“I only know this is wrong.”

– Guinan
Star Trek: The Next Generation
“Yesterday’s Enterprise”

I’m a sucker for time-travel stories. Whether it’s Harry Potter, Star Trek: The Next Generation, Back to the Future, Stephen King’s 11/22/63 or anything else, a good story about the hero traveling back in time and affecting (or restoring) “the timeline” is one of my favorite diversions. If the plot is clever and resolves itself well, I’m even willing to put up with hokey dialog and two-dimensional characters. I just love it when a story, which can easily open itself to paradox, cliché and deus ex machina anti-climax, manages to apply self-consistent logic and arrive at an exciting, thought-provoking and satisfying ending.

Of course, we know that time travel is impossible. You can’t go back in time and murder your grandfather, there are no alternate universes and there is no grand government conspiracy hiding an actual time travel device so we just think it’s impossible. But that doesn’t mean that it’s impossible to change the past, at least not if you’re a progressive, or whatever term the left chooses to apply to itself. The only hard part is getting yourself into a position to do it, such as becoming a Supreme Court Justice.

If you’re like me, and believe that words have meanings and expect that logical self-consistency is essential for any set of laws to make sense, then you would agree that once a law is passed it’s meaning should remain constant until such time as the legislature chooses to amend or repeal the law. That’s a pretty basic feature of any “government of laws, not of men.” The problem, as the left sees it, is that our Constitution was set up to make it hard to change the law, but we conservatives see this as a feature, not a bug.

The way the Constitution says you change a law is to advocate for the change and convince the legislature to pass the amendment, get it approved by the other house and have the president sign it into law. But that can be difficult since (ideally) each legislator is beholden to a constituency (those pesky “we the people” again), so they have to convince them that it’s a good idea too. If they can’t, then they may get voted out in the next election. At least, that’s how it’s supposed to work. What if there were an easier way?

Let’s suppose that time travel were actually possible. Our legislative crusader could go back in time, maybe to the Constitutional Convention, and actually advocate to change the Constitution. Maybe convince James Madison that the first amendment should include that phrase “Congress shall make no law limiting the ability of a mother to kill her unborn child at any time during her pregnancy.” Then the Supreme Court never would have had to wrestle with the abortion question in Roe v. Wade.

Instead, the left has discovered that Legislative Time Travel is much easier. All they have to do is decide what policy they want to enact and then declare that the meaning of the appropriate legislation is actually different from what everyone thought it was originally, and – surprise! – it actually means just what it needs to mean to enact whatever policy they want. They did it with abortion, they did it with gay “marriage” and now they’re doing it with “transgenderism.” Instead of going back in time and convincing Madison, all they have to say is “Madison really meant whatever I wish he’d meant.”

And the Obama administration doesn’t even have to go back that far. By reinterpreting Title IX to include the nebulous term “gender identity” they have the chutzpah to tell legislators, many of whom are still around, that the law they passed to prohibit discrimination based on sex now means something completely different.

So now we find ourselves in an alternate reality where laws are no longer logically self-consistent, since “gender identity” is completely subjective and this made-up interpretation of plainly written law is now in direct contradiction of the First Amendment in forcing churches and religious organizations and employers to go against the practice of their faith (i.e. the free exercise of their religion) to accommodate what the American College of Pediatricians has classified as a psychological disorder.

Since we don’t believe in Legislative Time Travel, we need representatives who will follow the Constitution and not just make things up as they go along. Since Clinton has pledged to be Obama’s third term, we can expect more of the same if she is elected. It says a lot about how far left Clinton and the democrats have become that Donald Trump is actually the candidate who is more likely to restore our timeline to one that make sense.

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed the conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?”

Thomas Jefferson
Engraved on the wall of the Jefferson Memorial

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Thomas Jefferson
The Declaration of Independence

There are two important things to note about the rights guaranteed us by the Constitution. The first is that the Constitution doesn’t “grant” us any rights. Instead, it speaks of rights already in existence (unalienable and endowed by our creator, according to the Declaration of Independence) and explicitly prohibits the government from infringing on those rights. The second is that each of the rights explicitly spelled out in the Constitution is personal.

Liberals tend to talk about rights in terms of what others must give you: a “living wage,” health care, housing, or even an abortion. These liberal “rights” get things exactly backwards. The only way one person can have a right to something that someone else must provide is for the provider to be forced to provide it, regardless of his consent.

The liberals on the Supreme Court, in Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, recently struck down the eminently-sensible Texas law that ensured safe conditions for women seeking abortions. Their “reasoning” was that the law unreasonably restricted women’s access to abortions. Let’s think about that logically for a moment. The Supreme Court, citing a “right” that is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, has said that it is unconstitutional to restrict a woman’s access to abortion.

Let’s do a thought experiment. Suppose that all the abortionists in the country suddenly decided to move to Australia. Or, in an unfortunately less-likely scenario, let’s suppose that every abortionist suddenly developed a conscience and realized that they had been murdering innocent children and repented, refusing to perform any more abortions. Could anything restrict a woman’s access to abortion more than that? What then of this supposed “right” for a woman to get an abortion? Is it really possible that the Supreme Court, or Congress, or even a State Legislature could somehow prohibit this mass-exodus of abortionists? I can just see Anthony Kennedy and Elena Kagan at JFK airport looking for that last abortionist and tackling him before he can board that last flight out. The logical conclusion is that the supposed “right” to abortion is no right at all.

Is there a “right” to housing? How can that possibly be when someone must build the house? And who decides what kind of house? Do you have the right to three bedrooms or only two? A cape in the suburbs or a brownstone in the city? If you have the right to a “living wage,” who decides what that is? How hard do you have to work to receive it? How good do you have to be at your job? Does a “living wage” include cable TV and a cell phone?

It simply cannot be that anyone can have a right to something that someone else must provide. The truth is that liberals are not interested in rights as our founders understood them. They invent “rights” for one of two reasons. Either they are trying to force people to behave a certain way or they are trying to buy votes from people who care more about what government can give them than protecting themselves against what government can do to them. Anyone who supports this approach cannot claim to “support and defend the Constitution.”


A note from DaTechGuy: I hope you enjoyed Tech Knight’s piece. Remember we will be judging the entries in Da Magnificent tryouts by hits both to their post and to DaTipJar. So if you like Tech Knight’s work, please consider sharing this post, and if you hit DaTipjar because of it don’t forget to mention Tech Knight’s post as the reason you did so. If you missed his last piece, it’s here




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



Kazran:   Are you really a babysitter?
11th Doctor: (shows psychic paper) I think you’ll find I’m universally recognised as a mature and responsible adult.
Kazran: It’s just a lot of wavy lines.
11th Doctor (looking at the paper)  Yeah, it’s shorted out. Finally, a lie too big.

Doctor Who A Christmas Carol 2010

My first thought when I saw this 5-3 ruling from the Supreme Court to Temporarily Block and order forcing transgender bathrooms on public school kids and reading that for the first time in my memory a liberal voted with conservatives put the stay on, was “Finally a lie too big for a liberal justice to go along with”.

But when I read these details:

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote separately to say that he concurred in the decision in part because granting the stay would “preserve the status quo” until the court has a chance to consider a petition for cert. “I vote to grant the application as a courtesy,”

and got a days sleep (working overnights you know) it hit me.

This isn’t about keeping the status quo before cert, this is about keeping the status quo concerning the perceived momentum in this election.

Right now the perception is (Regardless of the reality) that Trump is reeling yet in politics it doesn’t take much to change the conversation which is why the MSM didn’t bother to report much on the bus bombing in Paris or touch Mr. Kahn’s deleting, in classic Clinton style, his law firms’ web site.
However the transgender bathroom issue in public schools is an issue that can change that paradigm.

While the left has managed to push the culture to the brink of insanity & even some would say past it, we have not yet reached the point where anything near a majority of Americans believe that a person with a penis is a woman.

If Justice Breyer had voted with the left this would become a debate issue and then Hillary might find herself having to answer the one question that nobody in the MSM wants raised before the election:

At what age should a young girl be compelled, against her will by law to share a bathroom with a person who has fully developed male genitalia?

This question reveals the Transgender nonsense for what it is which is why it is not asked. The left can not let this question be asked and Hillary must not be made to answer.

Even worse the idea that Hillary would appoint justices who would answer that question with the age of five or under must NOT under any circumstance get into the heads of any voters in swing states, particularly not voters of color who might find this a bridge too far.

Justice Breyer wasn’t doing a courtesy to the state of Virginia, it was a courtesy to the Hillary Clinton campaign to keep things quiet till she is safely elected and this can be done to the American people by fiat in the classic liberal way.

Closing thought, if you are #nevertrump and this doesn’t convince you of the stakes we’re playing for here nothing will.


Don’t forget this is the 2nd week of our 6 week tryouts for Da Magnificent Prospect, You can check out their work Monday evening, Tuesday at Noon, All Day Thursday and Saturday at noon. If you like what you see from them consider hitting DaTipjar in support of them (and please mention their name when you do) as both internet hits and tipjar hits will be part of scoring who stays & who goes.




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



The Mask has dropped from Justice Ruth Ginsberg:

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she doesn’t want to conjure up the possibility of Donald Trump in the White House.

“I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” Ginsburg told The New York Times in an interview published Sunday. “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”
Ginsburg, on the high court since 1993, told the Times the prospect of a Trump presidency reminded her of the type of wry comment her late husband might have made.
“‘Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand,'” Justice Ginsburg said.

Not only did the mask of impartiality drop she refused to put it back on and doubled down:

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s well-known candor was on display in her chambers late Monday, when she declined to retreat from her earlier criticism of Donald Trump and even elaborated on it.

“He is a faker,” she said of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, going point by point, as if presenting a legal brief. “He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. … How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that.”

As you might have heard this got some critique from Donald Trump but it also got a lot of critique from liberals as well:

The New York Times:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg needs to drop the political punditry and the name-calling. …

In this election cycle in particular, the potential of a new president to affect the balance of the court has taken on great importance, with the vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. As Justice Ginsburg pointed out, other justices are nearing an age when retirement would not be surprising. That makes it vital that the court remain outside the presidential process. And just imagine if this were 2000 and the resolution of the election depended on a Supreme Court decision. Could anyone now argue with a straight face that Justice Ginsburg’s only guide would be the law?

The Washington Post

I first wrote about Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s controversial comments about Donald Trump on Monday. Since then, the situation has erupted into an all-out feud, and now the editorial boards of both the New York Times and The Washington Post have weighed in against Ginsburg’s decision to insert herself into the 2016 campaign…I’ll say at the top what I’ve said before: It’s hard if not impossible to find a direct analog to what Ginsburg has said in recent days. Supreme Court experts I’ve spoken to were unaware of any justices getting so directly and vocally involved — or involved at all, really — in a presidential campaign.

Slate:

There is really very little to debate about the ethics of Ginsburg’s comments. They were plainly a violation, the kind of partisan partiality that judicial ethics codes strive to prevent. But Ginsburg, who is a quietly canny judicial and political strategist, surely knows that her comments were an ethical error. That leads to a fascinating question: Why would the justice risk her reputation and good standing—and even her power to hear cases involving Trump—for a few quick jabs at the candidate? The answer, I suspect, is that Ginsburg has decided to sacrifice some of her prestige in order to send as clear a warning signal about Trump as she possibly can. The subtext of Ginsburg’s comments, of her willingness to comment, is that Trump poses an unparalleled threat to this country—a threat so great that she will abandon judicial propriety in order to warn against looming disaster.

To be clear, what Ginsburg is doing right now—pushing her case against Trump through on-the-record interviews—is not just unethical; it’s dangerous. As a general rule, justices should refrain from commenting on politics, period. That dictate applies to 83-year-old internet folk heroes as strictly as it applies to anybody else who dons judicial robes. The independence of our judiciary—and just as critically, its appearance of impartiality—hinges on a consistent separation between itself and the other branches of government. That means no proclamations of loyalty to any candidate, or admissions of distaste of any other.

Even CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin was not happy as reported by Newsbusters:

No, I don’t think there’s any chance she will resign, but I think it’s appropriate to criticize her about this. This is not how Supreme Court justices have talked traditionally. They do not get involved in day-to-day political controversies. They do not endorse or un-endorse candidates.

Describing himself as a “great admirer” of Justice Ginsburg, he then got to the subject of recusal as he added:

And I think there are lots of good reasons for that, not least of which, something involving the election may come before the Supreme Court in a Bush V. Gore type case. And I think she’d have to recuse herself at this point. 

I just think, as someone who is a great admirer of Justice Ginsburg, she is completely wrong in this situation, and she should not be making these kinds of political statements.

And cartoonists as well:

A lot of people are upset about this ethical violation.

I’m not.

Don’t get me wrong, it was a complete abrogation of her duty as a judge on the highest court in the land and an action unworthy of her and her position. Furthermore it sets a horrible precedent for the future.

However there is one other consideration.

If there is one thing that anyone who watches the court knows it that any 5-4 decision will involve a “conservative’ justice voting with liberals. You will not and have not seen any of the liberals, Kagan, Sotomayor or Ginsberg being the deciding vote for a case going in the direction of conservatives.

Justice Ginsberg’s public statements make it plan for all to see that our liberal friends on the Supreme Court are simple ideologues and that their vote on any key issue dividing left and right would be no different if every brief in support of the liberal position consisted of the sentence: “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.” repeated ad infinitum.

Ann Althouse gets it

In the case of Justice Ginsburg, Trump isn’t inferring bias and politics from whatgroup she belongs to. It’s a reaction to her particular statements. It’s individual. She openly displayed her political leanings and her desire for political allies on the Court and her intent, going forward, to use those allies to get to a majority that would overrule cases that recognize important constitutional rights — includingHeller, the case that says there is an individual right to bear arms.

And here’s where it becomes clear that the NYT editorial proceeds upon the second reason I posited above, that Justice Ginsburg’s particular political statements are dangerous and damaging to the political cause she and the NYT support. “In this election cycle in particular,” it’s important to keep voters believing that judges will be impartial and above politics, and here’s Ginsburg “call[ing] her own commitment to impartiality into question.” The Times tries to pass this off as Ginsburg “choos[ing] to descend toward [Trump’s] level,” but she’s not joining Trump, she’s proving him right: Judges are political, and that’s a bad thing. Perhaps Curiel didn’t deserve the criticism, but Ginsburg does, and it’s very irritating to the NYT, it would seem, because the Curiel incident was so effectively used against Trump, and then along comes Ginsburg displaying herself as pleased to be political.

Justice Ginsburg unethical behavior has provided a valuable service to the entire nature by allowing them to see that lie that the NY Times and other want to keep hidden.  The question becomes will the American people react the way the NYT and the left fears they will?

One can only hope but no matter how they do, rest assured the American people will get the president and the justice system we deserve.

Sorta Update: Justice Ginsburg has finally figured out she was not helping her cause.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Thursday she regrets remarks she made earlier this week to CNN and other news outlets criticizing presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

“On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them,” Ginsburg said in a statement. “Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect.”

The best part of this non-apology is it allowed Donald Trump the high ground in response:

“It wasn’t really an apology, but we have to move on anyway. It’s just something that should not have taken place,” the presumptive GOP presidential nominee said.

“It’s just a very disappointing moment for me because the Supreme Court is above that kind of rhetoric, those words. … But she acknowledged she made a mistake, and I’ll accept that.”

The greatest ally Trump has in this election are the people who oppose him.


I’d like to think we do good work here If you’d like to help us keep up the pace please consider hitting DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



Mr. Spock: This is how history went after McCoy changed it. Here, in the late 1930s. A growing pacifist movement whose influence delayed the United States’ entry into the Second World War. While peace negotiations dragged on, Germany had time to complete its heavy-water experiments.
Captain Kirk: Germany. Fascism. Hitler. They won the Second World War.
Mr. Spock: Because all this lets them develop the A-bomb first. There’s no mistake, Captain. Let me run it again. Edith Keeler. Founder of the peace movement.
Captain Kirk: But she was right. Peace was the way.
Mr. Spock: She was right, but at the wrong time. With the A-bomb, and with their V2 rockets to carry them, Germany captured the world.
Captain Kirk: No.
Mr. Spock: And all this because McCoy came back and somehow kept her from dying in a street accident as she was meant to. We must stop him, Jim.

Star Trek The City on the Edge of Forever 1967

Yesterday old friend Lonely Conservative asked a relevant question concerning Donald Trump as the GOP nominee

Trump himself isn’t giving me any reasons to vote for him. He continues to give me many reasons to stay home and not vote at all, but he hasn’t done a damned thing to earn my vote. Calling Hillary Clinton a crook doesn’t count. I know she’s horrible, but her shortcomings (for lack of a better word to describe how dreadful she is) don’t make Trump any better. As far as I’m concerned, they’re both evil. Trump hitching his wagon to the Republican Party doesn’t change who or what he is.

This type of argument has been a staple of the #nevertrump crowd and her questions about Trump as President are not without merit:

So tell me, why will Donald Trump be a great president? How is he a good man? How is he a good role model? What will he do to get the boot of the federal government off of our necks? What will he do for the free market, or to protect religious liberty? How will he restore our standing in the world? (His cozy relationship with Vladimir Putin doesn’t count, neither does his admiration of the world’s worst dictators.) How is a man whose principles change with the weather going to hold up to the pressures of the presidency?Really, I want to know how you think the orange faced wanna be dictator is going to Make America Great Again?

However while in theory, not staining oneself with a vote for Trump might make one feel better, yesterday the Supreme Court delivered the practical reality of what will happen if Hillary Clinton is elected president vs Donald Trump:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday blocked President Barack Obama’s plan to spare millions of immigrants in the country illegally from deportation in a split ruling that heartened political foes who had accused him of overstepping his powers.

But the most important words concerning this result come from the very first page of the ruling:

PER CURIAM. The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.

And the folks at Hotair note how much had to go right to reach that point:

A lot had to go right to get to this point. The plaintiffs ended up with a Bush appointee, Judge Andrew Hanen, at the trial level; Hanen issued a preliminary injunction against Obama’s DAPA amnesty, which granted legal status and work permits to an expanded class of illegals. The feds appealed to the Fifth Circuit, and the luck of the draw at that level produced a three-judge panel of one Reagan appointee, one Bush appointee, and one Carter appointee. Result: 2-1 to uphold Hanen’s injunction. Then the plaintiffs had to hope that Anthony Kennedy, who provided the decisive vote elsewhere this morning in upholding the University of Texas’s affirmative action scheme, would resist the urge to tilt left on this one too and form a clear 5-3 majority for O’s order in the name of providing certainty to the millions of illegals currently in DAPA limbo. The Court doesn’t say how the justices voted but it’s a safe bet that Kennedy came through.

And amid all of this, border hawks had to hope that Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans would continue to hold the line and refuse to confirm Merrick Garland, who surely would have done his friend Barack a solid by providing the fifth vote to uphold his order. Everything had to go right for Texas and the other plaintiffs. It did.

Now after this election there will be a new president and that 9th seat on the Supreme Court is going to be filled.  If Hillary Clinton fills that seat Executive Amnesty will be the law of the land.

There were many arguments against nominating Donald Trump, I made some of them, there are also concerns about what a Donald Trump presidency might look like, I wrote a parody song about it but no amount of soul searching, no about of principled declarations and no about of declarations of the unfitness of Donald Trump (valid or not) will change that practical result of either staying home or voting Gary Johnson is to elect Hillary Clinton and guarantee her the ability to appoint the deciding vote on the Supreme Court.

It may be that my friend Karen, and others like Erick Erickson et/al are right, but like Edith Keeler they are right at the wrong time, because the practical result of #nevertrump is the election of Hillary Clinton and if you care about religious freedom, if you care about the 2nd Amendment, if you care about the rule of law to remain #nevertrump you have to be willing to say:

 “I am willing to give the Democrats who are willing to use the power of the government to persecute republicans,  oppressed religious believers and in total denial about Islamic Terror control of the Supreme Court for generations to come in order to keep Donald Trump from being elected.”

I suspect a lot of #nevertrump people seeing this ruling at the Supreme Court will decide this is a bridge too far for them.

Every person much make that decision on their own and I’m not going to question Karen or anyone else who decides they just can’t vote Trump, but if one makes that decision it has to be made with eyes wide open.

I’d like to think we do good work here If you’d like to help us keep up the pace please consider hitting DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



My first thought when I heard about the unanimous decision not to make a decision by SCOTUS was the fact that with an election coming that the idea of a government fatwa against a bunch of nuns might not play well in certain swing states drove this move. (There is a reason why the MSM doesn’t mention them in the context of this case)

but the more I thought about it something else hit  me.

I could be completely wrong here but I have a feeling that SCOTUS sending the Little sisters of the Poor case back down looking for compromise is all about a great conflict in the minds of some of those justices.

I think that while the religion of liberalism runs strong and produces an overwhelming pull I think that to force these nuns to violate their consciences might just be a bridge too far for some of those justices.

The irony here is that while Justice Scalia was alive this wasn’t an issue, if there was a conservative majority in favor of the nuns then a liberal Catholic could happily vote on the losing side knowing that said vote would not have any effect on the poor nuns.

But now instead of the cover of a meaningless vote, Justice Scalia has put them on a very uncomfortable spot and I strongly suspect that the many prayers being said both for the nuns and directed toward the guardian angels of the Justices in question were not in vain.

Conscience is an odd thing sometimes and we never quite know the workings of God.

I know some of you might think that a load of BS but that’s my gut.

 

 

 

Edward Rutledge:They are here, yes, but they are not people sir, they are property.
Thomas Jefferson:No, sir they are people who are being treated as property!

1776 (1972)

I have often argued that the abortion debate is just the slavery debate, treating People namely children, as property.

At the federalist, we see how this is played out in situations that to use the Holy Father’s words “irregular” situations: 

A white lesbian couple is suing a sperm bank for a second time because it gave them sperm from a black donor instead of a white one as they requested. Jennifer Cramblett filed the lawsuit last week against Midwest Sperm Bank LLC, which she blames for “an unplanned transracial parent-child relationship” that she says has caused her to move to a “place that is more racially and culturally diverse.”

The complaint says she gave birth to a “beautiful, obviously mixed race, baby” girl in 2012 after she learned several months beforehand that the sperm was from a black donor. Claiming negligence, misconduct, and breach of contract, she is seeking $150,000 plus punitive damages and attorney fees.

 

Now if you consider this a question of property this is a very straightforward case. The customer purchased an item from a vendor and it was not as promised so they are looking for compensation. It brings to mind the exchange from the movie 1997 movie Amistad:

Mr. Baldwin: Well, the case is much simpler than you think, Mr. Tappan. It’s like anything – land, livestock, heirlooms, what have you.
Mr Tappin: Livestock?
Mr. Baldwin: Yes. Consider – the only way one may sell or purchase slaves is if they are born slaves, as on the plantation. I’m right, aren’t I?
Mr. Tappan: Yes.
Mr. Baldwin: So, are they?
Mr. Tappan: “Are they?”
Mr. Baldwin: Yes. Born slaves, as on a plantation. We’re not certain, but we very much doubt it. Let’s say they are. Then they are possessions, and no more deserving of a criminal trial than a bookcase. On the other hand, let’s say they aren’t slaves, in which case they were illegally acquired. Forget mutiny, forget piracy, forget murder. Those are irrelevant occurrences. Ignore everything but the pre-eminent issue at hand. The wrongful transfer of stolen goods. Either way, we win.

I’m sure there were plenty of cases like this in the days of the slave trade but let’s take this to the logical conclusion with some rational questions:

While with very few exceptions nobody would argue that it would be proper to kill this child because it was not as ordered, if this child had been born with a birth defect or a disease that was inherited from the father/sperm donor would the mother have a valid lawsuit?

If the sperm bank had discovered its error say in the 2nd month of pregnancy would the mother have aborted this child? How about if it discovered its error in the 9th month or the week before delivery?

After all if this child is just property then what’s the difference when you discard it? It’s no more immoral than throwing away a defective table lamp to save the cost of shipping a defective item back.

If for any reason this young girl has issues in her youth, does her mother have a suit against the company?  Does she?

And furthermore consider the psychological effect on the girl as she grows up, what will she think when she discovers that her mother launched a lawsuit because she was dissatisfied over who her daughter is?  How will she as a black women feel about a lawsuit where she is treated as property?  Will she have a valid suit against her mother and/or the company to pay for any trauma due to the company’s error or her mother’s suit?

This is what happens when you treat people as property, then is what happens when you treat human life as a commodity, this is what happens when bringing life into the world is all about affirming one’s own narcissism.

That child, no matter how it was conceived is a gift from God, a living soul and this suit is an insult to her dignity as a person.

She deserves your prayers.

Note if I was a pro-life leader I’d file a brief in the case arguing that this suit treats a person as property and should be thrown out under the amendments abolishing slavery.

Just under a year ago, before his suspension was overturned I wrote about how Tom Brady’s suspension had a huge silver lining for the Patriots:

First of all Tom Brady is 37 years old, while he is arguably the greatest quarterback in NFL history even the greatest gets old and the toll of 15 seasons of getting hit has to have a cumulative effect on a body.

Second of all the Patriots are a pragmatic bunch of folks, they understand Brady is getting older and need to start considering who might be replacing him down the line.

Third of all how do you motivate a man who is:

1. Married to a Supermodel
2. Has all the money he will ever need
3. Has all already been to six superbowls and won 4

That’s why this suspension will do wonders for everybody.

Well now Brady’s suspension has been reinstated by the US appeals court

Last year, a federal court ruled that NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell had not treated New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady fairly in a disciplinary investigation, overturning a four-game suspension at the start of the 2015 season. Today, the 2nd Circuit threw a flag on the lower court and Brady, overturning the ruling and reinstating the suspension:

Other than the fact that Tom Brady’s is now 38 instead of 37 every single argument I made concerning the advantages of Brady getting a 4 week rest to start the season still applies.

Add to that the fact that the only reason Brady did not reach his 7th superbowl was a missed 2 pt conversion and the questionable coaching decision not to settle for 3 points with plenty of time on the clock on several occasions you have to believe Tom will want that 5th ring even more than he did last year.

I suggest the fans of Buffalo, Houston, Arizona and Miami enjoy their 4 game Bradyless windfall (which are not btw guaranteed wins for them) because after those four games the rest of the league is going to be paying for it.

P.S.  None of this changes the fact that there is absolutely no way minor functionaries fiddled with footballs without the knowledge and or consent of their QB and if you believe they would you’ll believe anything.  Yet it is a minor thing which produces a miniscule if any advantage but you’re not telling me it didn’t happen.

Scrooge:Speak comfort to me , Jacob
Marley’s Ghost:I have none to give

Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol

With all that is going on in the race for the GOP nomination conservatives need something to reassure them that things will be ok.

“REPORT: Obama to announce Supreme Court nominee at 11 a.m. If Mitch McConnell keeps his promise, it won’t matter.”

Well that’s certainly a load off of my mind.

 

 

“The target audience for all this activity was 535 people in Washington,” Treglia says — 100 in the Senate, 435 in the House. “The idea was to create an impression that a mass movement was afoot — that everywhere they looked, in academic institutions, in the business community, in religious groups, in ethnic groups, everywhere, people were talking about reform.” …

Instapundit Jan 26th 2016

Dr. Peter Blood: Nuttall, me lad, there’s just one other little thing. Do you think you could find me a good stout piece of timber? About so thick and so long?
Honesty Nuttall: Yes, I think so.
Dr. Peter Blood: Then do so and lash it to your spine – it needs stiffening. Courage!

Captain Blood 1935

Yesterday I talked about my fear that the only thing standing between us and the loss of the republic is the courage of the GOP senate.

It didn’t take long for my fears to begin to be realized.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley, who said Saturday it “only makes sense” to let the next president pick the justice, wouldn’t rule out holding hearings for Obama’s eventual pick.

“I would wait until the nominee is made before I would make any decisions,” Grassley told reporters in a conference call on Tuesday, according to Radio Iowa. “In other words, take it a step at a time.”

Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who sits on the Judiciary Committee, also sounded skeptical of simply rejecting any nominee at the outset. 

“I think we fall into the trap if we just simply say, sight unseen—we fall into the trap of being obstructionists,” Tillis said on The Tyler Cralle Show.

What’s most interesting the sudden cracks in the wall is the difference between the reality and the propaganda.

The reality is that the Senate Republicans have the absolute power to stop president Obama in his tracks.  No amount of editorializing, speech making or angst on the part of the President, Democrats and the NY & Washington Based media changes this fact.

The only thing these people can do is generate fear, and that’s the plan.

You will see editorial after editorial, story after story, advocate after advocate appearing on cable news channels, in newspaper editorials, on sunday shows, in tiny protests stage-managed for the eyes of the press,  on college campuses, on radio news at the top and bottom of the hour excoriating the GOP about how upset the public will be about them failing to confirm Barack Obama’s Supreme Court Pick and how that backlash is going to doom them.

This despite the fact that the same predictions concerning a government shutdown preceded the GOP taking of the Senate in 2014

and stuff like this (emphasis mine)

In July of last year, popular perceptions of the conservative jurist were evenly divided, with 29% seeing him favorably and 27% unfavorably. Scalia, whom one prominent legal scholar named “the most influential justice of the last quarter-century,” was nonetheless unknown to nearly a third of Americans (32%) and generated no opinion from another 12% in 2015, Scalia’s 29th year on the nation’s top court.

So let me ask the obvious question:

Assuming I’m right about the media meme that’s about to be sold to members of congress, how can said meme be accurate if 44% of the pubic doesn’t even know or care who Justice Scalia was?

and provide the answer:  IT ISN’T.

The left’s media meme and online blitzs that are coming are the equivalent of John Magruder or Nathan Bedford Forrest marching the same group of troops over and over again around a hill to make a small force seem like a mighty host, and like their modern democrat successors using the same tactic, their success in that endeavor was dependent on their foes falling for that ruse and losing their nerve.

Don’t fall for it, and if you want to be afraid of something ask yourself this:  Do you really think that the Tea Party and the NRA will forgive and forget if you give in to the Democrats on this?

I’ll give the last word to Jake Tapper

Antonin Scalia pray for us.

****************************************************************************

Given where the economy is rather than where the MSM pretends it is to those who have kicked in (particularly subscribers), thanks much.

If however you have not & are both able and inclined I’d really appreciate it if you’d help us either close January strong or start February stronger by hitting DaTipJar.




Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done and then some.


Choose a Subscription level



Additionally our subscribers get our podcast emailed directly to them before it show up anywhere else.