Sunday, August 25th open thread: ‘Say Hey (I Love You)’
“This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.” (Psalm 118:24 KJV)
Here is this week’s open thread. Please feel free to post links to interesting articles and to discuss whatever issues arise during the course of the day. Nothing is off-topic here.
You can subscribe to America’s Watchtower to receive email updates and you can also follow America’s Watchtower on Facebook and Twitter by clicking the links on the right.
Here is Michael Franti and Spearhead performing an extended version of “Say Hey (I Love You)” live in 2009. In addition to this being a catchy song it is the only song I know of which manages to sneak the word metaphysical into it. (The Dead Milkmen did have a CD called “Metaphysical Graffiti” which was a parody of a famous Led Zeppelin CD however.)
Joe Biden asks audience to imagine Barack Obama’s assassination
After a gaffe-filled week a couple of weeks ago Joe Biden’s handlers decided to scale back the candidate’s campaign appearances, especially at night, so that his potential voters would not see him sundowning on the campaign trail. I guess his handlers did not quite cut back his appearances enough because yesterday at an event in New Hampshire Joe Biden mused about Barack Obama’s assassination. Here is more:
I think of where we are at the moment. You know, none of you men are old — women are old enough, but a couple of you guys are old enough to remember. I graduated in 1968. Everybody before me was, drop out, go to Haight-Ashbury, don’t trust anybody over 30, everybody not getting involved. I’m serious, I know no woman will shake their head and acknowledge it, but you guys know what I’m talking about. Right? But then what happened? Dr. Ki— I only have two political heroes. I have one hero who was my dad, but I have two political heroes were Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy. My senior semester they were both shot and killed. Imagine what would have happened if, God forbid, Barack Obama had been assassinated after becoming the de facto nominee. What would have happened in America?
That is a pretty strange thing to wonder about, isn’t it? I guess in his awkward way he was trying to say the assassinations in 1968 were what drew him into politics, and he is wondering what the effect on the youth in America would have been if the first black nominee for President were assassinated. What kind of person even thinks this way? Personally I find it to be more than a little sick and twisted.
So many people of the proper age seem to long for the late 1960’s, they seem to look back nostalgically and with great fondness at the times and while the times produced great changes I think sometimes people forget how violent the times were. But in this case Joe Biden appears to be longing for the violence as well, and violence is something the left has been trying to goad the right into since Donald Trump became President, so in the end it is not all that surprising Joe Biden went down that road.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Democratic Senator faces ethics complaint for threatening the Supreme Court over the Second Amendment
Back on August 13th we learned that a group of Democratic Senators threatened–in Wassermanesque style–the Supreme Court with retribution in a court brief if the court did not rule with the Democrats and against the Second Amendment in an upcoming case.
Here is a little background:
Several high-profile Senate Democrats warned the Supreme Court in pointed terms this week that it could face a fundamental restructuring if justices do not take steps to “heal” the court in the near future.
The ominous and unusual warning was delivered as part of a brief filed Monday in a case related to a New York City gun law. Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., referenced rulings by the court’s conservative majority in claiming it is suffering from some sort of affliction which must be remedied.
“The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it,” the brief said. “Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.’”
The hypocrisy of playing partisan politics while accusing the court of partisan politics was not lost on me, but the idea that sitting Senators would file a court brief with the Supreme Court threatening it was astounding to me! And now it turns out at least one Democrat is facing an ethics complaint for trying to intimidate the Supreme Court.
Here is more:
Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island has attracted an ethics complaint and vigorous criticism from conservatives after raising the prospect of court-packing in a new legal filing before the Supreme Court.
“Senator Whitehouse’s bald-faced threat to ‘heal’ or face the consequences is inappropriate and shows just why an independent judiciary is essential to our system of government,” Elizabeth Slattery, a legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “The justices should, and most likely will, ignore attempts to intimidate them, and instead focus on what the Constitution requires.”
“And further, the facts don’t bear out Senator Whitehouse’s claim that the justices are driven by a partisan agenda,” Slattery added. “Just look at the voting records of the newest justices, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, who ended up on opposite sides in nearly a third of cases last term. That doesn’t look like the outcome-oriented judging to me.”
I could not agree more, both with the need for an ethics complaint to be filed against this attempt to bully the court and with the fact that this court has hardly been partisan. With Donald Trump’s two nominees, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, being busts and with John Roberts as Chief Justice the newly made Supreme Court has been mostly a disaster.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
With the possible exception of a couple of candidates who nobody has ever heard of, and as such have no chance to win the nomination, the Democratic candidates for President have been trying to out-left each other. This has led the candidates to endorse Medicare for all and completely opening the borders.
Because of this there is the concern among some that the Democrats are lurching too far to the left to win the general election and now you can put Harry Reid, of all people, in that category. He has a warning for the alt-leftists who are running for President. Here is what he had to say:
Reid was blunt when asked if he thought supporting Medicare for All would be problematic in the 2020 general election.
“Of course it would be,” he said. “How are you going to get it passed?”
“I think that we should focus on improving Obamacare. We can do that — without bringing something that would be much harder to sell,” he said when asked his thoughts on the debate over whether Democrats should pursue Medicare for All or a more modest Obamacare expansion. “Improving Obamacare: People understand that. They would appreciate that. It locks in many important things.”
What about opening the borders?
“There are so many more important things to do. Decriminalizing border crossings is not something that should be at the top of the list. It should be way, way down at the bottom of the list,” Reid said, responding with a curt “of course it is” when asked if supporting that position would be politically problematic in the general election.
“People want a fair immigration system. They don’t want an open-door invitation for everybody to come at once,” argued Reid.
Democratic voters claim that the right misrepresents what the left means when they talk about decriminalizing illegal entry into the country but Harry Reid just admitted what we have been saying all along. Who would have ever though that Harry Reid would have turned into the voice of reason for the Democrats? Somewhere along the line the former Majority Leader turned into a hater…
But seriously, there is no place in the Democratic party for common sense thinking so Harry Reid can afford to tell the truth only because he does not have to worry about facing the voters. I wonder what he would be saying if he was running for reelection…
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Robert Mueller claimed CIA operative Joseph Mifsud was a Russian operative in his report
The Democrats tried desperately to find something in the Mueller report that was not there and when they did not find it they went on the television and on social media and acted as though they did. But now that the furor has died down and the Democrats realize their propaganda effort did not work they moved on, and now we are finding out some things that are in the report the Democrats would rather leave underneath the rock where they cannot be seen.
Back in June we learned that the Russian-linked figure who had contact with Paul Manafort was actually a United States intelligence source but the Mueller report did not think it was worth mentioning that he was working for the United States.
As if this purposeful omission was not bad enough, according to this story Joseph Mifsud was also working for the United States even though the Mueller report also called him a Russian operative. Here is more:
Maria Bartiromo: We know that there were informants thrown at certain Trump campaign people, like George Papadopoulos. George Papadopoulos was on this show and he told me directly on this show that Mifsud was the guy they wanted him to meet in Italy… That is the individual who told him that Russia has emails on Hillary Clinton. Why is that important, John?
John Solomon: Well, I interviewed Mr. Mifsud’s lawyer the other day, Stefan Rowe, and he told me and also provided me some deposition evidence to both Congress and myself that his client was being directed and long worked with Western intelligence. And he was being directed specifically, he was asked to connect George Papadopoulos to Russia, meaning it was an operation, some form of intelligence operation. That was the lawyer’s own words for this. If that’s the case that means the flash point the started the whole investigation was in fact manufactured from the beginning.
While in the first case Robert Mueller left out some critical information in order to manipulate the report in the Mifsud situation we have an outright lie. It is looking more and more like we were right all along and this investigation was not an effort to find out if the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, but rather to make it look as though he did.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Sunday, August 18th open thread: ‘Jupiter Crash’
“This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.” (Psalm 118:24 KJV)
Here is this week’s open thread. Please feel free to post links to interesting articles and to discuss whatever issues arise during the course of the day. Nothing is off-topic here.
You can subscribe to America’s Watchtower to receive email updates and you can also follow America’s Watchtower on Facebook and Twitter by clicking the links on the right.
Here is The Cure performing “Jupiter Crash” live in 1995:
Joe Biden aides want to limit his exposure to cut back on gaffes
It has been becoming clear to anybody who has been watching Joe Biden on the campaign trail that the former Vice President does not have both oars in the water any more. He has made some unexplainable and embarrassing gaffes over the last week on simple things. (My personal favorite one to date is his admission that Democrats do not care about facts.)
His aides have a plan to help good ole Joe turn down the gaffe machine and that plan is to limit his schedule and lessen his speaking engagements because they know if he opens his mouth something “unfortunate” is going to come out–he cannot help it.
Here is more:
Biden, who has retreated from the public eye after a hellish week of gaffes consumed his campaign, is being pushed to retool his schedule to limit public appearances and thereby cut down on the opportunities for verbal missteps. In particular, many are advising the 76-year-old former vice president to curb the number of events he does in the afternoon and evening – the time of day Biden has been most likely to say something embarrassing.
At the moment, the push is being made under the guise of giving Biden “more down time” before the race heats up in the fall ahead of the early primary contests.
“He needs to be a strong force on the campaign trail, but he also has to pace himself,” one of Biden’s allies told The Hill this week.
The suggestion that Biden start limiting his appearances comes less than two months after the candidate’s team publicly avowed to run a more energetic and engaged campaign.
I guess the more “energetic and engaged” campaign strategy has not worked out so well for the 76 year old candidate. Oh course getting late day confusion is known as “sundowning” in Alzheimer patients…
But I am no doctor, I would never suggest Joe Biden has Alzheimer’s even if the symptoms are there, maybe he cannot physically handle the rigors of a national campaign any more. Which brings us to the question is he fit for the office he seeks? He is not going to be able to cut back on his schedule as President simply because he cannot mentally or physically be able to handle the job.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Back in July Donald Trump issued a rule which is being called an asylum ban in the media, but that term is not quite right. This rule would cut back on asylum claims by requiring an asylum seeker to apply for asylum in a country they travel through before getting to the United States.
Shortly thereafter a judge blocked the new rule from going into effect nationwide while a challenge to the rule makes its way through the court system. Today the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals handed the President a partial victory by narrowing the previous decision and allowing the so-called ban to go into effect in Texas and New Mexico.
Here is more:
A federal appeals court on Friday handed the Trump administration a partial victory in its quest for an asylum ban, appearing to clear the way for imposing it along the border in New Mexico and Texas, at least temporarily.
While the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision to block the ban, it narrowed the nationwide injunction to the 9th Circuit, which encompasses district courts in the border states of Arizona and California.
Most of the illegal immigrants make their way into the country through Texas and New Mexico so this decision is a pretty significant victory for the President…at least for now. The 9th Circuit Court also ruled that in all likelihood the rule violated Federal law because it was rushed through and did not have the proper waiting period for the public to comment on it. Because of this I would expect the law to eventually be struck down before all is said and done.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Donald Trump’s response to Chris Cuomo is a perfect illustration of why ‘red flag’ laws are dangerous
After some people did some things in El Paso and Dayton Donald Trump came out in favor of so-called “red Flag” legislation which would allow the confiscation of a person’s weapons without due process and without a crime having been committed.
Lindsey Graham has been taking about “red Flag” gun laws for months and now other Republicans are beginning to coalesce around the idea of this confiscatory gun law.
As you can tell, I oppose this type of legislation because of the potential for abuse. In addition to a scorned lover or a disgruntled employee or employer using this type of law to seek revenge on a person there is always the real possibility the government will abuse it also. Could political speech on the internet cause a politician to determine a person is dangerous? I believe this scenario is more likely than the former one I proposed.
If you have been anywhere near the internet over the last couple of days you might have heard that Chris Cuomo had a little bit of a nervous breakdown and went on a profanity-laced rant over the word “fredo.” Donald Trump, as he is want to do, decided to troll the CNN personality on Twitter and while he probably thought he was being clever the President actually gave us a perfect example of the dangers of “red flag” legislation.
What more needs to be said? This tweet encapsulates all of our concerns over “red flag” legislation and the possible abuse of the law by a person seeking retribution against another–but even more frightening by a politician against a person on the other side of the aisle.
If this law is passed in the next Congress there will be a Democratic President in 2020 because gun owners will not go to the polls. The Democrats have been trying to criminalize the opposition for years and you can bet they will use “red flag” laws to thwart the Second Amendment and confiscate weapons for political posts people make on the internet they consider dangerous–and by dangerous I mean posts that disagree with the liberal agenda.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Senate Democrats threaten the Supreme Court with retribution over upcoming Second Amendment ruling
There is a New York Second Amendment case making its way to the Supreme Court and some Senate Democrats have a message for the highest court in the land: either this decision comes down in their favor, which of course means it comes down against the Second Amendment, or they will remake the court by restructuring it. The idea of packing the court has been gaining momentum on the alt-left but now the Senate Democrats are brazenly threatening the Supreme Court.
Here is more:
Several high-profile Senate Democrats warned the Supreme Court in pointed terms this week that it could face a fundamental restructuring if justices do not take steps to “heal” the court in the near future.
The ominous and unusual warning was delivered as part of a brief filed Monday in a case related to a New York City gun law. Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., referenced rulings by the court’s conservative majority in claiming it is suffering from some sort of affliction which must be remedied.
“The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it,” the brief said. “Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'”
This is truly remarkable! I cannot recall a party in a lawsuit making a threat like this to any court before. I do remember Debbie Wasserman Schultz threatened the Capitol Police Chief but I think even that pales on comparison to trying to intimidate the court because you know you are standing on shaky Constitutional grounds.
Ironically these Democrats are accusing the Supreme Court of partisanship and is simply asking for more partisanship in the opposite direction, proving they only disapprove of the perceived partisanship because it is not in their favor–but they intend to change that…
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
America's Watchtower 