The fallout on Fox will be assessed not by what people say about Chris Wallace, Chris Wallace has never hidden that he is intellectually challenged, is what people would refer to as a moderate Democrat, and has always been a never-Trump advocate, but will be reflected in their numbers generated by those other than the big three, Tucker, Hannity, and Laura. Chris Wallace will simply be taken even less seriously.
So far as the candidates are concerned, we will be able to judge the results, not on the polls because polls have become more political tools than honest attempts to predict results, but on the size and enthusiasm of crowds. President Trump will be holding his rallies. You can assess the result based on the rallies maintaining their size and increasing their enthusiasm, especially when President Trump refers to Hunter, the Green New Deal, and ANTIFA being only an “idea” and not a terrorist organization whose goal is to “fundamentally transform the United States,” per one of their Comrades, Obama.
We can assess Biden’s results as good or poor depending on whether or not anybody shows with any enthusiasm on his train trip from Cleveland back to Delaware. We can assess the result as good for Biden if his campaign determines to bring Biden out of the basement and put him on the road in front of people and giving the press open access.
The results will be very positive for Trump and negative for Biden if Hunter becomes an issue, if the Green New Deal becomes an issue, if packing the court becomes an issue, if Medicare for all becomes an issue, and if law and order maintains the same attention or the attention on law and order is increased. If all or any of these become an issue it will be negative for Biden.
If the mainstream media and the DNC are able to neutralize the above issues, it will benefit Biden. However, we must understand that the most damaging factor for Biden is the enthusiasm factor. This is what must be observed. Biden has no charisma. Biden needs his base. The question is, who is Biden’s base or does Biden have a base. If Biden considers his base to be the Bernie Sanders and AOC supporters, he did nothing to increase their enthusiasm, but much to drive them away.
Biden also took the opposite positions on many issues from his or his handlers handpicked vice president candidate, Harris. It will be interesting to watch how Harris handles these questions, if she is allowed to take questions form the press or individuals who would ask these questions.
This will be very short and sweet. The left will say Biden won and the right will say Trump won. From their standpoint, perhaps both are correct.
There were two big losers. Mike Wallace was the biggest loser of all and once again proved he is anti-Trump and a typical leftist. Wallace should moderate and not debate.
Biden was a big loser. He lost the radical base on his stand on health care, trying to walk the middle on law enforcement, and denouncing the Green New Deal of the Democrats darling AOC. He will not be able to substantiate most of his claims and Trump was able to open the question on Hunter. That is a losing issue for Biden.
Predictions on the content of the debate is very easy. We know President Trump’s policy. In all ways it is the United States First. Donald Trump has shown us that what he says is what he does, and that is if it is in the best interest of the United States it is in everybody’s best interest. He will unabashedly defend theses policies.
Joe Biden can pretty much take any position he chooses tonight and defend it as his because he will have taken that position at some time in the past. That is, he can take any position except the position President Trump will take and that is the position of the United States first, because that is one position Biden has never taken.
Yes, we know the positions and arguments each of the candidates will take. Normally, the pundits and writers would have already been able to write their scripted statements and next morning articles. The analysis would go according to the leaning of the politics of the pundit and writer, and that makes sense.
What is different with this debate, is we have no idea which Joe Biden will show. We know the Joe that will show will be the Joe without a teleprompter. We know the Joe that will show will be basement Joe outside his basement. We would believe that the Joe that will show will be the one without an earpiece, but of this we can not be sure because we also know the members of his team, Democrats, are not above using any means to achieve their ends.
This is really Joe Biden’s evening to stay somewhat competitive or be completely eliminated. If the bumbling Joe shows, the one who cannot complete sentences, phrases, or thoughts, the incoherent rambling Joe, if this is the Joe who shows, his enthusiasm will go even closer to zero. Oh yes, the faithful few like Jill Biden and Cindy McCain will defend him and praise him, but many will remove themselves from the process completely.
This result will of course mean a Trump victory, which is an American victory. It would also mean a wider margin in the Senate (which would negate the influence of Collins, Romney, and Murkowski) and a result that would send Pelosi back to the filth filled streets of San Francisco. Both of these results would also be a victory for America.
We will all be watching to see which Joe appears.
Our Constitution provides for three branches of government. There is the Legislative Branch which is to make law. There is the Executive Branch which is to administer the law. There is the Judicial Branch which is to rule on disputes within the law and render opinions.
Today we are focused on the Judicial Branch because the Executive fulfilled his constitutional privilege and nominated a person to become a member of the Supreme Court. Please note, that the concept of filling a vacancy is not a Constitutional mandate but a conventional mandate because the Constitution does not have a required number of justices to be seated at any one time.
The Constitutional procedure is that the Executive will nominate and with the advice and then consent of the Senate that the proposed nominee become a justice. There are no requirements, other than the above, for a Supreme Court Justice. There is no age, gender, race, occupation such as lawyer or judge, or any other requirements that would constitute being qualified. Those who are giving opinions as to who is or who is not qualified are simply giving personal opinions and not Constitutional requirements.
Some are saying that the current procedure for nominating the latest justice is an illegitimate procedure. This is not a statement rendered on the procedure established by the Constitution, but only on a procedure concocted in the minds of any individuals who would render this opinion. Even the idea that the nominee must appear before the Judicial Committee of the Senate and be graced by receiving their approval and blessing, is not a Constitutional requirement but a procedure adopted by the Senate that has become a part of their determination as to how advice and consent is to be given. Constitutionally, consent could be granted in many different ways, such as a vote the day after nomination by the full Senate, a committee of some number appointed by the Senate, or any other procedure adopted by the Senate as a means of granting consent.
The nominating process and advice and consent process gives great latitude to both the Executive and the Senate. There are no criteria for nominating and there is no procedure for advice and consent. There is however one Constitutional requirement placed on the government in total and for our purposes, placed on the Senate in particular when they are going through their conventional procedure for giving advice and consent.
The Constitution specifically states:
Clause 3 The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
In their Constitutional duty of providing advice and consent to the nominee of the Executive, no religious test, such as whether or not the nominee holds a certain faith or is a member of a certain denomination, can be applied as a qualification. The only exception would be if that religion prohibited the nominee from affirming that they would support the Constitution.
In addition, it is critical that we understand that the nominee is under no obligation to adhere to the doctrine of stare decisis. Stare decisis is the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent. This is strictly a legal principle and is not found anywhere in the Constitution. The reality of stare decisis is that it is detrimental to good law. If the point in litigation is Constitutional and sound law, it should stand on its own. If the point in litigation is not Constitutional and sound law it should be discarded and not used to perpetuate law that is neither Constitutional nor sound.
As we Americans listen to the pre-hearings rhetoric and what has become political posturing by the politicians during the hearings, it is imperative we all understand what is and what is not Constitutional and what is and what is not political posturing. This is a time for we the public to scrutinize the wisdom of the conventional process the Senate has adopted as their method to fulfill their Constitutional duty of advice and consent. A question we should all ask, is does this process produce individuals that will adhere to equal justice under the law.
Another great question to ask ourselves during this process so we can make an assessment on what is and what is not good government, “Do I believe the nominee being questioned is more likely and more capable to provide equal justice under the law and would adhere to rendering opinions and not making law as a justice per the requirement of the Constitution, when compared to the persons asking the questions and making the statements.” We can than determine if the particular Senator is seeking a fair minded individual who will have as their prime motive to render equal protection under the law, or if the Senator is seeking an individual who will fulfill the political goals of the Senator by making law and not rendering opinions, so the Senator does not have to take a political stand and jeopardize their re-election, because they had to vote on laws, which is their Constitutional duty.
Those who would promote evil means to achieve a good goal, will never be successful in their quest. Those who would use the means of destruction to achieve a good goal, will never be successful in their quest. Only those who would use good means and seek to build have any hope of achieving a good goal.
It is this truth that made the United States of America a unique nation and led to it being the desired destination of so many for so long, those ideas that all of our natural rights and liberties come from our Creator and are not and never should be under the control of man nor government to limit or to abolish any of these natural rights and liberties for one, for some, or for all. Whenever man or government assume the role of controller of natural rights or liberties, the means of limiting natural rights and liberties for one, for some, or for all under the guise of advancing the greater good, always ends in the destruction of the society. This is what is happening in the United States today.
Thomas Jefferson borrowed from John Locke when he penned perhaps not only the most famous, but the most essential principle upon which our nation was founded when he wrote into the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among them the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The United States was thus founded on promoting good means to achieve a good goal.
We must than ask ourselves, why is the United States in the position of such contention and strive where many in our nation now say what is good is evil and what is evil is good. John Locke gave us some incredible insight as to why this could happen when he explained, “As usurpation is the exercise of power, which another hath a right to; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which nobody can have a right to. And this is making use of the power anyone has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private separate advantage. When the governor, however intitled, makes not the law, but his will, the rule; and his commands and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passion.”
― John Locke, Second Treatise of Government
When men, through the mechanism of government, seek to control the natural rights given to man by the Creator, they in fact bring about a distortion in the relationships between people, it also brings about a distortion in the relationship between man and the Creator. For instance, man, through the mechanism of government has taken upon itself to redefine the natural right of life, a natural right given by the Creator to man. Under the guise of good, using the contorted reasoning that taking the life of someone who is deemed to be a nuisance or inconvenience, should be designated as choice rather than murder, has brought tremendous conflict and strife to society and has been a major contributor to the destruction of the core family unit.
Another example of man creating chaos and restricting liberty resulting in strive and conflict, is groups of people limiting what is an essential freedom to a free society, that is the freedom of speech. In the United States today, only speech that promotes what is deemed to be politically correct is now considered to be acceptable to society. Any speech that is deemed to not be politically correct is limited by ostracizing and demeaning. This is tyranny. Freedom can only exist when a free and unfettered flow of ideas is protected and indeed encouraged. Tyranny requires conformity to one set of ideas and is threatened when individuals openly and freely exchange ideas.
The result of such a breakdown in the protection of all-natural rights and liberties for all, has resulted in the limitation, and in some cases such as in the case of the unborn, the total elimination of their natural rights and liberties. All societies who have accepted such means, no matter how good was the expressed intent, have experienced that the end result of these actions is the evil of tyranny with the requirement that all forsake their individuality and conform to the thoughts and ideas required by the controlling few.
All Caucasian males are bad.
If you are a Black but do not support the Marxist movement, you are bad.
If you are Hispanic but do not support the Marxist movement, you are bad.
If you are a conservative woman, you are bad.
If you are Asian and aspire to excel, you are bad.
If you are alive and aspire to excel, you are bad.
If you disagree with the conformist movement of the left, you are bad.
If you believe in the God of the Bible, you are bad.
If you disagree with intimidation and bullying, you are bad.
If you believe that ending the life of a child is murder and not choice, you are bad.
If you believe it is wrong to riot, steal, destroy, and murder, you are bad.
If you believe the individual should have the right to make their own decisions, you are bad.
If you believe the Constitution of the United States should be followed, you are bad.
If you believe the family unit should be promoted and protected, you are bad.
If you believe in self-respect and self-responsibility, you are bad.
If you believe government should serve and not dictate, you are bad.
If you believe you have a right to pursue happiness, you are bad.
If you believe you have a right to disagree and voice your disagreement, you are bad.
WHO THAN IS GOOD ACCORDING TO THE LEFT
If you believe all must conform to the dictates of a Marxist totalitarian state, you are good.
If you believe the totalitarian Marxist state is the supreme power of all, you are good.
If you believe forsaking your individualism for the good of the collective, you are good.
If you believe the United States is evil and the cause of all bad in the world, you are good.
The core believe is that all that is individual is bad and all that is collective is good.
We have witnessed the protection of the abuser while the real victim is prosecuted. People who protect their property from the threat of mobs, have been declared to be the criminal while the aggressor is defended by the left.
Governor Ron DeSantis has said this should not be the case in the State of Florida. If you are at a restaurant enjoying a meal and you are harassed and bullied by others, you are not the aggressor, but the victim, if people decide to burn your business or loot your business you are not the aggressor, but the victim, and if you are driving on a street and stopped by rioters, you are not the aggressor but the victim. Individuals and groups, for whatever cause, do not have the right to break the law, to bully, or to destroy for their purposes. Florida is saying, despite what the left condones, encourages, and promotes in other States like Oregon, Washington, California, New York, Illinois, Minnesota, or so many other Democrat run States, it will not happen in Florida.
The bill states among other things that the Combatting Violence, Disorder and Looting and Law Enforcement Protection Act -- would impose stiff criminal penalties for actions such as blocking roadways, disrupting restaurants, or toppling monuments.
"You see videos of these innocent people eating dinner and you have these crazed lunatics just screaming at them and intimidating them on a public accommodation," DeSantis said. "You aren't going to do that in state of Florida."
Another provision would shield drivers from liability “for injury and death caused if fleeing for safety from a mob.” If you are surrounded by mobsters who are destroying you property or threatening your person, you have the right to drive away and are not held responsible for those who would stand in front of your car.
Of course, the left is stating that if passed, this law would be unconstitutional. I am not sure where the constitution protects the criminal and thug while punishing the law-abiding citizen. If you see in the Constitution where the purposeful destruction of the property of another or the purposeful intimidation or harm of another is protected, please show it to me.
It is true that Justice Ginsburg developed a cult following. She was a strong advocate for legislating from the bench and not adhering to the Untied States Constitutional requirement that the court simply review and give opinions. Ginsburg believed like do so many of the left, that opinion means law.
Justices are required to take two oaths of office, unlike for instance the President of the United States who only takes one. The oaths taken by the Justices are as follows:
The first oath is, "I, ________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
The second oath is, "I, _________, do solemnly swear or affirm that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
In the second oath the justice specifically agrees to adhere to the constitution and laws of the United States. Justice Ginsburg stated several times that she believed our constitution was inadequate and that a Justice must use foreign influence and documents when reaching a decision.
Ginsburg claimed foreign and international law is appropriate for constitutional adjudication when she said: “Judges in the United States, after all, are free to consult all manner of commentary — Restatements, Treatises, what law professors or even law students write copiously in law reviews, and, in the internet age, any number of legal blogs. If we can consult those sources, why not the analysis of a question similar to the one we confront contained, for example, in an opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Constitutional Court of South Africa, the German Constitutional Court, or the European Court of Human Rights?”
Ginsburg also showed her disdain for the United States Constitution when she advised a foreign country that she would not recommend the U.S. Constitution as a model for Egypt’s new government.
The problem, you see, is that the U.S. Constitution is “a rather old constitution.” Ginsburg suggested and you should look instead to the Constitution of South Africa or perhaps the European Convention on Human Rights. All these are “much more recent than the U.S. Constitution.”
This explains why so many of Ginsburg’s opinions seemed to be contrary to the United States Constitution like her upholding consistently Roe v Wade. She consistently violated her oath of office to adhere to the constitution and laws of the United States and applied laws from many different places including in some instances from outer space.
She is an icon to those who also hold the United States Constitution and our laws in disdain. John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” The American left hates our Constitution because it was written for a moral and religious people. The American left, including Justice Ginsburg, have embraced the doctrine of Karl Marx and his belief that a nation must abolish all long-standing principles (the Constitution), all morality, and all religion.
I understand that Justice Ginsburg was a friend of Justice Scalia. I understand that Justice Ginsburg was a witty and wonderful dinner guest to many. I understand that Justice Ginsburg was revered by such hypocritical movements as the Feminist and Me-Too movements. This does in no way change the fact that Justice Ginsburg violated her oath of office and tremendously damaged our Constitution.
People are rioting (those on the left, but really what is new) and arguing over a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States of America. For many, the Supreme Court appointment is more consequential than who wins the presidency. This just proves how far we have moved from the Constitutional powers of the different branches of government.
Hamilton, in Federalist # 78 said that the judicial branch of government was by far the weakest of the three branches. It did not, he said, have the "sword" of the executive, who is commander in chief of the nation's armed forces, nor the "purse" of the legislature, which approves all the tax and spending measures of the national government. It had, according to Hamilton, "neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment."
Merely judgement does not include the authority to make law. The only branch of government that was given the power to legislate under the United States Constitution was the legislative branch. Today the executive branch and the judicial branch have also assumed the power to legislate or make law. Please notice that I stated the executive branch and the judicial branch and did not limit this to the President and the Supreme Court. That is because low level bureaucrats and district judges have totally ignored the United States Constitution and have assumed the role of the legislature.
The branch of government that was intended to be by far the weakest branch of government has come to be by far the most powerful branch of government. This has come about because the judicial branch has usurped power and elevated itself over time to that position. This began with the infamous ruling in Marbury v Madison where the court, under Chief Justice John Marshall, declared that the role of the court was the final authority because the Court could declare what is or is not constitutional. Over the years the judicial branch has unchecked continued to usurp authority to the point that even district judges assume they have the authority to overturn any law or declaration nationally, and their basis can be anything they deem appropriate including their political “feelings.”
In addition, the Supreme Court has assumed the role of unilaterally declaring any policy on which they can get five votes to be the law of the land. Constitutionally, these declarations such as legalizing murder as the Supreme Court did in their “ruling” of Roe v Wade, are not laws but simply an opinion of five individuals. This has come about, not only because of the members of the Supreme Court unilaterally declaring their powers extend beyond those given to them under the Constitution, but also because member of congress have seen they can protect their seats in congress by not having to vote on controversial issues, and can implement their controversial issues through the politized judicial branch.
Thomas Jefferson was very prophetic when after the Marbury v Madison ruling he stated, "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
The United States is today under the despotism of an oligarchy called the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court is now the chief political arm of the left and their preferred manner of directing or governing. The right is not innocent, but mostly the guilt of the right lies in their accepting the usurpation of total authority by the judicial branch of our government.
The judicial branch has not only moved from by far the weakest branch of government to by far the most powerful branch of government, but to by far the greatest threat to the God given natural rights and liberties to the people as stated in the Declaration of Independence when Thomas Jefferson stated, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
If we were honoring the Constitution as intended, a nominee to the Supreme Court would be important, but only in the context as to their understanding of the Constitution, and their ability to separate any and all personal and political influences or prejudices from their ruling, basing their opinion only on the words within the Constitution itself. The left today demands exactly the opposite.
It is imperative that this nominee and appointed individual, and all future, be nominated and appointed because they have exhibited that they will adhere to the Constitutional role of a Supreme Court Justice. The freedom and liberty of each citizen of the United States depends on it.
President Trump is a capitalist. Obama is a communist which means he believes in a socialist economy. A capitalist is an individualist who believes in a government as described by Thomas Jefferson when he said, “A wise and frugal government will leave men free to regulate their own industry and improvement and will not take from the bread of labor the bread it has earned, this is the sum of good government.”
President Trump and Thomas Jefferson believe that individuals should be free to pursue their own happiness, less government regulation is best, and low taxes are essential. These are the policies President Trump pursued from day one of his administration, as he immediately started to get rid of stifling government regulations and set about to cut taxes on individuals and corporations.
Comrade Obama is a committed communist as was Vladimir Lenin. Lenin said, “No Marxist will deny the interest of socialism is higher than the right of a nation to self-determination. It is the role of government to implement socialism.” This is exactly what Comrade Obama did as he increased government regulations on individuals and businesses while raising taxes, fees, and fines. Biden supported everything Obama did except the killing of Osama bin Laden. Today, Biden does not know who or where he is, even when he reads what is written on his teleprompter.
The result of capitalism versus socialism is always the same. Capitalism always raises incomes, it always reduces poverty, and it always narrows the income gap. These are facts just as are the sun always rises in the East and sets in the West and gravity always pulls back to earth. The more government regulates and taxes the slower is economic growth which puts less in the pockets of individuals and increase poverty, misery, and crime.
These are numbers recently released from the latest census numbers which once again prove the maxims above.
American households saw their best economic gains in half a century according to a report this week from the Census Bureau.
Median household income grew by a stunning $4,400 in 2019, resulting in an all-time record of $68,700. This 6.8 percent one-year increase is the largest gain on record for median income growth.
The poverty rate plunged to an all-time low of 10.5 percent, as well. Between 2018 and 2019 alone, over 4 million Americans were lifted out of poverty, and the child poverty rate fell to a nearly 50-year low in 2019.
When we follow capitalism as described by Thomas Jefferson and practiced by Donald Trump, you will always have results like the above. If you prefer poverty, misery, and crime, follow the polices of Comrades Obama, Lenin, and those professed by the Democrat party.
Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.