What Are the Priorities for Us in the New America of Neil Gorsuch, BLM and Antifa?

So here we are, the newly minted super-conservative Justice Gorsuch finds transgender rights in the Constitution of the United States.  And under the reliably spineless leadership of John Roberts every major case from illegal immigrants to Second Amendment rights were dynamited against us.  And there was absolutely no fig leaf for any of these decisions.  The Supreme Court is a disaster.  I no longer expect any relief from that Court.

Add onto this problem that Antifa and BLM are now the official enforcement wing of the Democrat party.  In any jurisdiction federal, state or local where they have cover from Democrat elected officials, they are shown to be ready, willing and able to wage literal war up to and including murder and arson against their enemies.  Living in a blue state or even a blue city is tantamount to living in Mao’s Cultural Revolution.  At any time, you can be sucked into a purge or pogrom that really has no limits on what can happen.  Your rights in these jurisdictions do not exist as such.  They can be overridden with no notice and are subject to amendment whenever circumstances make the ruling coalition think they would benefit from it.

Those are the conditions on the ground.  Where does that leave us?

From my point of view that precludes certain strategies.  With the clarification of the role of the Supreme Court I would say any idea that unconstitutional actions will be struck down nationally and thereby benefit people living in blue states is sheer fantasy.  Nothing will be done to restrain places like California, New England, or New York.  They will just make things continually worse until you knuckle under and learn to love Big Brother or leave.

I suppose there are strategies to hide in plain sight in places like these.  I know people who say they can avoid the consequences of living under these regimes and still enjoy life.  I confess I do not possess the coping skills that must be needed to hide your feelings when living in the belly of the beast.  My daily interactions here in New England with the true believers involve mind boggling levels of cognitive dissonance.  It takes every ounce of self-control not to laugh in their faces or explain why the things being claimed are patently absurd.

The alternative then is to revolt against these laws.  Ignoring them or avoiding them by stealth is becoming harder and harder in these places.  Ultimately control over all aspects of life is becoming more stringent everywhere but especially in these blue states.  To the extent that it can be done I suppose that will be the strategy for conservatives living in these areas.  You will have to go underground.  And this means as far as raising children you’ll have to figure out how to work around the indoctrination of the schools and other social settings that the Left has taken over.  This is the Benedict Option that Rod Dreher has talked about.  Ultimately, it’s a temporary measure because eventually they will eliminate freedom of religion entirely.

But from my point of view, the best idea is to live in a deep red state where the political leaders have the means to craft laws that protect their citizens from the unconstitutional consequences of the Supreme Court.  They can make a law upholding the freedom of religion in the Bill of Rights and when the Supreme Court strikes it down the Governor can defy the Supreme Court and say he will protect any of his citizens from federal prosecution.  I could see blanket pardons being handed out on a rolling basis and the bureaucrats in Washington spinning out of control as the President refuses to step in.

A number of states following a plan like this would eventually produce a situation on the ground where essentially you would have two legal entities hidden within one name.  This is sort of like the situation we currently have with marijuana use.  At the federal level and in half of the states it is illegal but in states like California and Colorado it is big business.  The same thing should be pushed as hard as possible for as many different parts of the law as possible.  Just as things like sanctuary cities and legalization of drugs have been dispiriting for our side, freedom of religion would be very dispiriting for them.  It would even have an impact on migration of leftists into red states.  If there weren’t the lifestyle protections available to them, they would be much less likely to inhabit these areas.

So essentially what I am saying is that the deep red states are the only remaining points of resistance to the encroachment of Leftist control.  Everything else has already been conquered.  They will need to be the catalyst for change and that can only happen in conjunction with the four-year protection provided by the beginning of a conservative President’s term.

Hopefully a revolt at the state level will begin and President Trump’s second term will provide that needed protection.

This Year’s Supreme Court Docket

I went through the Supreme Court Docket and picked out the ones I thought could have a major impact on social, political and constitutional issues.  This will be a very important year for a whole host of issues that conservatives are very interested in.  We will find out if Roberts is an enemy.

The issues include:

  1. Trying to force employers to put up with transgender insanity.
  2. Trying to force employers to put up with homosexual insanity.
  3. Trying to stop the federal government from doing its job removing illegal aliens
  4. Trying to force the government to uphold the expired DACA program.
  5. Ruling on New York City’s unconstitutional gun laws.
  6. Ruling on attacks against the religious freedoms of groups and individuals

Below is the list of the relevant cases.

 

October Term 2019

October Sitting

R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, No. 18-107 [Arg: 10.8.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether Title VII prohibits discrimination against transgender people based on (1) their status as transgender or (2) sex stereotyping under Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins.

 

Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, No. 17-1618 [Arg: 10.8.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.

 

Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda, No. 17-1623 [Arg: 10.8.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.

 

Kansas v. Garcia, No. 17-834 [Arg: 10.16.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 3.3.2020]

Holding: The Kansas statutes under which respondents were convicted are not preempted expressly or by implication under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

 

November Sitting

Barton v. Barr, No. 18-725 [Arg: 11.4.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether a lawfully admitted permanent resident who is not seeking admission to the United States can be “render[ed] … inadmissible” for the purposes of the stop-time rule, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1).

 

County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, No. 18-260 [Arg: 11.6.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the Clean Water Act requires a permit when pollutants originate from a point source but are conveyed to navigable waters by a nonpoint source, such as groundwater.

 

Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, No. 18-587 [Arg: 11.12.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy is judicially reviewable; and (2) whether DHS’s decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.

 

Trump v. NAACP, No. 18-588 [Arg: 11.12.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy is judicially reviewable; and (2) whether DHS’s decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.

 

McAleenan v. Vidal, No. 18-589 [Arg: 11.12.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy is judicially reviewable; and (2) whether DHS’s decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.

 

Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media, No. 18-1171 [Arg: 11.13.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether a claim of race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 fails in the absence of but-for causation.

 

December Sitting

 

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York, No. 18-280 [Arg: 12.2.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.

 

Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian, No. 17-1498 [Arg: 12.3.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether a common-law claim for restoration seeking cleanup remedies that conflict with remedies the Environmental Protection Agency ordered is a jurisdictionally barred “challenge” to the EPA’s cleanup under 42 U.S.C. § 9613 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act; (2) whether a landowner at a Superfund site is a “potentially responsible party” that must seek EPA approval under 42 U.S.C. § 9622(e)(6) of CERCLA before engaging in remedial action, even if the EPA has never ordered the landowner to pay for a cleanup; and (3) whether CERCLA pre-empts state common-law claims for restoration that seek cleanup remedies that conflict with EPA-ordered remedies.

 

Ovalles v. Barr, No. 18-1015 [Arg: 12.9.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the criminal alien bar, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), tempered by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), prohibits a court from reviewing an agency decision finding that a movant lacked diligence for equitable tolling purposes, notwithstanding the lack of a factual dispute.

 

Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, No. 18-776 [Arg: 12.9.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether a request for equitable tolling, as it applies to statutory motions to reopen, is judicially reviewable as a “question of law.”

 

January Sitting

 

Babb v. Wilkie, No. 18-882 [Arg: 1.15.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, which provides that personnel actions affecting agency employees aged 40 years or older shall be made free from any “discrimination based on age,” 29 U.S.C. §633a(a), requires a plaintiff to prove that age was a but-for cause of the challenged personnel action.

 

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, No. 18-1195 [Arg: 1.22.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether it violates the religion clauses or the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution to invalidate a generally available and religiously neutral student-aid program simply because the program affords students the choice of attending religious schools.

 

February Sitting

 

U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith, No. 19-67 [Arg: 2.25.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the federal criminal prohibition against encouraging or inducing illegal immigration for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i), is facially unconstitutional.

 

Nasrallah v. Barr, No. 18-1432 [Arg: 3.2.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether, notwithstanding 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), the courts of appeals possess jurisdiction to review factual findings underlying denials of withholding (and deferral) of removal relief.

 

Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, No. 19-161 [Arg: 3.2.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether, as applied to the respondent, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2) is unconstitutional under the suspension clause.

 

June Medical Services LLC v. Russo, No. 18-1323 [Arg: 3.4.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit’s decision upholding Louisiana’s law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital conflicts with the Supreme Court’s binding precedent in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.

 

Russo v. June Medical Services LLC, No. 18-1460 [Arg: 3.4.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether abortion providers can be presumed to have third-party standing to challenge health and safety regulations on behalf of their patients absent a “close” relationship with their patients and a “hindrance” to their patients’ ability to sue on their own behalf; and (2) whether objections to prudential standing are waivable – per the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 4th, 5th, 7th, 9th, 10th and Federal Circuits – or non-waivable per the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the D.C., 2nd, and 6th Circuits.

 

 

March Sitting

 

Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc., No. 18-956 [Arg: 3.24.2020]

Issue(s): (1) Whether copyright protection extends to a software interface; and (2) whether, as the jury found, the petitioner’s use of a software interface in the context of creating a new computer program constitutes fair use.

 

Tanzin v. Tanvir, No. 19-71 [Arg: 3.24.2020]

Issue(s): Whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, permits suits seeking money damages against individual federal employees.

 

Carney v. Adams, No. 19-309 [Arg: 3.25.2020]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the First Amendment invalidates a longstanding state constitutional provision that limits judges affiliated with any one political party to no more than a “bare majority” on the state’s three highest courts, with the other seats reserved for judges affiliated with the “other major political party”; (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit erred in holding that a provision of the Delaware Constitution requiring that no more than a “bare majority” of three of the state courts may be made up of judges affiliated with any one political party is not severable from a provision that judges who are not members of the majority party on those courts must be members of the other “major political party,” when the former requirement existed for more than 50 years without the latter, and the former requirement, without the latter, continues to govern appointments to two other courts; and (3) whether the respondent, James Adams, has demonstrated Article III standing.

 

U.S. Agency for Int’l Development v. Alliance for Open Society Int’l, No. 19-177 [Arg: 3.25.2020]

Issue(s): Whether – when in Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International Inc., the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment bars enforcement of Congress’ directive, which required respondents, United States-based organizations that receive federal funds to fight HIV/AIDS abroad, to “have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking” as a condition of accepting those funds – the First Amendment further bars enforcement of that directive with respect to legally distinct foreign entities operating overseas that are affiliated with respondents.

 

Pereida v. Barr, No. 19-438 [Arg: 3.30.2020]

Issue(s): Whether a criminal conviction bars a noncitizen from applying for relief from removal when the record of conviction is merely ambiguous as to whether it corresponds to an offense listed in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

 

Trump v. Vance, No. 19-635 [Arg: 3.31.2020]

Issue(s): Whether a grand-jury subpoena served on a custodian of the president’s personal records, demanding production of nearly 10 years’ worth of the president’s financial papers and his tax returns, violates Article II and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

 

Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, No. 19-715 [Arg: 3.31.2020]

Issue(s): Whether the Committee on Oversight and Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives has the constitutional and statutory authority to issue a subpoena to the accountant for President Trump and several of his business entities demanding private financial records belonging to the president.

 

Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG, No. 19-760 [Arg: 3.31.2020]

Issue(s): Whether the Committee on Financial Services and the Intelligence Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives have the constitutional and statutory authority to issue a subpoena to creditors for President Donald Trump and several of his business entities demanding private financial records belonging to the president.

 

Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, No. 19-267 [Arg: 4.1.2020]

Issue(s): Whether the First Amendment’s religion clauses prevent civil courts from adjudicating employment-discrimination claims brought by an employee against her religious employer, when the employee carried out important religious functions.

 

St. James School v. Biel, No. 19-348 [Arg: 4.1.2020]

Issue(s): Whether the First Amendment’s religion clauses prevent civil courts from adjudicating employment-discrimination claims brought by an employee against her religious employer, when the employee carried out important religious functions.

 

April Sitting

 

Chiafalo v. Washington, No. 19-465 [Arg: 4.28.2020]

Issue(s): Whether enforcement of a Washington state law that threatens a fine for presidential electors who vote contrary to how the law directs is unconstitutional because a state has no power to legally enforce how a presidential elector casts his or her ballot and a state penalizing an elector for exercising his or her constitutional discretion to vote violates the First Amendment.

 

Colorado Department of State v. Baca, No. 19-518 [Arg: 4.28.2020]

Issue(s): (1) Whether a presidential elector who is prevented by their appointing state from casting an electoral-college ballot that violates state law lacks standing to sue their appointing state because they hold no constitutionally protected right to exercise discretion; and (2) whether Article II or the 12th Amendment forbids a state from requiring its presidential electors to follow the state’s popular vote when casting their electoral-college ballots.

 

Trump v. Pennsylvania, No. 19-454 [Arg: 4.29.2020]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and the Treasury had statutory authority under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 to expand the conscience exemption to the contraceptive-coverage mandate; (2) whether the agencies’ decision to forgo notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing the interim final rules rendered the final rules – which were issued after notice and comment – invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act; and (3) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit erred in affirming a nationwide preliminary injunction barring implementation of the final rules.

 

Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, No. 19-431 [Arg: 4.29.2020]

Issue(s): (1) Whether a litigant who is directly protected by an administrative rule and has been allowed to intervene to defend it lacks standing to appeal a decision invalidating the rule if the litigant is also protected by an injunction from a different court; and (2) whether the federal government lawfully exempted religious objectors from the regulatory requirement to provide health plans that include contraceptive coverage.

Another Supreme Court Ruling Against Unlimited Immigration

This ruling confirms that the United States can deport aliens who have ended up on the public dole.  https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/27/politics/supreme-court-immigration-public-charge/index.html .  This law has been in effect since 1882 and in my opinion makes perfect sense.  If someone can’t make a living in this country and instead wants to live on our dime isn’t it necessary to send him home?  In my mind it means we can sweep the welfare roles and not only find the legal aliens but look for anyone who is not a citizen, in other words, illegal aliens.  This was a 5-4 ruling so John Roberts is at least on our side on immigration.

 

 

 

 

 

2019 – 2020 is Going to Be an Important Judicial Year in the Supreme Court

A number of important cases are on the docket at the Supreme court this fall.

This year the Supreme Court will have the chance to rule on:

  • The constitutionality of Louisiana’s Abortion Law mandating an abortionist have admitting privileges at a local hospital.
  • Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.
  • Whether the temporary DACA program can be allowed to expire.
  • Whether Kansas is allowed to identify illegal aliens by their obvious documentation and act on this.
  • Whether homosexuality is a protected class under employment discrimination laws.
  • Whether transgender status is a protected class under the employment discrimination laws.

Putting aside for a moment the health status of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, we will have the chance to see whether John Roberts is an honest man or a stooge.  Something like the DACA program is a clear-cut case of a temporary law that has expired.  To extend it would be an obvious act of judicial trespass onto the prerogatives of the Executive and Legislative branches of government.  If Roberts uses his vote to legislate from the bench then we know he is a Deep State creature either voluntarily or due to some kind of blackmail.  Likewise, with the NYC gun transport ban this is a clear violation of the Second Amendment and upholding the ban would make Roberts’ status clear.

As for the homosexual and transgender cases, those will be even more transparent markers of where he stands.  Supposedly only Justice Kennedy was responsible for the outrage that was the gay marriage decision.  If somehow Roberts comes out in favor of either of these protections then it will be obvious that he was a plant all along.

If it turns out that Roberts is indeed a creature of the Left then it becomes even that much more urgent that President Trump appoint one or more conservative justices to the Supreme Court.

So, returning to the question of Ginsberg’s health I stated during her last cancer eruption that I would be shocked if she didn’t retire before April.  To be blunt, she is currently experiencing the results of metastatic cancer from one of her previous tumors.  Whether the cells are originally pancreas, colon or lung cancer they have obviously migrated out of the original site and are now showing up in new organs.  The question of whether these cells have already migrated to the liver is probably what will determine how long she has.  And also, to slow down the spread of the metastases, chemotherapy will be needed and this is a woman in her late eighties.  How is she supposed to support the side effects that include neurological damage and still sit on the Supreme Court and decide the legal fate of the nation?

Hopefully she will elect to spend her last few months with her loved ones as anyone would in that position.  At that point President Trump will appoint a reliable conservative justice and put an end to Roberts’ veto on conservative judicial decisions.  But while these are important legal battles, even more urgent is a Supreme Court decision to end all forms of affirmative action, whether sex or race based.  The glaring anti-constitutional nature of these programs has been long recognized by the court but has always been spared as being a necessary temporary measure to correct past inequities.  Any honest observer would admit that the cure is now worse than the disease and it’s time to save the patient from his treatment.  Whether this will come up for review next year or the year after, sooner than later the Supreme court will need to address this most egregious civil rights atrocity.

16JAN2019 – American Greatness Post of the Day – The Celebrated Fake Frog That Is Taking Down the Deep State – By Karin McQuillan

The subject of this post may seem slight in the scheme of things but in my opinion it gets to the heart of how a Conservative Supreme Court can reverse some of the worst of the damage done by unconstitutional judicial overreach.

The Celebrated Fake Frog That Is Taking Down the Deep State

Karin McQuillan describes how in 1984 the Supreme Court decided that the experts in the federal government could decide on regulations that not even the courts could challenge.  This was called the “Chevron deference.”  This has allowed EPA scientists to dictate all manner of restrictions on private citizens and businesses for completely fraudulent reasons.  Fake frogs and mythical mice have been used to punish land owners and restrict them from using their own land to satisfy the spite of misguided naturalists.  Now the new Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have joined with Justice Thomas to take the lead to reverse the use of the Chevron deference and free the American people from their bureaucratic tyrants.  It’s only a first step but it sets a precedent that can have bigger consequences.  Progress.

Media Acknowledging Justice Bader-Ginsberg May Not Remain on Supreme Court Much Longer

News sites on both sides of the political divide had articles today acknowledging that Justice Bader-Ginsberg may not necessarily still be around in five years as she plans.  What that tells me is that both sides are preparing their members for the eventuality of another extremely heated, partisan battle over the nominee to replace her on the bench.

When news of her cancer surgery made the news, I stated the opinion that she would not stay on the bench past President Trump’s first term.  I guess that I’m not alone in that opinion.  One of the articles made a point of the fact that on multiple occasions Justice Bader-Ginsberg stated that she wouldn’t continue serving past the point where she can’t “do the job full steam.”  The implication being since right now she is at least partially incapacitated her retirement may be imminent.  In my opinion her retirement in the next few weeks is highly unlikely.  I’m sure the Justice will hold on as long as she has any hope of recovering from this episode.  And I fully expect she will recover from it.  She has shown resiliency through her two previous bouts with cancer.  But the fact that she will not be receiving chemotherapy makes me think that the metastatic nature of her cancer is assumed and that unfortunately she will soon be diagnosed with at least one other new tumor.  If she has a life outside of the Law, I would hope at that point that she would resign to enjoy her remaining time with her loved ones.  If she does not then perhaps, she intends to cling to the job to till the bitter end.  But honestly, I don’t imagine she will last two years.  That is a long time.

If I am correct, then President Trump will be able to appoint at least one more Supreme Court Justice.  Even assuming Chief Justice Robert’s lapses into left-leaning decisions it would seem that a solid 6-3 conservative majority will begin to make some significant changes in the way Americans live.  Another shot at the LGBTQ penchant for persecuting Christian business people may be the first significant loss for the Social Justice Warriors in their war against normalcy.  Another useful front would be slapping down some of the overreach that liberal states have been legislating against gun ownership.  One of my friends was complaining how Massachusetts can basically call anything they want an assault rifle and then retroactively make it illegal to own.  Another was saying that one state has made liability insurance mandatory for gun owners and the insurance is very expensive.  That definitely should be checked for constitutionality.

Both because of the strength of a 6-3 ratio and the emotional response of Justice Bader-Ginsberg’s replacement I assume we can expect that the nomination approval process will be even worse than Kavanaugh’s was.  They’ll pull out all the stops and attack with every trick and scream from every media megaphone at their disposal.  Good.  With the enhanced Senate majority, it should be easier this time to get the approval than it was with Kavanaugh.  Well, here we go again.

Bader Ginsberg Undergoes Surgery to Remove Lung Cancer

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/21/supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-85-reportedly-undergoes-lung-procedure-.html

I wonder if this is what the broken rib incident was really about.

This is significant.  At the very least I would assume she will need recovery time and absences to allow for chemotherapy.  I could be wrong but I believe that her time on the bench will be less than two years.

The Last Shot of the 2018 Senate Battle

The Republicans staggered out of the 2018 Senate Mid-Terms with a final tally of 53 seats to the Democrats 47.  They’ve netted two seats but lost Arizona and Nevada through poor decisions and poor messaging.  The good news is that 53 seats means Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, those two northern RINO dames won’t have a veto over who gets into the Supreme Court and the President’s Cabinet.  Hallelujah.  The bad news is that 53 is the best they could do in the best Senate election the Republicans are likely to get in a long time.

But I’m a glass half-full kinda guy so let’s call this one a definite win.  We can look forward to a potential one or two more Supreme Court appointments and just as importantly, a competent Attorney General and FBI Director.  And that’s just in time.  With Manafort reneging on his Mueller plea-bargain and details of Manafort’s apparent role in providing the Trump administration intel on Mueller, it looks like that pot is about to boil over.  So this Senate gain is important but just one more step in the never-ending war.  In the immortal words of Emerson, Lake and Palmer, “Welcome Back, My Friends, to the Show That Never Ends.”

Prioritizing the Problems – The Bill of Rights – Part 2

In my first post on this subject I addressed the necessity of protecting traditional Christians from being harassed by the LGBTQ mafia.  After taking care of that problem, the next freedom of speech issue that needs to be handled is the gatekeeping that the social media companies have been doing that denies access to people of whose politics the gatekeepers do not approve.  Either single-handedly or by forming a cartel, companies such as Youtube, Twitter and Facebook have the ability to effectively shut out of the electronic town square anyone that they disapprove of.  In the modern age these social media sites are de facto, the only means of free speech in the digital world.  And since they act as essentially monopolies they must be treated as such by the federal government.

Currently, Twitter will allow (exclusively) left leaning users to contact the left-leaning “Trust and Safety” Commissariat, to fink on someone they dislike and this will get the wheels in motion to eliminate this wrong thinker.  The process may take one or several steps but the eventual outcome will be the removal of the offender from the Twitterverse.  Facebook and Youtube have similar set-ups with equally Orwellian titles that allow the Left to exclude the Right from these social media sites.  Since these sites benefit from the virtual monopolies that they have they must be regulated as such by the government to prevent them from discriminating against those they dislike.

On the commerce side there are money transfer services like PayPal and Stripe that also have formed cartel like arrangements that conspire to demonetize anyone whose politics they disapprove of.  Added to this are the crowdfunding companies that have recently begun doing the same.  And these sites are presently the critical locations for doing business on the web.  Without them companies and individuals are shut out of e-commerce almost completely.  The Left knows this and is using it as a bludgeon to force conformity by anyone who wants to do business on-line.

The good news is that laws already exist to combat this kind of market place manipulation.  The Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department are specifically empowered to monitor and enforce anti-trust and unfair trade practices laws.  Currently the Justice Department is in the hands of the enemy and is probably incapable of performing its duty with respect to protecting the rights of non-leftist citizens.  However, after the mid-terms it may well be that President Trump will be firing the Attorney General, his Deputy and every other swamp creature currently inhabiting it.  If that does occur I hope one of the earlier actions of this cleansed department is investigating and punishing these various on-line perpetrators of malfeasance and leveling the playing field in the on-line environment.

It’s entirely possible that none of these issues would rise to the level of a Supreme Court case.  But if it does we have the correct court to enforce these cases.  With these cases covered I believe we will have provided the people on the right with the on-line environment they need to thrive.  Otherwise these strong-arm tactics by the left will increasingly hamper and weaken us.

[socialpoll id=”2510623″]

Prioritizing the Problems – The Bill of Rights – Part 1

So many aspects of life under the leftist regime are unpleasant that sometimes it’s difficult to decide what should be fixed first.  I think this is part of what leads to the apocalyptic mindset when the Right thinks of how all this will have to be resolved.  Back in September the ZMan had a podcast that looked at the current state of the Bill of Rights in America.  http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=14969

He makes a pretty compelling case that even though theoretically we still have freedoms of speech and religion and the right to bear arms all of these have been hamstrung through the efforts of courts, state governments, bureaucrats and even corporations that want to tell you how to live.

And that has been in the back of my mind ever since.  And now that Brett Kavanaugh has been added to the Supreme Court I think it’s clear what the first priority should be.  It’s time to restore the Bill of Rights.  It’s time to take a stand against the Courts and States that have criminalized traditional beliefs and practices.  And the most egregious example is the gay marriage bamboozle.  It’s time for the Supreme Court to tell the Blue States that normal people don’t have to pretend that gay marriage is something they need to celebrate.  We can leave the question of the constitutionality of protecting the right to gay marriage for another day but it’s obvious to any reasonable man that eschewing any involvement with it is squarely under the jurisdiction of the Freedom of Religion aspect of the First Amendment.  Not being a lawyer, I’m not exactly sure what the best way to provide blanket protection for this.  I would guess that a decision from the Supreme Court recognizing the tenets of traditional marriage as protected under the First Amendment should do it.  Then if any of the states disobey the ruling the President can send the National Guard in and follow up with some kind of federal oversight to ensure that it sticks.

In addition to the cake bakers and photographers this will also aid the religious organizations, schools and social agencies.  For instance, Catholic Adoption agencies have been put out of business because states like Massachusetts prosecuted them for refusing adoption to homosexuals.  Now, it may already be too late for some organizations like the Boy Scouts.  They seem to have folded. But new organizations can step forward to fill the gap.  So, these protections will benefit many parts of traditional life.  And in the aggregate, they will make life more tolerable for traditional individuals in America.  In fact, what they will allow is the ability for normal people to separate from the progressives in the aspects of life that are most important to people, namely their most strongly held beliefs.

So, this is the first and most critically needed change that the Right needs enacted.  There are plenty of other areas where push back against the progressives is needed and I will address these subsequently but without a doubt, this one is first.

[socialpoll id=”2510623″]