“If you can look at that [brief] and say this is an honest broker … you’ll read their next brief.” 16) On seeing the nation with his wife, Ginni, in their RV:
“This, first of all, is a wonderful country and we fly over most of it. … [Travel by RV] has shown me a part of the country you wouldn’t normally see.” 17) On whether many Americans recognize him in these travels: “Most people don’t care.”
Thomas’ predecessors as Story lecturers include fellow Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, law professor John Harrison, and six other judges: Robert H. Bork, A. Raymond Randolph, Alice M. Batchelder, Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, Janice Rogers Brown, and Carlos T. Bea.
The Heritage event’s namesake, from Massachusetts, was the youngest justice to be named to the Supreme Court and is remembered by legal scholars for his authoritative “Commentaries on the Constitution.”
Meese presented Thomas with Heritage’s Defender of the Constitution Award as well as with an extra copy of “Commentaries,” which he suggested Thomas could use while on the road in the RV.
“Do you mind if I share it with my colleagues?” Thomas deadpanned, to laughter and applause. >>> 25 Years Later, a Friend Hails an American Originalist
I'm an American citizen and I love this country that has given me everything. I believe that America is the last hope in this world for Democracy and Freedom. She must be defended at all costs!
