democrats Fear The Law As Written : Supreme Court Conservative Nominees

Planning the destruction of America as founded. Fear of
becoming irrelevant over comes sanity.

The overpowering fear of become totally irrelevant without a socialsit denominated Supreme Court to legislate their agenda and ideology when they fail to win elections, is driving the Porgressive socialsit liberal left democrats in revealing themselves as being totally incompetent, lawless and dangerously mentally delusional, depraved and insane.

Liberals’ Misleading Spin on Senate Republicans’ 2016 Supreme Court Confirmation Approach

Thomas Jipping / June 29, 2018

Recent remarks by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., show the script that the left will be using to oppose President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee to fill the vacancy from the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy.

The most prominent point so far is that the Senate should wait until after the 2018 election to consider Trump’s nominee. Echoing Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., Feinstein, speaking in the Senate Judiciary Committee’s June 28 business meeting, said following the traditional confirmation pattern would be hypocritical.

Ranking member Feinstein, echoed by Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., claimed—as every Democrat and their left-wing allies will certainly do—Republicans set a “new standard” in 2016 that the Senate should never consider any Supreme Court nominee in any election year.

If Republicans had taken that position in 2016, it certainly would have been new and Democrats might well benefit from it today. But that standard has never existed: not before, not during, and not after 2016.

The Constitution gives the power to nominate and, subject to the Senate’s “Advice and Consent,” the power to appoint judges. The Senate’s role begins with deciding the best way to handle a particular nomination.

In 2016, Republicans put their position on this question in writing. In a letter dated Feb. 23, 2016, the Judiciary Committee majority members wrote that the “Presidential election is well underway. Americans have already begun to cast their votes.” They concluded that, “given the particular circumstances under which this vacancy arises … this Committee will not hold hearings on any Supreme Court nominee until after our next President is sworn in on Jan. 20, 2017.”

Two things stand out from this letter. First, it acknowledges that the Constitution gives the power to nominate and appoint judges to the president, not to the Senate. The Senate is a check on the president’s appointment power, but does not have separate or independent power of its own to pick judges. That’s the obvious reason why the presidential election was relevant in 2016, but the mid-term election is irrelevant today.

The second important feature of the Republicans’ letter is their emphasis on the “particular circumstances” that the Senate faced in 2016. Supreme Court vacancies occur under different circumstances, and the Senate has handled them in at least a dozen different ways over the years.

In addition to the presidential campaign in which the American people were already voting, the Senate in 2016 was following the earlier counsel of then-Vice President Joe Biden when he chaired the Judiciary Committee. On June 25, 1992, in the middle of a presidential campaign in which the American people had already started voting, Biden said that, if a Supreme Court vacancy occurred, the “Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

None of those circumstances exist today.

While the vacancy after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia occurred in a most irregular way, the Kennedy vacancy occurs at the most regular time: the conclusion of the Supreme Court’s term. The appointments of Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg all followed this pattern. It took the Senate an average of 69 days to evaluate and confirm the justices appointed in the last four decades.

In the same Judiciary Committee meeting, Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., claimed that in 2016, the Senate took away “the constitutional power of a president of the United States … . We stripped it away and did not allow him to appoint somebody.”

The Constitution says otherwise: the president “shall have power … with the Advice and Consent of the Senate [to] appoint.” The president’s power is to appoint those of his nominees who have received the consent of the Senate. He has no power to appoint nominees who have not received the consent of the Senate.

Nominees fail to receive the consent of the Senate in various ways. In 1968, the Democratic Senate voted against ending debate on President Lyndon Johnson’s nomination of Abe Fortas to be chief justice of the Supreme Court. Johnson promptly withdrew the nomination.

Under the Booker theory then, Democrats first took away a Democratic president’s power to appoint and then that president relinquished that power himself.

In 1992, then-Chairman Biden refused to hold a hearing for more than 50 of President George H.W. Bush’s judicial nominees. The New York Times reported that he did this “to preserve the vacancies for Gov. Bill Clinton to fill if he is elected president.” Under the Booker theory, the Senate took away Bush’s constitutional power to appoint.

According to the Congressional Research service, five Supreme Court nominations were postponed or tabled by the Senate and never confirmed. In 1969, 1970, and 1987, the Senate defeated the Supreme Court nominations of, respectively, Clement Haynsworth, G. Harrold Carswell, and Robert Bork.

No fewer than 19 presidents—starting with George Washington—saw one or more of their Supreme Court nominations fail. American history, it seems, is full of power-stripping.

Or perhaps, the president does not have a power, all by himself, to appoint anyone he wants.

That’s certainly what the Constitution says. In 2016, President Barack Obama nominated someone he knew would not be considered. Had the Senate given its consent, Obama would then have appointed his nominee. In the process of filling the Scalia vacancy, both the president and the Senate in 2016 fully exercised every power granted to them by the Constitution.

The “standard” that Feinstein, Klobuchar, Booker, and other Democrats want to follow this year would serve their interest in opposing a Trump nominee. But that standard—that the Senate should never confirm any Supreme Court nominee in any election year—is the new one and they made it up.

Canadian High Court Rules Against Freedom : Christianity Is Wrong And Bad.

At what point does reality interfere in a civil society that depends on individual freedom to exist and function to make that society better? Each generation learns from the previous one, but when the powers that control all outcomes and what each generation is allowed to know, begs, or should beg confrontation in that society.

Apparently Canadian society hasn't become sufficiently restricted to bring such government oversight into the light of day, and the people become players instead of pawns to bring the changes needed for true freedom of thought.

Canadian Supreme Court Approves Discrimination Against Those Who Attended Christian College

Brett Harvey / June 21, 2018

This September, I am sending my son from the Arizona desert to the rolling green hills and snowcapped mountains of the Pacific Northwest in Langley, British Columbia, to attend Trinity Western University.

It’s the same university that was just informed by the Supreme Court of Canada that the government may deny a license to its law school graduates because the school holds Christian values.

My son was drawn to Trinity Western because of its reputation for academic excellence, a degree program focused on his field of study, and his desire to be part of an authentic community. But he also wanted to attend a school that was Christian in more than name only, as is the case with so many top private universities in the United States. He wanted to study and grow with people who take their faith seriously and won’t wilt when criticized.

My son is not alone. Even the justices on Canada’s highest court recognize that “members of the [Trinity Western] community sincerely believe that studying in an environment defined by religious beliefs in which members follow particular religious rules of conduct contributes to their spiritual development.”

Trinity Western is an authentic community that embraces a true understanding of diversity and tolerance. While the school expects all students to abide by the code of conduct informed by the standards that define the community, it encourages and accepts students from diverse backgrounds and perspectives.

The high court acknowledged this, noting, “students may, and in fact do, hold and express diverse opinions on moral, ethical, and religious issues and are encouraged to debate different viewpoints inside and outside the classroom.” That is the definition of true tolerance.

Trinity Western is a premier academic institution that draws students from around the world. In 2013, the Federation of Law Societies of Canada confirmed that the school curriculum met the national academic and ethical requirements to produce quality lawyers, and its record of producing top graduates who serve everyone with integrity and professionalism is not in question.

So why did Trinity Western lose in court?

Because asking all students to agree to abide by a code of conduct that limits sexual intimacy to acts between a man and a woman bound in marriage was deemed inconsistent with the court’s sense of “equality.”

The unquestioned competency and integrity of Trinity Western graduates was immaterial in the eyes of the court, which ruled that someone can be denied access to a profession simply because they attended a school that held conservative religious beliefs on marriage.

This decision exposes a stark contrast between the protections contained in the U.S. Constitution, which limits the authority of the government, and those of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which effectively provides only guidelines for Canada’s governing authorities.

The U.S. Constitution ensures that the government may not infringe the inalienable rights identified in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Bill of Rights. When the government violates constitutionally protected freedoms, that action is presumed improper unless the government can meet an exacting standard. That is why, in the U.S., religious universities can establish their own codes of conduct and still participate in society.

But as the Canadian court explained in its decision, “Charter values [equality, human rights, and democracy] have been recognized as an important tool in judicial decision making.” And when an administrative decision, such as denying a license to Trinity Western law students, impacts the “rights and values” contained in the charter, there must be a “proportionate balancing” of charter protections—and the impact on those protections “must be proportionate in light of the statutory objectives.”

That’s legal jargon that essentially means state actors are only obligated to protect the rights guaranteed by the charter—like religious freedom—to the extent they don’t interfere with their own interpretation of certain “values,” like equality, and the intent of lawmakers.

So rather than the charter securing actual “rights,” it’s more like a list of ideals that can be limited or ignored when judges dislike them or find them politically inconvenient.

Using the values of judges and the intent of lawmakers to justify limiting fundamental rights is a convenient recipe for subjecting citizens to the whims of the ruling class. Privileging the desires of the politically powerful can quickly lead to authoritarian rule, severely curbing the freedoms that belong to the people.

In the case of Trinity Western, the demand for “equality”—as conceived by government elites—has been used to justify excluding those who seek a conservative Christian education from participating in the legal profession.

So it is with trepidation that I send my son to study in a community that holds to commitments and values at odds with the demands of Canada’s authoritarian elite. But I am proud to see my son display the courage to follow his own path.

Yet I can’t help but wonder: What other professions in Canada will soon be off-limits to those who hold conservative religious values?

Exclusion from professions and denial of social opportunities are just some of the consequences of allowing freedom to slip away. We ignore decisions like the Trinity Western ruling at our peril.

Judicial Nominees Stalled : Corrupt Senate democrats

Little wonder the ''new wave'' progressive socialists democrats are obstructing any movement in the Senate to confirm judges that understand the Constitution and it's role in preserving our civil society for individual freedom, the progressive liberal democrats want nohing to do with anything that brings law and order to our country.

democrats are all about chaos and conflict. 'Where there is conflict their is opportunity to gain an advantage to obtain more power.'

17% of Judicial Positions Are Now Vacant

Thomas Jipping / June 26, 2018

As Sen. Bob Dole once said, the judges a president appoints may be his most profound legacy.

Federal judges have become increasingly powerful, much more so than America’s Founders intended. For our system of government to work as designed and to produce the liberty it promises, presidents must appoint the right kind of judges.

President Donald Trump’s determination to do that is confirmed by the dogged opposition to his judicial nominees by Senate Democrats and their left-wing grassroots allies. The problem they are causing is significant.

Today, 142 seats on life-tenured federal courts—almost one-sixth of all such positions—sit vacant. That’s almost 17 percent of the entire judiciary. The judiciary’s administrative office also identifies a category of vacancies called “judicial emergencies”—meaning they have been open so long and put such pressure on caseloads of other judges as to constitute an emergency that they be filled.

Senate Democrats once said 68 overall vacancies, with 35 judicial emergency vacancies, constituted a “crisis,” but that was when a Democrat was president. But the problem gets worse. We know of another 32 vacancies that will occur soon, which would leave us short more than 20 percent of the judiciary.

Since the Constitution creates a role for both the president and the Senate in the process of appointing judges, it’s important to know how much progress they are making. Trump has nominated 134 men and women to the bench in the last 18 months, significantly more than any of his predecessors of either party.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has held hearings on 97 of those. Under the previous six presidents—three Democrats and three Republicans—an average of 62 nominees had received a hearing at this point. Grassley is more than 50 percent ahead of that pace.

Although the Judiciary Committee majority controls the pace of hearings, things still can bog down on the Senate floor. The minority party no longer can use the filibuster to prevent final confirmation votes altogether, but it can delay those final votes as long as possible.

One tactic is to force the Senate to take multiple votes on each nomination. It takes the same number of votes to end debate as it does to confirm a nomination now, so the only reason for multiple votes is to drag out the process. Senate Democrats have forced the Senate to take these unnecessary votes to end debate on 40 of Trump’s judicial nominations. That compares to two votes, at this point, for the previous 12 new presidents combined.

It’s not that these votes to end debate mean Democrats really want to debate. More than one-third of the time, no more than five senators vote to have any debate at all. Their indiscriminate demand for these unnecessary votes has dragged in nominees who were initially chosen by President Barack Obama, and even those who have no opposition at all. In fact, more than half of these votes have been on nominees who later received at least 75 votes for confirmation.

The result of this campaign is that the Senate has so far confirmed 42 of Trump’s judicial nominees. As a percentage of the judiciary, this is more than 30 percent behind the average pace of all presidents from Jimmy Carter to Obama.

The president is nominating judges at a robust rate, and the Republicans who run the Judiciary Committee are moving those nominees along. But Democrats’ obstruction tactics are holding confirmations back. Judicial vacancies are more than 30 percent higher than when Trump took office. The judges who are faithfully serving, and the Americans who look to the courts to handle civil and criminal cases, deserve better.

Sarah Sanders Defends America Against Domestic Terror : democrats Howl in Protest

Sarah Sander defending America against domestic terror.

I have to be up front with Rep. Parker in that she supported an amnesty bill that was opposed by a majority of the population and she had to know the president would not sign.

What exactly was her intention? To get along, you go along?

So why would she do this on immigration, as supposedly a good Conservative? All she accomplished was increasing the pressure on the majority to become even more stressed. Most people believed she would stand strong with Donald Trump, not oppose him by siding with the Porgressive socialsit democrats.

So where is the united front for law and order and common sense on immigration among Republicans and Conservatives, one of the most continuous items that is dividing us along ideological lines? 

And to be fair, more the 40 Republicans besides Rep. Parker sided with the democrats against Trump.

America Divided Against Itself, Again

Star Parker / @UrbanCURE / June 28, 2018

On May 22, 1856, Rep. Preston Brooks entered the floor of the United States Senate, approached abolitionist Sen. Charles Sumner, and beat the senator with a cane, almost taking his life.

Brooks was provoked by a passionate anti-slavery speech that Sumner had delivered in the Senate three days earlier, in which he assailed Sen. Andrew Butler of South Carolina, a relative of Brooks, for his pro-slavery stance.

This sad and gruesome history is related on the website of the U.S. Senate, which concludes saying, “The nation, suffering from the breakdown of reasoned discourse that this event symbolized, tumbled onward toward the catastrophe of the civil war.”

We ought to be concerned that again, today, the nation appears to be flirting with this uneasy territory where “reasoned discourse” is breaking down.

The president’s press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, was asked to leave a restaurant in Lexington, Virginia, where she was having dinner because, well, she works for President Donald Trump. Stephanie Wilkerson, owner of the Red Hen restaurant, said she asked Sanders to depart because “there are moments in time when people need to live their convictions. This appeared to be one.”

But what exactly are the “convictions” that Wilkerson was living in this incident? That you refuse to talk, associate, do business with anyone you disagree with? This is America?

A few days before, Homeland Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was harassed in a D.C. restaurant and then at her Northern Virginia home.

Longtime Congressional Black Caucus member Maxine Waters followed, calling for all-out warfare on the Trump administration. “If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant , in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere,” Waters told a crowd in Los Angeles.

According to the vision statement of Waters’ Congressional Black Caucus Foundation: “We envision a world in which all communities have an equal voice in public policy through leadership cultivation, economic empowerment, and civic engagement.”

Another dose of liberal hypocrisy. “Reasoned discourse” can take place only between parties who share the same values and a similar worldview.

This is what broke down in America in the 1850s and brought the nation to a horrible civil war. Reasoned discourse is not possible between someone who thinks it is acceptable for one race to be enslaved to another and someone who finds this abhorrent. President Abraham Lincoln reached into the Gospel of Matthew and prophetically observed, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

America in 2018 is becoming again a house divided.

The world views of liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, secular humanists and Christians, regarding what America is about, regarding what life is about, are so entirely different that all common ground seems lost and we appear to have arrived again to the “breakdown of reasoned discourse.”

Half the country is on one page and half on another. We can’t seem to talk to each other, let alone respect each other anymore.

Certainly, I am not predicting another civil war. But I am predicting that the kind of civil discourse that is essential for a country like ours to function as intended is becoming increasingly impossible and something will have to give.

Florida’s Republican Attorney General Pam Bondi required a police escort to protect her from screaming thugs while exiting a movie theater in Tampa, Florida.

White House adviser Stephen Miller was called a “fascist” while eating in a Mexican restaurant in Washington.

We may not be in a hot war. But we are in a cold war.

The election of Trump was about pushback.

He himself is regularly criticized for lack of civility. But maybe this is why he won. He understands that today, this is the game.

COPYRIGHT 2018 STAR PARKER

Bullies At The UN? : It's Called Treachery

And the question that remains is why do we support the actions of mass killers and depraved tyrants in the United Nations? Why don't we defund this sinister organization and demand that it be moved to a more likable place to conduct it operations like Syria, Iran or Cuba. How about the Gold Coast?

Hey why not Africa someplace or the middle east where human rights are world renowned for equality and all inclusive. I'm sure this august world body and it other members would be more then willing to cough the money to support this action for true equality and the law of human rights to equal justice.

WOW - with the horrible track record of the United States on human rights, and that we support a terrorist country like Israel, it appears there is no hope here. It's way past time to move it to accommodate the true nature of the United Nations mandate!!

Nikki explains treachery to UN members.

Fighting Bullies at the UN

Armstrong Williams / @Arightside / June 28, 2018

Recent outbreaks of violence at the border between Israel and Gaza garnered more than their fair share of biased media attention. Many liberal news outlets conveniently left out that the “protests”—which were actually people storming Israel’s border with the intent to breach it and murder innocents—were organized by Hamas with the cynical goal of prompting Palestinian casualties and global condemnation of Israel.

As expected, the United Nations followed the terrorist group’s lead and fell into line, heaping criticism on Israel.

The terrorists were, by their own admission, determined to infiltrate the Jewish state and sow as much death and destruction as possible. After Israel successfully defended its borders and citizens from these malicious would-be intruders, the world, the media, and the U.N. decried its justified actions as human rights violations, despite the fact that Hamas claimed the majority of victims as its own.

Shortly thereafter, the U.N. Security Council held a vote aimed at condemning Israel for the violence. The lone voice of reason was, as usual, the United States.

Thankfully U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley vetoed this outrageous measure, which didn’t even mention Hamas or its involvement in organizing the protests. And she didn’t stop there. Haley also put forth a separate resolution condemning Gaza’s terrorist ruling group. There, once again, she stood alone.

But in the era of the Trump administration, the United States would rather be the lone voice of reason than kowtow to discriminatory world pressure, secure in the knowledge that we are doing the right thing by supporting our ally Israel.

There’s a proud precedent here. In 1975, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Daniel Patrick Moynihan delivered a prolific speech railing against Resolution 3379, which declared Zionism a form of racism. The United States voted against this decree and was again in the minority. Sixteen years later, because of American efforts, the resolution was revoked.

In recent days, Haley did as she has done before, following in Moynihan’s footsteps by giving a spirited defense of Israel’s actions and blasting those who are quick to jump on the Israel-hating bandwagon.

In her impassioned remarks, Haley condemned Hamas, and further condemned the U.N. for its unabashed bias against Israel.  “It is outrageous for the Security Council to fail to condemn Hamas rocket attacks against Israeli civilians, while the Human Rights Council approves sending a team to investigate Israeli actions taken in self-defense,” she said.

But, as Haley knows full well, the U.N.’s track record when it comes to Israel is horrendous. In its first 10 years of existence, the U.N. Human Rights Council passed more than 130 resolutions against individual countries, many of which were directed at Israel.

And what upstanding citizens of the world haughtily hurl these condemnations? Countries including Cuba, Iraq, Qatar, and Venezuela, all of which are members of U.N. Human Rights Council, but have no moral high ground upon which to stand. When despotic regimes get a pass and the only democracy in the Middle East is repeatedly singled out for censure, that is a clear sign that prejudice is running rampant.

Meanwhile, let’s not forget “Agenda Item 7.” Israel is the only country in the world with a standing item on the Human Rights Council agenda. While Syrian President Bashar Assad butchers his people and genocide against the Rohingya people worsens daily, somehow the Jewish state is the only country that has earned a time set aside for its condemnation.

The United States, under the leadership of President Donald Trump, will not stand idly by in the face of such bigotry. At the president’s direction, Haley has made it clear that America stands with Israel and will support its right to defend itself from murderous neighbors.

Unfortunately, it is clear that if the United States isn’t willing to act, nobody else would. The bullies of the U.N. would win.

They won in 2016, when President Barack Obama shamefully refused to exercise America’s veto, allowing the passage of Security Council Resolution 2334 condemning Israel and fomenting Palestinian intransigence. During that dark day at the U.N., Israel was let down by its No. 1 ally.

Obama liked to talk about how he “had Israel’s back,” but his words were empty.

With Trump leading the way, the United States is once again standing up to the U.N. hypocrites and defending our friends.

COPYRIGHT 2018 CREATORS.COM

Reality and Fantasy Clash : Living Without Responsibility(Humor or Reality)

And then the question was, who are you and what do the intend for the future? Most of the time, living in a prosperous culture where initiative and hard work producer results, some people find it much easier to pretend, just being intentional is enough to get by while demanding, irrationally expecting others to do the heavy lifting to support their way of life living responsible free. 

Still, this little story is a good way to start the week off with some reality and a smile of 'yeah, I get it, given we are now living in time where fantasy and reality are at war.

Enjoy. Have a great week.

Reality Meets Fantasy
A young woman brought her fiancé home to meet her parents. After dinner, her mother told the girl's father to find out about the young man.

The father invited the fiancé to his study for a talk. "So what are your plans?" the father asked the young man. "I am a biblical scholar," he replied. "A biblical scholar, hmmm?" the father said. 

"Admirable, but what will you do to provide a nice house for my daughter to live in?" "I will study," the young man replied, "and God will provide for us." 

"And how will you buy her a beautiful engagement ring, such as she deserves?" asked the father. "I will concentrate on my studies," the young man replied, "God will provide for us."

"And children?" asked the father. "How will you support children?"  "Don't worry, sir, God will provide," replied the fiancé.

The conversation proceeded like this...and each time the father questioned, the young idealist insisted that God would provide. Later, the mother asked, "How did your talk go, honey?"

The father answered, "another Democrat, He has no job, he has no plans, and he thinks I'm God.

Justice Kennedy Retires : America Reborn for The 21st Century!

Kennedy retires : America reborn for the 21st Century

Then the worst happened to the progressive socialsit liberal democrats that already have their criminal collective backs to the wall with Trumps economy booming and foreign policy actually makin a difference across the world.

Now this, Trump will swing the high court for the next 40 years in the direction of Constitutional law for the country.

What a concept! And even better is that Ginsberg in on a slippery sloop headed into retirement as well as Kennedy. She is 84!

Chances are she will wind up stiff at her desk.

But wait, more good news, Justice Byer is 79 and also looking over the edge of the coming abyss of doddering and stumbling. Who knew any of this back in 2016. Oh wait, the people did!

Trump having 4 appointments to the high court in the next several years will drive the socialist terror groups further into the muck of mental diseases of destructive liberalism? The progressive socialist liberal democrat last ditch fall-back position for destroying America as founded will no longer be a viable solution for not have a coherent issue to explain who they are, hate for America and it's people is not viable strategy to win or steal elections.

The people understand this as they proved by in November of 2016. Never vote democrat again!

President Trump's Making America Great Again : 4 Appointments to SCOTUS?

The impact of having another Conservative justice on the high court is being felt through out the legal and illegal communities that function on the one have to maintain the rule of law as dictated by the Constitution, and on the other hand, those that wish to commit crimes against country and the people will be find it much harder to go free as they have in the past.

And even better, with the possibility of having two more chances to nominate Conservative justices on the high court when justices 

Ginsberg and Byer call it quits as Byer is 79 and Ginsberg is 84. 

This will signal our the chances for bringing justice back to America are good..

Podcast: What Justice Kennedy’s Retirement Means

Katrina Trinko / @KatrinaTrinko / Ginny Montalbano / @GinnyMontalbano / June 27, 2018

The Heritage Foundation’s legal fellows Hans von Spakovsky and Elizabeth Slattery discuss the impact Justice Anthony Kennedy has had on the court, and what the long-term impact could be if President Donald Trump replaces Kennedy with a more Constitution-minded judge. Plus: One lawmaker says he received more death threats last year than in any of the previous years he’d been in office.

Podcast -  https://soundcloud.com/dailysignal/the-daily-signal-podcast-0627818-mixdown

Bubba Clinton and Barrrack On Illegal Immigration : I Feel Better Already

Enjoy this video of Clinton and Ogbjma on the dangers of illegal immigration.

This is a fun video where Bill Clinton and Barrrack Ogbjma explain how we must control our boarders and President Trump's reaction to their meaningful, long lasting sincere statements of intent.Listening to these guys just makes you warm all over. Powerful stuff NOT! Never vote democrat if you really care about our civil society and the culture of the rule of law that guarantees individual freedom.

Union Boss Buying Drinks for Everyone Except The Republican(Humor)

Who knew this was possible? Until now!


A 'Republican' is Sitting in a Bar

A union boss walks in from the factory next door and is about to order
a beer when he sees a guy at the far end of the bar wearing a TRUMP
“Make America Great Again” cap with two beers sitting in front of him.

The union boss doesn’t need to be an Einstein to know that this guy is
a Republican, so he shouts over to the bartender so loudly that
everyone can hear, "Drinks for everyone in here, bartender.... but not
for the 'Republican'."

Soon after the drinks have been passed out, the Republican gives him a
big smile, waves at him then says, "Thank you!" in an equally loud
voice.

This infuriates the 'Union Boss'.

After a few minutes, the union boss once again loudly orders drinks
for everyone except the Republican. As before, this doesn’t seem to
bother the Republican. He nods and smiles, and again yells, "Thank
you!"

A few more minutes pass and the union boss orders another round of
drinks for everyone except the Republican.

Just as before, this STILL doesn't seem to faze the Republican who
continues smiling and again yells out, "Thank you!!"

Frustrated that he can’t seem to get the guy angered, the union boss
asks the bartender, "What is wrong with that Republican? I’ve ordered
three rounds of drinks for everyone in the bar but him, and all the
dummy does is smile and thank me. Is he nuts...?"

"Nope," replies the bartender. "He owns the place."

ADVICE TO DEMOCRATS, LIBERALS AND ALL LEFTIES:

If you are a horses ass, at least don't smell like one.