“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.


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.

by baldilocks

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, 79, died today in Texas while on a hunting trip.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott:

He was the solid rock who turned away so many attempts to depart from and distort the Constitution. We mourn his passing, and we pray that his successor on the Supreme Court will take his place as a champion for the written Constitution and the Rule of Law. Cecilia and I extend our deepest condolences to his family, and we will keep them in our thoughts and prayers.

At another site, I opined that he got out just in time—for himself, at least.

Official SCOTUS Portrait

Justice Scalia’s death, while a personal tragedy for his family, is also one for this country. And it points to the importance of presidential ideology and decision-making, since it is the president who nominates the court’s candidates. With Justices Kagan and Sotomayor, we get two examples of the type of judicial philosophy that President Obama looks for in his Supreme Court justices.

Many opinion-makers on the conservative side of politics are looking to the Republican-lead U.S. Senate to block any of President Obama’s nominations until January 2017 and this has precedent. But if the Democrat nominee for president wins the election, such an unlikely stand would be for naught.

The game has changed.

A lot of people out there are nervous now, and not only conservatives. Justice Scalia, along with Justices Thomas and Alito, had often been the only things standing between the people of the United States and full-on tyranny.

But, as I said to a friend a few minutes ago, God sometimes forces the hands of those of us who are called by His name. He is our only steadfast protector and will always be if we ask Him and trust in Him. I say let’s go for it.

Enjoy your reward, Mr. Justice Scalia.

My Kenya trip has been postponed for one week; I leave on the 21st.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel, tentatively titled, Arlen’s Harem, will be done in 2016. Follow her on Twitter.

Please contribute to Juliette’s Projects JOB: HER TRIP TO KENYA! Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism—->>>>


Liberal Oregon overwhelmingly voted to deny drivers licenses to illegal immigrants and our liberal friends are not taking this lying down:

A group of Mexican immigrants is suing to reverse a decision by Oregon voters on a 2014 ballot measure that prevents undocumented immigrants from getting Oregon driver cards.

The real comedy here is the basis for this lawsuit (emphasis mine)

In a lawsuit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Eugene, the plaintiffs said the outcome of Measure 88 is unconstitutional because it “arbitrarily” denies driving privileges “to Plaintiffs and others based on their membership in a disfavored minority group.”

A “disfavored minority group” That’s an interesting turn of phrase. The question is they don’t specify what disfavored minority group they claim to be a part of.

Is it Mexicans? Well according to the story the plaintiffs are mexicans but the denial of drivers licences are not based on country of origin.

Perhaps they are talking about race, being mexicans one might assume the plaintiffs are latino, but the denial of drivers licences are not based on race.

Perhaps the some of the plaintiffs might be disabled, although there is nothing in the article that suggests it, but the denial of drivers licences are not based on disability.

Maybe the plaintiffs are LGBT, although there is nothing in the article that suggest it, but the denial of drivers licences are not based on sexual preferences.

It could be some of the plaintiffs are Muslim or Atheist or part of some odd religious cult, but the denial of drivers licences are not based on religion.

There is in fact only one thing that the drivers licences are being denied on…having violated federal law, for being criminals.

Well they certainly have a point that criminals are disfavored, depending on their crime we execute them, or lock them up for periods of time, or make them pay heavy fines, or make them report regularly to authorities, restrict their freedom, restrict the jobs they may hold, deny them voting privileges and on occasion deny them driving privileges deport them, and that’s just the state.

It’s also true that criminals are a minority. The vast majority of the population is not violating federal law or state law. Despite their prominence in the news people who violate the law from murders, to thieves to swindlers, to rapists, to dirty cops and pols etc etc etc are not a majority of the population.

But even among this group they are a distinct minority, they are a group of people violating federal law and are not being arrested or punished for it.

So to sum up: A group of people are claiming unconstitutional federal discrimination on the basis of being a group of criminals who are violating federal law without being punished for it.

In a normal age such a suit would be laughed away, in a normal age the people bringing the suit would be arrested and deported.

But because it is considered a political advantage by some to take this seriously this suit will proceed and may even succeed, yet another reminder of the insanity of our current era.

Closing thought: I think that if this suit manages to succeed the precedent will not be lost on other criminals who may use it for other purposes.


The only pay I get for this work comes from you. My goal for 2015 is $22,000 and to date we’re only at $5200

Given that fact I would I ask you to please consider 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.

I know you can get the MSM for nothing, but that’s pretty much what most of them are worth.


I am the King’s good servant – but God’s first.

Saint Thomas More’s last words before being beheaded

Yesterday at the Washington Post Jonathan H. Adler quoted a speech from Justice Scalia from 2002 to make the case that Kim Davis, the elected Democrat County Clerk in Kentucky should resign:

[W]hile my views on the morality of the death penalty have nothing to do with how I vote as a judge, they have a lot to do with whether I can or should be a judge at all. To put the point in the blunt terms employed by Justice Harold Blackmun towards the end of his career on the bench, when he announced that he would henceforth vote (as Justices William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall had previously done) to overturn all death sentences, when I sit on a Court that reviews and affirms capital convictions, I am part of “the machinery of death.” My vote, when joined with at least four others, is, in most cases, the last step that permits an execution to proceed. I could not take part in that process if I believed what was being done to be immoral. . . .

[I]n my view the choice for the judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation, rather than simply ignoring duly enacted, constitutional laws and sabotaging death penalty cases. He has, after all, taken an oath to apply the laws and has been given no power to supplant them with rules of his own. Of course if he feels strongly enough he can go beyond mere resignation and lead a political campaign to abolish the death penalty” and if that fails, lead a revolution. But rewrite the laws he cannot do.

Looking at this quote it occurs to me, rather than an argument for Kim Davis to resign it’s actually an argument for her not only to stand her ground but to seek re-election for continuing to do so.

In the example cited three Different supreme Court justices Harold Blackmun, William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall all despite the having taken an oath to apply the laws and having no power to change them made a conscious decision based on their personal morality that they would, regardless of evidence, undermine legal proceedings all made according to laws passed by the people and upheld by the courts because they “believed what was done to be immoral”.

However despite this, the media made no attempt to pillory them, the legal community did not censure them, the democrat congress did not demand their impeachment and today all of them are well remembered and honored.  Nor did anyone object to said principles being based on a religious moral code.

And our friends on the left have routinely cheered civil disobedience in defiance to law, nobody on the left or in the mainstream media was calling for the resignation of Gavin Newsom when he was issuing marriage licences contrary to law.

Furthermore if you go back in history it’s not those who enforced the fugitive slave laws, those who upheld the Dred Scott Decision or those who acted under Plessy v Ferguson that are remembered or lionized in history, it’s those who opposed them and took risk to their reputation, their livelihood and their lives to oppose it.

And of course as an elected official she can’t just be fired, it means a long legal process in a state where judges are elected.

Based on all the evidence the surprise isn’t that she is ignoring the calls for her to cave, the surprise is that anyone expects her to do so.

Amy Fowler Kane:You don’t Like my husband, do you?
Hotel Clerk:No.
Amy Fowler Kane:Why?
Hotel Clerk:Lots of reasons. This place was always busy when Frank Miller was around. I’m not the only one. Plenty of people think he’s got a comeuppance coming. You asked me, ma’am, so I’m telling you.

High Noon 1952

An Important reminder via Ed Driscoll at  Instapundit over the latest court ruling gutting the Giuliani era laws that cleaned up Times Square

Just a reminder, this is what a certain Weimar-ish clique of dissipated elite New Yorkers have wanted ever since Giuliani cleaned the city up.

This mindset is perfectly illustrated in this fourteen second clip from Doctor Who

Remember all values systems are equal so if you question Sutekh’s designs, you’re a bigot and he’s a victim.


By A.P. Dillon

Imagine what it would be like to not be able to choose where you want to live, raise your children or retire.  Imagine the government has decided for you.

Imagine a federal agency who can dictate where and what type of housing can be built based on race, ethnicity and ‘economic fairness’.

Imagine this agency can force municipalities to have quotas of certain housing and dictate where that housing is placed all because they took federal grant money.

Stop imagining.

Meet President Obama’s final solution to his war on suburbia which will ‘fundamentally transform America’, the HUD Rule on Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH).

This rule is basically forced economic integration. It’s making sure everyone gets their ‘fair share’ — or in this case, their fair house as determined by HUD.

This is the federal government engaged in social engineering, the consequences of which will ripple through politics, voting, taxes and education, and that’s just for starters. Consider how this will play out with amnesty and illegal immigration?

How have you never heard of this before? Our absent media strike again. This rule is so explosive, one has to entertain the media has been absent on purpose. It wouldn’t be the first time a national landscape game changer went unreported on — try finding media reports on Common Core prior to 2010.

The Sales Job Begins
(a.k.a You Will Be Made To Care, Housing Edition)

The absent media will now begin engaging in their appointed roles as sales persons for Obama’s radical policies.

The secretary of HUD, Julian Castro, said this in his statement released yesterday:

“As a former mayor, I know firsthand that strong communities are vital to the well-being and prosperity of families,” said HUD Secretary Julián Castro. “Unfortunately, too many Americans find their dreams limited by where they come from, and a ZIP code should never determine a child’s future.  This important step will give local leaders the tools they need to provide all Americans with access to safe, affordable housing in communities that are rich with opportunity.”

Got that? You don’t need to work for what you want. The American Dream will be given to you by the government… because it’s only fair.  This is a power grab; centralized control maneuver based on radical priorities which run counter to the definition of a free society.

Stanley Kurtz an article from yesterday about AFFH at National Review Online. Please go read it.

In the article, Kurtz notes that Julian Castro is being seen as a potential running mate for Hillary Clinton. Team Hillary might not be interested though, according to Hot Air.

Kurtz has written about Obama’s War on the suburbs for a number of years. In fact, three years ago he wrote the book, Spreading the Wealth: How Obama Is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities.

Kurtz’s July 8th article also mentions a Washington Post article, which focuses mainly on race. The Washington Post article also picks up the ‘Civil Rights’ theme, quoting the Sherrilyn Ifill who is president of the NCAAP’s Legal and Education Defense fund, “Housing discrimination is the unfinished business of civil rights,”.

Towns will be data sets, people will just be numbers
Reading the AFFH rule document, it seems clear that towns will become data sets and people will be just numbers within them.  This looks like trying to force outcomes based on data but that data can and likely will be manipulated, skewed and cherry-picked.

That turns the attention to data sources. The census is mentioned, but for a social engineering job as vast and far-reaching as this, HUD will need more data. They’ll need access to a wide range of databases from every government agency one can think of.

HUD needs data that will get planning ahead of the curve, though. HUD will eventually want to predict what areas needs more ‘fairness’. One set of databases I can think of which will allow for that level of prediction is the Statewide Longitudinal Database System or SLDS for short.

The short version: states took the federal Race To The Top grant money and then had to build a database system that reports back to the fed.  These SLDS’s track every single school child from the moment they enter the public school system.

The data these SLDS’s contain would arguably allow HUD to predetermine cities and towns just like Common Core and it’s tests are predetermining the futures and jobs of children.

We’ve seen this movie before
If you don’t believe our cities and towns can be engineered by the government, you’re nuts.

Consider the rulings the Supreme Court has made in the last month alone. Factor in that recently the SCOTUS upheld a circuit court’s earlier ruling which said that disparate impact is applicable to the Fair Housing Act.

What does that mean? That means that borrowers who feel they were discriminated against can bring a class-action lawsuit against the lender(s) regardless of whether that lender(s) policies are found to be purposefully discriminatory.

Through AFFH, the Capitol will have its way with Panem.

DM7 small LL1885A.P. Dillon resides in the Triangle area of North Carolina and is the founder of LadyLiberty1885.com.
Her current and past writing can also be found at IJ Review, StopCommonCoreNC.org, Heartland.org and Watchdog Wire NC.
Catch her on Twitter: @LadyLiberty1885

When I first heard about the King v Burwell the first thought that came to my mind wasn’t its impact on the GOP congress, the electoral impact in the GOP primary, the confirmation of Justice Roberts status as “Old Yellowstain” or even the orgasmic nonsense that is all over CNN & MSNBC over the law.

What went into my mind was a night in south Boston when I was appearing on a podcast for the very first time appearing with Ali Akbar on the 73wire the night before the Scott Brown Election.

We were discussing Obamacare and Scott Brown’s role when something happened that has stuck with me ever since. Ali said how Brown would as the 60th vote block Obamacare and continued saying…

“…and if it passes, we will repeal it”

Not being involved in a political campaign nor being intimately familiar with how they operated but being well studied in how laws are passed and the difficulty in repealing laws I looked at him with some surprise saying nonchalantly .”

“No we won’t.”

I will never forget the look on Ali’s face. It was as if he had been not wearing pants and I suddenly had pointed it out to the entire listening audience.

However while the look was telling what happened next was more so, he immediately changed the subject as if what I had said was a throw away line of no importance whatsoever.

In hindsight, I understand what he did, this race was all about turnout and the last thing their campaign needed was any suggestion that had the slighted potential to keep people home.

But the real point is this. Ali knew that once Obamacare passed the battle was pretty much done.

We will keep fighting and we should keep fighting, but even if we win the White House I see little chance of repealing Obamacare, the best we will likely get is a president that does one of two things.

1. Gives the entire nation an Obamacare exemption

2. Removes every single exemption from every liberal group that got one.

It is the later rather than the former that has the best chance of causing this law to die.


If you like what you see and want to help support me & my magnificent seven please consider helping us make our annual goal.

My goal for 2015 is Twenty Two grand which will give me a nominal living doing this.

Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. (including my writers like Fausta)  If I can get to Forty Thousand I can afford to travel outside of New England and/or hire me a blogger to help me get it done.

Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done.


Our June Premium for tip jar hitters of $50 or more is Elizabeth The Anchoress Scalia Strange Gods: Unmasking the Idols in Everyday Life

Subscribe at $50 or more in and receive each monthly premium shipped the date of your payment.

All Tip Jar hits of $10 or more will get a copy of Jeff Trapani’s excellent E-Book Victor the Monster Frankenstein.

gay flagBy John Ruberry

Like it or not, same-sex marriage is the law of the land. As a conservative with libertarian leanings, I favored civil unions for gays for years, in essence, marriage in all but name. What is now called traditional marriage reaches back into pre-history–social norms should not be thrown overboard so quickly.

As for the other side of the gay marriage debate, the media focus has been on what Friday’s US Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in favor of what some call marriage equality means for observant Christians who oppose it.

But what about Muslims? The Daily Beast managed to find a few Muslims who favor gay marriage, but it’s safe to say that followers of Islam overwhelmingly oppose it.

And I believe that Muslims considering emigrating to the United States–and for that matter, other Western nations–might want to consider staying home instead.

Other than our high standard of living, there is much in America for Muslims not to like. Arranged marriages are not only rare but are frowned upon. Dogs, beloved members of many American families, are viewed as only slightly better than pigs in Islamic society only because of their hunting and protection skills. As for those pigs, most Americans eat pork. Women in the United States wear whatever they want–or in some cases, how little they want. And the great majority of Americans drink alcohol–and advertisements for intoxicating beverages can be found almost everywhere. We can change our religion if we like–or, as has been happening more frequently, choose no faith at all. While somewhat controversial, religious satire is common in the USA. For the sake of brevity I’m stopping here.

Bridgeview, IL
Bridgeview, IL

And since Friday–two men, or two women, can marry each other in a government-sanctioned marriage from Portland, Maine to Honolulu, Hawaii.

Guam too.

Despite President Obama’s ridiculous claim that “Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding,” there is very little Islamic about America.

And the roughly three million Muslims in America won’t be able to change that.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

Screwtape:  Keep everything hazy in his mind now, and you will have all eternity wherein to amuse yourself by producing in him the peculiar kind of clarity which Hell affords.

C. S. Lewis The Screwtape Letters

The Rosary is the Weapon for these times

St. Padre Pio

Friday was rather odd.  While I fully expected the result in the Supreme Court concerning Gay marriage like a lot of Christians I found myself in despair for my country and for the seemingly inevitable persecution that will be coming our way.

When I turned on the TV and saw that everywhere those in the left and media (but I repeat myself) were in full celebration mode it was simply too much to watch it was like watching the people on the Titanic celebrating as the ship headed to sea.

On twitter it was not much better as people where doing their best to rub noses into it finally I saw a tweet lighting up Disney in Gay colors and tweeted thus in reply

that prompted a “weep wingnut weep” reply to me and a rather telling tweet in reply

and that my dear friends is the trap!

While the Devil will use politics like anything else as a tool he is not about politics he is about individual result.  This exchange from the movie:  The Devil and Daniel Webster puts it well:

Daniel Webster:  Mr. Stone is an American citizen… and an American citizen cannot be forced into the service of a foreign prince.
Mr. Scratch: Foreign? Who calls me a foreigner?
Daniel Webster: Well, I never heard of the de… I never heard of you claiming American citizenship.
Mr. Scratch: And who has a better right? When the first wrong was done to the first Indian, I was there. When the first slaver put out for the Congo, I stood on the deck. Am I not still spoken of in every church in New England? It’s true the North claims me for a Southerner and the South for a Northerner, but I’m neither. Tell the truth, Mr. Webster – though I don’t like to boast of it – my name is older in the country than yours.

The Devil & Daniel Webster 1941

What the Devil wants from us is >spiritual pride.  He wants us to revel in the fact that WE as believing Christians would never have made this decision so destructive of the sacraments of heaven and the will of God.  As if the very fact of our opposition to this measure takes the place of our baptism or the absolution of the priests after we say our act of contrition.  Forget our own faults, forget our own envy, lusts, sloth, gluttony, greed or wrath.  We have saved ourselves by the mere public twitter pronouncement of our opposition to such people rather than humbling ourselves before Christ in contrition for our own sins.  As Al Pacino once put it in a famous move ending:

We (like those who are attacking us) forget the passage from Luke:

When the days for his being taken up were fulfilled, he resolutely determined to journey to Jerusalem and he sent messengers ahead of him. On the way they entered a Samaritan village to prepare for his reception there, but they would not welcome him because the destination of his journey was Jerusalem.  When the disciples James and John saw this they asked, “Lord, do you want us to call down fire from heaven to consume them?”  Jesus turned and rebuked them,

Luke 9 51-55

Note what Christ did here, he didn’t rebuke the Samaritans who rejected him , he rebuked his disciples for their lack of mercy.

Now does this mean we should stop speaking out against Gay Marriage?  Not in the least.  Does this mean that we should stop making the rational arguments inherent in our cause?  Absolutely not!  Does that mean we should not make pols who choose to abandon this fight for the sake of convenience pay?  definitely not!

What then does it mean we should do.


Pray as St. Paul writes, without ceasing.  Pray for our country, pray for ourselves, pray for those on the other side,  not for political conversion per se, that’s another version of “I’m holier than thou” but for God’s grace to touch them and help them in their lives.  I suggest the Perpetual twitter Novena but whatever prayer you choose to use,  pray.

Prayer,  not pride That is the key as Fr. Allen MacDonald rightly put it at Southern Orders (bold italics his)

What about the damnation of souls! The Church’s primary mission is the salvation of souls and of the world to the ends of the world. In saving souls we build a just society, yes, this is true, but the just society building doesn’t come first for the Church the saving of souls does and the other things follow!

Or as CS Lewis said through the mouth of Screwtape put it:

We are tempted to say that such souls- or such residual puddles of what once was soul- are
hardly worth damning. Yes, but the Enemy-for whatever inscrutable and Perverse reason-thought them worth trying
to save. Believe me, He did.

And the next time you feel tempted to play parry and reposte with someone onlnie remember that screwtape’s words and Fr. MacDonald’s words are both directed at us. Never forget the very first soul we are called upon to bring to salvation is our own.

#prayernotpride that is the hastag we should answer with.


If you like what you see and want to help support me & my magnificent seven please consider helping us make our annual goal.

My goal for 2015 is Twenty Two grand which will give me a nominal living doing this.

Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. (including my writers like Fausta)  If I can get to Forty Thousand I can afford to travel outside of New England and/or hire me a blogger to help me get it done.

Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done.


Our June Premium for tip jar hitters of $50 or more is Elizabeth The Anchoress Scalia Strange Gods: Unmasking the Idols in Everyday Life

Subscribe at $50 or more in and receive each monthly premium shipped the date of your payment.

All Tip Jar hits of $10 or more will get a copy of Jeff Trapani’s excellent E-Book Victor the Monster Frankenstein.

By Steve Eggleston

Unless you’ve been in a cave the last 2 days, you know that the Supreme Court once again rewrote what Justice Antonin Scalia has taken to calling SCOTUSCare to judicially extend tax subsidies for purchasing health insurance to the poor and middle class purchasing insurance on federally-established insurance exchanges. Much has been made over said subsidies, with the Congressional Republicans preemtively saying that had the letter of the law been applied and said subsidies on the federally-established exchanges been struck down, they would rush in to “temporarily” allow those subsidies to happen through 2017.

However, the case itself was never about the subsidies themselves, but rather the penalt…er…taxes that those subsidies allowed to be applied. Indeed, both the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts and the dissent written by Scalia admit that it is all about the tax, and in Roberts’ case, preserving what he transformed from a penalty to a tax.

As Scalia points out, the phrase “Exchange established by the State” appears innumerable times throughout the law. Indeed, it expressly defined the word “State” as “each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia”.

The goal of limiting the subsidies to those in states where the state set up the exchange rather than the federal government was to put political pressure on the states to be the proverbial bagmen for the federal government by offloading the cost of the exchanges from the federal government to the states. That the Democrats failed in their attempt to blackmail the states into becoming their bagmen (a wise fiscal decision, as those states that set up, or tried to set up, their own exchanges are finding to their peril) is not something for the IRS, or six Lawgivers-In-Black, to “correct”, especially when the Republicans said that they would do the “correcting” on at least a temporary basis.

The elimination of said subsidies in states with federally-established exchanges would, in a plain-text reading of the law, also eliminate the threat of the individual non-insurance tax for every couple, virtually every multi-member family, and most single people making between 100% and 400% of the poverty level in those states as the cost of the second-cheapest “silver” insurance plan would rise to above 8% of their income. Similarly, the two types of employer non-insurance tax are predicated on at least one “full-time” employee (that is, one who worked at least 130 hours in a given month) getting subsidized coverage, with the elimination of the subsidy eliminating the liability of those employers operating solely in those states.

Roberts, in defending his 2012 declaration that the individual tax is indeed a tax, admits that result would cause great financial harm to the overall SCOTUSCare scheme. Again, the role of a judge, even a Supreme Court Chief Justice, is not to save the other branches of federal government from bad financial bets through judicial rewrites of law, especially since Congressional Republicans vowed to do just that.

I guess we could count ourselves “fortunate” that my darker prediction of Roberts and his fellow Lawgivers-In-Black finding a way to keep the taxes fully-intact while striking down the subsidies didn’t happen. On the other hand, given the Congressional Republicans were going to fully-cave (though supposedly temporarily) on the issue of subsidies, I doubt that allowing them to keep the fig leaf of Kabuki Theatre Opposition will much matter. It will simply take a bit longer for them to do the expansion of SCOTUSCare that they previously did for Social Security (thrice) and Medicare.

I saw this tweet from the University of Colorado English Department this evening:

I didn’t realize today was Orwell’s birthday but the irony of that quote is astounding considering Justice Robert’s Old Yellowstain’s words here:

The Affordable Care Act contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting. (To cite just one, the Act creates three separate Section 1563s. See 124 Stat. 270, 911, 912.) Several features of the Act’s passage contributed to that unfortunate reality. Congress wrote key parts of the Act behind closed doors, rather than through “the traditional legislative process.” Cannan, A Legislative History of the Affordable Care Act: How Legislative Procedure Shapes Legislative History, 105 L. Lib. J. 131, 163 (2013). And Congress passed much of the Act using a complicated budgetary procedure known as “reconciliation,” which limited opportunities for debate and amendment, and bypassed the Senate’s normal 60-vote filibuster requirement. Id., at 159–167. As a result, the Act does not reflect the type of care and deliberation that one might expect of such significant legislation.

and this other Orwell quote on language:

Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

applies here as well

Petitioners’ plain-meaning arguments are strong, but the Act’s context and structure compel the conclusion that Section 36B allows tax credits for insurance purchased on any Exchange created under the Act.

  I think these examples confirm the truth of Justice Scalia’s dissent and confirms this tweet of mine in response to the Colorado English Department acknowledgement of Orwell:

I think George Orwell’s birthday deserves recognition but I suspect it would have been better for the country if they just sent flowers.

Update:  An old question answered:

Of course they could both be true depending of how she defined “diabolical”.


If you like what you see and want to help support me & my magnificent seven please consider helping us make our annual goal.

My goal for 2015 is Twenty Two grand which will give me a nominal living doing this.

Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. (including my writers like Fausta)  If I can get to Forty Thousand I can afford to travel outside of New England and/or hire me a blogger to help me get it done.

Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done.


Our June Premium for tip jar hitters of $50 or more is Elizabeth The Anchoress Scalia Strange Gods: Unmasking the Idols in Everyday Life

Subscribe at $50 or more in and receive each monthly premium shipped the date of your payment.

All Tip Jar hits of $10 or more will get a copy of Jeff Trapani’s excellent E-Book Victor the Monster Frankenstein.

I certainly can’t put what this decision means better than this:

The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State”means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence.

And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.

America you now live in a country where any contract you have, any agreement you sign any deed you hold means nothing. America you willingly did this to yourself, and you will deserve the new normal that you will now have to live with.  May you be happy with the choice you have made

I’ll give Jesus Christ the last word:

Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No’ mean ‘No.’ Anything more is from the evil one.


If you like what you see and want to help support me & my magnificent seven please consider helping us make our annual goal.

My goal for 2015 is Twenty Two grand which will give me a nominal living doing this.

Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. (including my writers like Fausta)  If I can get to Forty Thousand I can afford to travel outside of New England and/or hire me a blogger to help me get it done.

Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done.


Our June Premium for tip jar hitters of $50 or more is Elizabeth The Anchoress Scalia Strange Gods: Unmasking the Idols in Everyday Life

Subscribe at $50 or more in and receive each monthly premium shipped the date of your payment.

All Tip Jar hits of $10 or more will get a copy of Jeff Trapani’s excellent E-Book Victor the Monster Frankenstein.

Lt. Kaminsky: You wanted confirmation, Captain? Take a look! There’s your confirmation!

Tora Tora Tora 1970

Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

Luke 21:33

Yesterday while most of the country was watching Baltimore the Supreme Court heard arguments to decide if the definition of marriage that had endured throughout human history was to be tossed out and redefined in a way that not only the founding fathers but most americans of a mere generation ago, would not have imagined.

Given that gay marriage only became legal in American in 2004 by a 4-3 vote in the most liberal state Supreme Court in the land (Massachusetts) and the unwillingness of Governor Mitt Romney to push back in the slightest against this idiocy,  the fact that the Supreme Court is expected to uphold the narcissistic idea that marrying within one’s own sex is a basic constitutional right is nothing short of remarkable (constant cheerleading by the entertainment/media complex not withstanding).

What’s even more remarkable in my eyes however is that events in Baltimore that have caused many eyes that would normally be on the court to be elsewhere have given the justices who will be ruling on gay marriage a look at the future they are preparing to create.

The riots give the answer to the question:  What do you get when you have a culture when the presence of both a father and mother is considered unimportant in the rearing of children?  The experience of the Black family over the last five decades  answers this question.

Consider:  At the same time that civil rights laws were freeing black Americans from centuries of legal restraints by narcissists redefining marriage (sound familiar) and humanity itself to suit their cultural desires, an event that should have been the prelude for black America to jump into a golden age,  two other forces from liberal America,  one cultural & one political,  arose that would have a catastrophic effect on the black family which had so nobly fought for the rights that were finally being acknowledged.

First came the sexual revolution that not only shattered the concept of sex within marriage as the proper moral norm but brought with it the contraceptive culture giving the illusion of divorcing sex from children (with abortion as the final card to play in an emergency).

Nearly simultaneously came the Great Society which among other things gave the poor, in the form of government cash assistance,  an incentive to abandon the family unit for single motherhood without a husband and father in the house.

This combination of incentives coming at this time of transition for the black family was the key ingredient in its destruction.  Single parent households,  abortion and absent fathers increased while marriage decreased.

The result, two generations later the norm within the black community is now the absence of an intact family with a father & mother present in the home and the further absence of a grandfather to reinforce fatherly values if accident or circumstance causes the fathers loss.

Normally the disastrous results of this, while apparent daily in the black community is invisible to society as a whole (with the exception of judges, police and social workers) but the crisis in Baltimore is giving the general population and the world a vivid view of this new cultural paradigm.  And the best illustration of this view came from an angry mother of a rioting son.

 Yesterday all over facebook and social media people cheered (with some liberal exceptions) the video of a black mother disciplining her son for taking part in riots.  In the midst of the cheering nobody seemed to ask the obvious question:

 Why was there only one mother of a rioter taking action?  Where were the rest of the mothers & fathers?

Every single one of those rioters had a mother, yet we only saw one taking actions.  Every single one of those rioters had a father, yet we didn’t see a single image of a father pulling a rioter of the street.

I submit and suggest that if black America had that same ratio of intact families with fathers and mothers in the home today as it did in the mid 50’s  the number of teens rioting would have been tiny as  their concern over the reaction of an angry father would have overridden the peer pressure to raid a mall, set fires or destroy & loot stores.

I further suggest that events in Baltimore vividly illustrate what happens to a culture when you have generations of people who do not have the traditional nuclear family to reinforce values, when the value of a male and female role models is discounted and when society or a subset of it rejects it as the desired norm.

Now in the end  the final responsibility for the actions of the rioters, the inaction of their parents, and their failure to said parents to imbue either the values or the fear that would preclude violent acts by their progeny,  lies with them.

But while theirs is the responsibility for succumb to the perverse liberal social & financial incentives society as a whole are paying the price allow with them for that choice.

It’s ironic the Supreme Court is deciding whether to allow states the choice of redefining marriage and absorbing the cultural costs that it will entail to children who will not have a father or mother or COMPEL the entire nation to follow the social paradigm of single sex parenting at the same time when while the entire nation and world are seeing the results of this cultural meme.

The justices and the people have a front role seat to the vivid warning provided by Baltimore of the results of such a decision

It’s a lesson I hope the Supreme Court pays heed to.

Let me close with this thought:

While cultures, technology, tastes as to what is socially acceptable might change (for example a century ago the elites of our land were big into the idea of eugenics until a fellow with a Charlie Chaplin mustache took the idea to its logical conclusion with horrifying results)  they don’t trump the realities of human nature and the reality is this:

When you create a culture that disregards the vital and unique role of the intact father & mother to raising of children and instead provide incentives,  both legally and culturally, to promote alternatives as equal and as healthy for the sake of a groups self-esteem  you are sowing the seeds of disaster that will bear fruit within the lifetimes of those foolishly promoting the exercise in narcissism that is gay marriage.

You have been warned.


If you want journalism owned by you instead of the left elites I would ask you to hit DaTipJar and help me pay for it.

My goal is Twenty grand a year

Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid.  If I can get to Forty Thousand I can afford to travel outside of New England and/or hire me a blogger to help me get it done.

Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done.


We’re extending our March premium to April for tip jar hitters of $50 or more is Stacy McCain’s book:  Sex Trouble: Essays on Radical Feminism and the War Against Human Nature

Subscribe at $50 or more in April and receive each monthly premium shipped the date of your payment.

All Tip Jar hits in April of $10 or more will get a copy of Jeff Trapani’s excellent E-Book Victor the Monster Frankenstein.

Illinois signBy John Ruberry

About 20 percent of Illinois’ operating budget goes to state worker pensions. With so much cash going to retired Prairie State employees, you would think that the state where I live would be on diligent in funding the system. But Illinois’ pensions are the worst funded among the 50 states.  Some years Illinois skipped or shorted pension payments–and public-sector unions (gasp!) supported that move.

But now because of a lawsuit brought forth by a former lobbyist for the Illinois Federation of Teachers union–long-suffering Land of Lincoln taxpayers have a poster child for pension abuse. A little-noticed 2007 bill sponsored by a Democrat allowed that lobbyist, David Piccioli, to qualify for pension from an education pension plan, the Teachers Retirement System. He is currently collecting a $31,000 annual TRS pension even though–except for one day–he never taught in a classroom

Let’s look at the one day–Piccioli was a substitute in a Springfield classroom and he earned $93 for his efforts–which probably consisted of popping DVDs into a player. But because of that 2007 law–Piccioli became eligible for additional $36,000 in additional TRS benefits. Another IFT employee, Steve Preckwinkle, also subbed at a school for a day and applied for a additional pension benefits as Piccioli did.

Suddenly self-righteous state lawmakers quickly removed the one-day loophole but last month Piccioli sued to get his classroom pension back.

There are many villains who created the Illinois public pension debacle and yes, politicians deserve most of the blame. For instance, allowing workers to retire at 50 and then collect most of their old salary when they will probably live another 30 years was a cataclysmic move.

But the unions–and people like David Piccioli–played their part in this disaster.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

When Moses had written down this law, he entrusted it to the levitical priests who carry the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel, giving them this order: “On the feast of Booths, at the prescribed time in the year of relaxation which comes at the end of every seven-year period, when all Israel goes to appear before the LORD, your God, in the place which he chooses, you shall read this law aloud in the presence of all Israel.

Assemble the people – men, women and children, as well as the aliens who live in your communities – that they may hear it and learn it, and so fear the LORD, your God, and carefully observe all the words of this law. Their children also, who do not know it yet, must hear it and learn it, that they too may fear the LORD, your God, as long as you live on the land which you will cross the Jordan to occupy.”

Deuteronomy 31 9-13

For a long time written law has been a significant part of human history.

The oldest (known) set of written laws known to man is the Code of Ur-Nammu from about the year 2100 BC.  A tablet containing these laws was first discovered in the mid 20th century.  Prior to that the Code of Hammurabi from several hundred years later was the oldest known recorded law in existence.

The concept of written law so that any person can understand is important.  A law written means that any person who is literate can see what the law actually says, and if a person is not literate a person can read them the law so that it can be known and understood as done by King Josiah :

The king now convened all the elders of Judah and Jerusalem.  He went up to the house of the LORD with all the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the priests, the Levites, and all the people, great and small; and he had read aloud to them the entire text of the book of the covenant that had been found in the house of the LORD.  Standing at his post, the king made a covenant before the LORD to follow the LORD and to keep his commandments, decrees, and statutes with his whole heart and soul, thus observing the terms of the covenant written in this book.

2 Chronicles 34:29-31


Of course the whole idea of written law being a sign of justice and right as opposed to laws being changed on a whim by an unjust ruler is based on the quite logical idea that the law means what it actually says.

And that brings us to the Supreme Court and the hearing of Obamacare King v. Burwell.

The amazing thing about this case is that what the law ACTUALLY SAYS is not in dispute.  The law explicitly says that congress authorized subsidiaries for people in obamacare exchanges “established by the states”.

However we have justices in the United States Supreme Court actually arguing against interpreting the law based on what it says:

Justice Kagen:

“We look at the whole text. We don’t look at four words,”

Justice Sotomayor:

Sotomayor wondered why the four words that so bother the challengers did not appear more prominently in the law. She said it was like hiding “a huge thing in a mousetrap.”

Justice Ginsberg:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested the four words at issue were buried and “not in the body of the legislation where you would expect to find” them.

These justices, learned legal scholars,  actually made the case in the Supreme court that the explicit words of a law passed by congress and signed by the president should be ignored because they didn’t like where their appeared, or they weren’t significant enough.

This is insanity for three reasons:

The first being that such an interpretation presumes that the lawmakers in Washington DC, many of them lawyers themselves, would not have bothered to consult any lawyers during the drafting of this law, which was argued and debated over a long period of time.  Nancy Pelosi not withstanding,  the concept that lawyers wanted to be sure that the exchanges covered Federal exchanges  did not or could not think of inserting language to explicitly say so involves a willing suspension of disbelief.

The second being that proponents of the law explicitly argued at the time of its passage that the refusal to subsidise states without exchanges was a deliberate attempt to force states to create exchanges.  News coverage discussed the predicament for republican governors saying they would be forced to implement exchanges due to pressure within their state.

Huffington Post 2012:

Democrats, meanwhile, hope to use the law and Republican inflexibility to their advantage, betting that more Americans will embrace the law once it expands coverage. The calculus for voters, Democrats assume, will become more about the policy and less about a polarizing president.

“It shouldn’t be complicated at all,” said John Anzalone, an Obama pollster who assists Democrats in federal races across the country.

and let not forget Obamacare (and Romneycare) architect Jonathan Gruber explicitly stating on multiple occasions in public forums that this was the case:

What’s important to remember politically about this is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this.

But while either of these are significant the real piece of insanity is as follows:

At least four justices of the US Supreme Court are apparently willing to rule that what a law explicitly says has no bearing on the implementation of the law itself.

Mind you they are not rejecting the wording of the law because they claim it is unconstitutional, they are rejecting the plain wording of a law for their own interpretation of it because they don’t like it.

Think just for a second what that means.

What is the point of having a written code of law if what the law says means nothing?  Why have written contracts?  Why bother?  If the plain text of a law can be thrown out not because of a constitutional issue but because an individual judge doesn’t like it then what does being “a nation of laws” mean?

And if the law doesn’t mean what it says?  Why obey it?



Our March Premium for tip jar hitters of $50 or more is Stacy McCain’s book:  Sex Trouble: Essays on Radical Feminism and the War Against Human Nature

Subscribe at $50 or more in March and receive each monthly premium shipped the date of your payment.


All Tip Jar hits in March of $10 or more will get a copy of Jeff Trapani’s excellent E-Book Victor the Monster Frankenstein.

Captain Darling:  So you see, Blackadder, Field Marshal Haig is most anxious to eliminate all these German spies.
General Melchett:  Filthy Hun weasels fighting|their dirty underhand war
Captain Darling:   !And, fortunately, one of our spies
 General Melchett:  Splendid fellows, brave heroes,|risking life and limb for Blighty.

Black Adder Goes Fourth General Hospital 1989

As I recall it was a mere week ago that the left was beside itself at Judge Roy Moore daring to defy federal courts claiming:

So the chief justice, never shy about taking on a fight, even a losing one, acted. He fired off a missive to state probate judges to refuse the marriage licenses to gay couples, saying they weren’t bound to adhere to the ruling of the federal judge who declared Alabama’s gay marriage ban unconstitutional.

this has led to an ethics complaint by the liberal Southern Poverty Law Center and sites on the left have been full of accusation and outrage

The Bottom line is the left is absolutely beside itself that Moore a state judge would defy a federal ruling and have made it clear that such a stance is not to be tolerated in a law-abiding America.

Unless of course it’s a ruling they don’t like:

But perhaps more unsettling to supporters of constitutional checks and balances is the finding that 43% of Democrats believe the president should have the right to ignore the courts. Only 35% of voters in President Obama’s party disagree, compared to 81% of Republicans and 67% of voters not affiliated with either major party.

Allah Pundit comments:

Once you tell the president it’s cool to ignore court rulings if it’s “important,” you might as well pass an enabling act and hand him supreme power. Forty-three percent of Democrats, an actual plurality, didn’t flinch, though. And the irony is, Obama’s own defenses of his power grabs aren’t much more sophisticated than that. His rationale for executive amnesty is that Congress is hopelessly gridlocked, the legal limbo that illegals find themselves in is intolerable, and we’ve now reached a point of crisis (a political crisis for the White House, not a policy crisis) that simply demands executive action. It’s crucially important that he act unilaterally and that he act now, even though he can’t quite explain — again, on policy terms — why that is. Just trust him. It’s important. And Democrats do, including and especially the core Democratic constituencies of women, young adults, and minorities.

This might seem a contradiction to most of us but as this is one of the advantages of a philosophy whose primary driver is ends justifying means.

By Steve Eggleston

Fresh off the betrayal of the pro-life movement by their House counterparts by their refusal to harmonize abortion policy with Europe’s ban on abortion after 20 weeks (though they did pass a permanent extension of the Hyde Amendment, which generally forbids federal funds for abortions), a couple of key Senate Republicans are mulling a formal extension of Senate Democrat Leader Harry Reid’s “nuking” of the filibustering of Presidential nominees to Supreme Court nominees (H/T – Jazz Shaw).

The “good” news is that Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Roy Blunt (R-MO, and the chair of the Senate Rules committee) will seek to do that through the regular order of having 2/3rds of the Senate vote to change the rule instead of Reid’s parlimentary trick of using a simple majority to change the interpretation of Senate rules. The bad news is a multitude: they are confidants of Senate Majority “Leader” Mitch McConnell (R-KY), they appear to have no intention of restoring the filibuster for other Presidential nominees though that is still on the books, and they somehow got Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) on board.

The excuse that the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees has to go now in order for it to be gone for the next President is a bunch of hogwash. The next Senate will be sworn in before the next President. Rather, it has all the hallmarks of yet another betrayal by the more-or-less minority half of the bipartisan Party-In-Government, especially since two of the four Supreme Court Justices most likely to not make it to 2017 are not ultra-liberal and one of those is one of the three reliable conservatives.

At the moment, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is one of the few who wants to keep the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. I somehow suspect he’ll change his tune once McConnell and company explain who gets shafted the most.

By John Ruberry

Online commentators, particularly those on blogs, are known for their vitriol and sometimes cursory devotion to the truth.

But the accumulation of comments on a since-pulled online version of an article from a free weekly newspaper and a blog have led to the indictment on child molestation charges of a 94 year-old retired suburban Chicago physical education teacher and former Boy Scout leader, William Bricker, who now resides in northern Michigan.

The unraveling of his reputation began in 2005 when the Glen Arbor Sun of Grand Traverse County Michigan published a hagiographic human interest piece on Bricker, which included his recollections of combat in World War II and his summers as a counselor at a Wyoming summer camp near Grand Teton National Park, titled Old Cowboy, New Tricks: Lessons from Bill Bricker’s Adventurous Life. Comments, some vaguely accusatory, some supportive of Bricker, began appearing on the Sun’s website. But after the arrest of former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky for numerous molestation and rapes in 2011, the comments became more numerous and nastier.

Judy Linklater, who writes Mrs. Linklater’s Guide to the Universe blog, had her suspicions about Bricker, took the lead on the story–although the establishment media has mostly ignored her efforts–after the Sun yanked the article from its website in 2012. Her half-brothers had noticed Bricker’s odd behavior. The gym teacher’s overly affectionate actions around children, both male and female, for years had raised eyebrows in Winnetka, Illinois, where Bricker taught and where Linklater was raised.

Accusations of Bricker’s inappropriate contact with students at Hubbards Wood Elementary School, where he was employed as a teacher and then a substitute for over 40 years, go back to the 1950s and school officials were aware of them in 1968.

Grand Teton National Park
Grand Teton National Park

But the statute of limitations in Illinois on such crimes prevents charges against Bricker in Illinois, but that is not the case in Wyoming. Bricker was arrested in September–he’s accused of molesting boys at the Wyoming summer camp in 1962 and 1985. The 1992 Winnetka Chamber of Commerce Man of the Year, who now breathes with the aid of oxygen tanks, is fighting extradition to Wyoming.

Linklater did more than blog, she reached out to the alleged victims and she has been the lead reporter on the Bricker story–she’s a true journalist.

Other than their status as alleged victims of Bricker, there is a common link they share. Each thought they were alone–only they were reportedly harmed by him. They weren’t–when these emotionally-scarred individuals typed “Winnetka” and “Bricker” into an internet search box they discovered others who also have repulsive memories of the Old Cowboy.

UPDATE January 11, 2015: AP is reporting that Bricker died in Michigan two days ago.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

“Whenever someone kills another, the evidence of witnesses is required for the execution of the murderer. The evidence of a single witness is not sufficient for putting a person to death.

Numbers 35:30

King Herod: Kill every male child up to one year [pause] two years old. [the court looks at him in shock] Better that the innocent die that the guilty escape.

Jesus of Nazareth 1977

Saturday Glenn Reynolds liked to this piece at the Washington Examiner that talks about a victory for Due process

The Washington Supreme Court ruled Thursday that those accused of rape are not responsible for proving they obtained consent. In a 6-3 ruling, the court said that requiring the accused to provide such proof to the preponderance of evidence standard violated constitutional rights.

“Requiring a defendant to do more than raise a reasonable doubt is inconsistent with due process principles,” wrote Justice Debra Stephens. She added that doing so raised “a very real possibility of wrongful convictions.”

Glenn referees this as “something so obvious” I’m not so sure.

It’s true the judges ruled the idea of suddenly changing the rules of evidence and the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” violated constitutional rights, but a full third of the court thought otherwise.

In the state of Washington only two supreme court votes are the difference between “due process” and “guilty until proven innocent”. Two votes between “presumed innocent” and “better the innocent be ruined than the guilty escape”.

You would think that our liberal friends would be horrified by this, after all consider the black community which votes with them 90-10% or more. We are told that driving while black, walking while black and buying skittles while black makes one subject to arrest or even death under our current standards for guilt, can you imagine the result if those standards are lowered?

And that’s just arrests. If people of color are now incarcerated at rates far above the general population under a system where one is innocent until proven guilty, what will happen when the burden of proof is shifts toward the accused?

But no, our friends on the left from the local to the national level are pushing this standard. Why would they do that? Because this part of the liberal Gleichschaltung that serves their purpose.

The meme that is prompting this move fits into the prejudices our liberal friends hold. The argument our liberal friends make defending it creates a talking point against their political enemies, the fear it such a policy creates intimidates those who would speak against them, particularly on campus, and the power it generates goes to institutions they control. For that reason the fight, no matter how much in conflict with values Americans have held for two dozen decades or more, is good.

And if you think I’m being an alarmist, remember it was only ten years ago that a single vote on the Massachusetts Supreme Court first redefined marriage in America.

Glenn is wrong, this isn’t “something so obvious” this is the first of many fights and court cases that will not be considered “settled law” until the desired result for the left is achieved.

Closing thought #1 What does it say about the black community that they would still vote in lockstep for a party pushing this kind of thing?

Closing thought #2 If you think the innocence project is busy now once this is propagated you ain’t seen nothing yet.


There are less than 60 days to the year and to say things are tight financially around here is to say the Titanic had a bit of a leak.

Olimometer 2.52

If you think this blog’s coverage and what we do here is worth your support please consider hitting DaTipJar below

If course if you can do both, I’m  fine with that too.

Consider Subscribing to support our lineup of  John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit)  on Sunday Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.


And according to this Washington Post story apparently so is Honey Boo Boo

Seven or eight African American eyewitnesses have provided testimony consistent with Wilson’s account, but none of them have spoken publicly out of fear for their safety, The Washington Post’s sources said.

Via Glenn:  In a sense blacks in Ferguson MO being in fear of the race hustlers makes sense.  It reminds me of Buck O’Neil who said the effort to keep Black Players out of the Major League Baseball was less about racial superiority & more about protecting the jobs of the white players who would be displaced by integration (MLB expansion coincidentally began just after the last team integrated).

This is the same thing, the race grievance industry is a profitable one and quite a few black “leaders” along with various organizations make a good living off of it.  They can’t have eyewitness, particularly black eyewitnesses, providing public testimony that contradicts a meme that has the potential to pay off so handsomely!  Why it’s practically restraint of trade!

Expect this to be used in the last weeks of the campaign in the hopes it will boost black turnout at the polls nationally.

We are 5 grand away from paying the year’s bills.

Olimometer 2.52

If you think this blog’s coverage and what we do here is worth your support please consider hitting DaTipJar below

If course if you can do both, I’m  fine with that too.

Consider Subscribing to support our lineup of  John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit)  on Sunday Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.


By Steve Eggleston

There is a term I use for judges who rule as though they are super-legislators taken from the original Planet of the Apes movie franchise, Lawgiver-In-Black. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts began his journey to becoming a Lawgiver-In-Black with his ruling that, since the individual mandate fine that is part of ObamaCare was a tax, the bulk of it passed constitutional muster. That journey to being another member of the half of Republican nominees who turn out to be LIBs took another two steps this week.

The first ruling was a decision by the Supreme Court to not accept several states’ appeals of various circuit courts’ voiding of their bans on same-sex “marriage”, including Wisconsin’s constitutional ban. The circuit courts, and the district courts underneath them, all used Justice Anthony Kennedy’s “not a precedent” precedent in his decision voiding the federal Defense of Marriage Act, with Roberts at the time joining the 4-Justice minority dissent. As it takes 4 Justices to accept an appeal, it is at least plausible that Roberts has changed his mind on same-sex “marriage”.

The second ruling, a 6-3 ruling on an emergency petition putting Wisconsin’s voter ID law on hold, came down late Thursday night. A bit of history is required here (courtesy Ballotpedia):

– In mid-2011, Wisconsin passed a voter ID law patterned on Indiana’s voter ID law, which had passed Supreme Court muster in 2008.
– In late 2011, various liberal groups filed lawsuits seeking to block the law in both state and federal court.
– One low-turnout election, the 2012 spring non-partisan primary, was held with the voter ID requirements with no reported problems.
– Shortly thereafter, multiple judges in Dane County put state-based holds on the voter ID law, eventually ruling it unconstitutional under the state constitution.
– In April 2014, federal judge Lynn Adelman (a former Democrat Assemblyman) ruled it unconstitutional under the federal constitution.
– On July 31, 2014, the state Supreme Court ruled it constitutional under the state constitution, ending the state-based challenges.
– On September 12, 2014, a 3-judge panel on the federal 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, relying in part on the state Supreme Court, lifted Adelman’s injunction, saying that the state had a significant chance of winning a reversal on the merits. With respect to absentee ballots, the plan adopted by the Government Accountability Board, the statewide entity that runs elections, was for the muncipal clerks to include with the absentee ballots a notice that a copy of acceptable ID would need to accompany the ballot for it to be counted.
– Even though sample ballots were not available on most muncipalities’ websites as of September 12, and state law did not require absentee ballots to be mailed until September 18 (47 days prior to the general election), some municipal clerks had already mailed what was reportedly thousands of absentee ballots. The plan for those ballots was to mail the ID requirement notice separately.
– On October 6, 2014, that 7th Circuit panel did rule that Wisconsin’s voter ID was constitutional, holding that Wisconsin’s voter ID law is essentially identical to Indiana’s.

While the majority on the Supreme Court did not issue any justification for the order, the dissent authored by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Justices Anthony Scalia and Clarence Thomas did mention a concern that the September 12 lifting of the injunction came so close to the election. Even so, their dissent noted that the Supreme Court “may not vacate a stay entered by a court of appeals unless that court clearly and ‘demonstrably’ erred in its application of ‘accepted standards.’”

The form of the order does not suggest that timing was the only consideration for putting a fresh hold on Wisconsin’s voter ID law. Indeed, if the Supreme Court decides to accept a duly-filed petition of a writ of ceratori, the hold will continue until final judgement is rendered.

Finally, there is an update on last week’s piece on the September jobs report. A source with knowledge of how the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Household Survey is put together told Tom Blumer that a recent, unpublicized change in the definition of who is really looking for work has significantly reduced the number in the labor force and thus the unemployment rate. This is not the first time the veracity the Household Survey has been called into question – the BLS faked numbers in the survey in the runup to the 2010 election and, reportedly, the 2012 election.

Gregory:   Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?

Sherlock Holmes:  To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.

Gregory:  The dog did nothing in the night-time.

Sherlock Holmes:  That was the curious incident

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle Sherlock Holmes Sliverblaze

Today in Mark Steyn’s latest update on his court fight vs Michael Mann includes a non-event of great significance.

Well, yesterday was the deadline, and not a single amicus brief was filed on behalf of Mann. Not one. So Michael Mann is taking a stand for science. But evidently science is disinclined to take a stand for Michael Mann. The self-appointed captain of the hockey team is playing solo.

Liberals like Paul Krugman might be willing to put out screeds calling those fighting Mann “evil” and the NYT might be willing to put such declaration on their website but apparently that not the same as putting one’s reputation on the line in a court brief.

This is in stark contract to Steyn who case has received amici briefs from both left and right

Regardless of the reason if this case goes to trial and Mann loses (and given the unwillingness of his Climate Change allies to defend him the likelihood of that seems ever-increasing) the reverberation of such a defeat is likely going to be huge for those pushing the Global Warming/Climate Change/Give me your tax money agenda.

And don’t think for one second it’s not about getting your money as Roger L. Simon reminds us:

Allow me to share a personal experience.  I went to Copenhagen in 2009 for this website to cover another UN climate conference (COP 15), then considered to be extremely crucial.  Several islands — Micronesia, I think — were supposedly about to go under from the rising tides.  I ran into the representative from one of those islands and asked him if he was worried.  He started to laugh and shook his head.  So I asked him what he was doing at the conference.  I want the money, he said.

and as long as they can credibly trick fools out of cash they will.

If I was the Climate Change mob I’d have Mann settle out of course on 1st Amendment grounds because if this gets to court the days of wine and roses are over, but I suspect Steyn will not let him off that easy.

Still on the bright side for the international leaches looking for their next wine filled conference, I’m sure given how easily the media climbed aboard this bandwagon they can come up with a new catastrophe to soak the gullible long enough to keep them living comfortably.

We Talked about the Black Mass coming to Oklahoma City back in July. The local Archbishop has to counter this event on two fronts, first spiritually:

I am especially concerned about the dark powers that this Satanic worship invites into our community and the spiritual danger that this poses to all who are involved in it, directly or indirectly. Since it seems this event will not be cancelled, I am calling on all Catholics of the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City to counteract this challenge to faith and decency through prayer and penance.

Specifically, I am asking that the Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel be included at the conclusion of every Mass, beginning on the Feast of the Transfiguration of the Lord (August 6) and continuing through the Feast of the Archangels (September 29). I invite all Catholics to pray daily for divine protection through the intercession of this heavenly patron who once defeated Lucifer in his rebellion against the Almighty and who stands ready to assist us in this hour of need.

Secondly, I am asking that each parish conduct a Eucharistic Holy Hour with Benediction to honor Christ’s Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, between the Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary (August 15) and September 21, to avert this proposed sacrilege.

Finally, I invite all Catholics, Christians and people of good will to join me in prayer for a Holy Hour, outdoor Eucharistic Procession and Benediction at St. Francis of Assisi Church in Oklahoma City at 3:00 p.m. on Sunday, September 21, the day of the proposed sacrilege. We will pray to avert this sacrilege and publicly manifest our faith in the Lord and our loving gratitude for the gift of the Holy Eucharist, the source and summit of our lives.

All of these are excellent suggestions for any parish anywhere to follow. He however has also decided to use a secular tactic as well:

Archbishop Paul Coakley filed the lawsuit Wednesday in Oklahoma County District Court. Coakley alleges that the Dakhma of Angra Mainyu and leader Adam Daniels unlawfully obtained the consecrated host to be used in the mass. A consecrated host is a wafer of bread that Catholics believe is the body and blood of Jesus.

According to the lawsuit, only ordained Catholic ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion can handle the consecrated host.

The press release of the Diocese is here

When I heard “lawsuit” I assumed it would be on the basis of “offense” but on 1st amendment grounds that would not likely hold water as people do not have a constitutional right to avoid offense, but Public Catholic has a list of the applicable laws concerning stolen goods.

There are also Blasphemy laws in the state but I doubt they would (or should) stand up under a federal challenge.

It’s a creative approach whose prospect of success depends frankly on how the host was obtained.

It’s very possible that an unfaithful Priest or Eucharistic Minister provided the host (anyone who thinks the evil one doesn’t have agents in the church is a fool) and that might be an excellent counter but such a person would not be anxious to be exposed.  There is also of course the possibility that a person receiving via the hand rather than the tongue palmed one (Fyi:  this is one of the reasons why I think receiving by the hand is a bad idea) and provided it, that would likely make such a suit moot.

But it’s also very possible that the city fearful of a lawsuit might be looking for an excuse to cancel and this suit might be just the ticket for them.

While those who disbelieve may not acknowledge it, this is not only pure evil but extremely dangerous and prayer and action are just the thing to counter it.

I’d encourage all Catholics and any of our Protestant friends willing to either follow the Archbishop’s advice or follow whatever prayer tradition they have and make the fight boldly.

Update: Fr Z on the argument:

The legal approach, the argument that the Church is the owner of the Eucharist, which is property, is interesting. You might recall that a while back I commented favorably about something written by Fishwrap’s Phyllis Zagano (HERE), who had said that what these loons were planning was “vandalism of religious property“. At the time I expressed reservation about that approach. This lawsuit in OK turns on it.

He links to the National Catholic Register story which goes into some of the details of the argument.

Michael Caspino, one of two attorneys who filed the lawsuit on behalf of the archdiocese in Oklahoma District Court said the legal argument for the case is simple: “A consecrated Eucharist belongs to the Church.”
Caspino, the CEO and partner at the Busch & Caspino law firm in Irvine, Calif., told the Register that the Church has exercised “dominion and control” over the Eucharist for more than 2,000 years. The lawsuit provides information on Church processes set up to safeguard the consecrated host.
“The Satanists procured the consecrated host by illicit means, theft or fraud,” Caspino said. “We are simply asking the court to return the stolen property to its rightful owner, the Roman Catholic Church.”

Interesting argument.


Olimometer 2.52

As monthly goals have not been working out let’s bottom line things.

We need a total of  $7225 to cover the rest of the expenses for the year.

If you think the coverage and commentary we provide here is worth your support please consider hitting DaTipJar below and help keep the bills paid.

Consider the lineup you get In addition to my own work seven days a week you get John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit)  on Sunday Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.

If that’s not worth $20 a month I’d like to know what is?

Judge: Tommy, you know the difference between telling the truth and telling a lie, don’t you?

Thomas Mara Jr.: Gosh, everybody knows you shouldn’t tell a lie, especially in court,”

Miracle on 34th Street 1947

Simple question if you had just filed a motion before a court would you want the judge to see you argue to your opponent in a public forum that motions before a court aren’t sworn?

I’d love to see the judge’s face when he or she does.

By A.P. Dillon

North Carolina’s Attorney General, Roy Cooper, is taking a page out of the Obama administration’s book in defending the state’s Constitution. Cooper has made a statement that he will no longer be defending North Carolina’s Constitutional Amendment 1 on marriage.

The Amendment 1 ballot measure was born from 3 bills, but  SB 514  came out of the fray and went forward. Amendment 1 was passed by over 61% of the vote on the 2012 ballot. Cooper commented he made this decision after a decision by the 4th Circuit that a similar law in Virginia violates the 14th amendment. I guess the 10th amendment didn’t carry as much weight. The 4th Circuit also covers North Carolina.

RICHMOND — A federal appeals court panel today struck down Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage.

In a 2-1 decision, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges upheld U.S. Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen’s ruling in February that the 2006 amendment to the state Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
– Winston Salem Journal

Cooper may be right, it may be in inevitability that North Carolina’s Constitutional amendment may be overturned, however that doesn’t excuse him from doing his job.

This is not the first time Roy Cooper has failed to defend North Carolina. The Governor had to hire an independent counsel on Voter ID. It’s important to note here that North Carolina’s Attorney General Cooper isn’t really interested in doing his job. He’s more interested in doing Governor Pat McCrory’s job.

Thirty one states have similar bans with only three overturned to date including Virginia’s.  Utah looks to be letting their Supreme court decide. A district court Judge in Louisiana is taking matters into his own hands not only on same-sex marriage in the state but whether or not Louisiana will recognize such marriages from other states. The same type of maneuvering is going on in Florida where 62% of voters approved that marriage was between one man and one woman.

The question becomes if it is not the decision of the states and voters in those states to determine their definition of marriage, then whose is it?

The North Carolina Constitution under section 6 reads as follows:

Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.  This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.
– North Carolina General Assembly, State Constitution

It’s worth noting that even before Amendment 1 was put into the North Carolina state Constitution, same-sex marriage was not recognized. Neither was Common Law marriage. They’re still not by statute in North Carolina. The North Carolina Statute §51‑1.2  (which still exists) states that “marriages, whether created by common law, contracted, or performed outside of North Carolina, between individuals of the same gender are not valid in North Carolina.”

If you enjoyed this article, you should really check out other pieces written by Da Tech Guy’s Magnificent Seven writers and maybe hit that tip jar!

AP DillonA.P. Dillon (Lady Liberty 1885), is a Conservative minded wife and mother living in the Triangle area of North Carolina. A.P. Dillon founded the blog LadyLiberty1885.com in 2009. After the 2012 election, she added an Instapundit style blog called The ConMom Blog. Mrs. Dillon’s writing, in addition to Da Tech Guy’s Magnificent 7, can also be found at StopCommonCoreNC.org, WatchdogWireNC and WizBang.  A.P. Dillon was also a panelist for Glenn Beck’s We Will Not Conform. Non-political writing projects include science fiction novellas that are, as of yet, unpublished. Her current writing project is a children’s book series.

By Roxeanne DeLuca:

In McCullen v. Coakley, the Supreme Court ruled that a 2007 Massachusetts statute that restricts speech outside of abortion clinics is unconstitutional.  (Opinion here.) In fact, it so ruled, unanimously. The only difference of opinion was whether the statute was content-neutral and subject to intermediate scrutiny, or if it was a content-based restriction on speech and subject to strict scrutiny.  Regardless of the standard of review, the statute was found to not be narrowly tailored, i.e. it did not use the least restrictive means necessary to accomplish the state’s goal of enabling pregnant women to access abortion clinics.

Undeterred by a nine-nothing smackdown, the progressives on Beacon Hill have filed a new buffer zone bill that they claim will meet constitutional muster. (State House News Service.) According to the bill’s proponents,

“The Supreme Court gave us a road map of what this bill should say and we are following that road map with very narrowly tailored new tools for the police and the attorney general,” said Marty Walz, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts.

Megan Amundson, executive director of the NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, said in a statement, “It provides additional tools to ensure that all women can access health care free from harassment and intimidation.”

“This legislation carefully balances public safety and access with free speech rights. We urge the Legislature to quickly take up this bill and ensure that it passes before the end of the legislative session to protect safe access to clinics,” Amundson said.

With respect to Ms. Walz and Ms. Amundson, they could not be more wrong.  Let’s compare what the Supreme Court said and what the bill (SD2106) actually does.

Continue reading “Meet the New Buffer Zone, Same as the Old Buffer Zone”

One of the things that has been a constant in the Pontificate of Pope Francis is his encouragement of the faithful to the Sacrament of Confession.

The Sacrament of Confession is one of the most powerful graces of the church. It doesn’t matter how horrible the sin is or even if you spent a lifetime in the most horrible sins. The Sacrament of confession allows one to wipe the slate clean, as one priest put it: Forgiven, Forgotten, Forever!

A basic tenet of Confession is the confessional seal a priest can not under pain of Excommunication divulge what is revealed in confession (although the person receiving confession may choose to do so). This is critical particularly with serious sin. People in general do not like to admit mistakes in trivial matters. How much harder must it be when you are dealing with horrible and embarrassing sins, sins that have been weighing people down for decades, sins serious enough to cause damnation?

And that’s why this story is so important:

The Louisiana Supreme Court has ruled that a priest must testify in a case about what he heard in a confessional — an order that would result in automatic excommunication and damnation, according to the doctrine and canon law of the Catholic Church:

This has produced a statement from the archdiocese that says in part.

A foundational doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church for thousands of years mandates that the seal of confession is absolute and inviolable. Pursuant to his oath to the Church, a priest is compelled never to break that seal. Neither is a priest allowed to admit that someone went to confession to him. If necessary, the priest would have to suffer a finding of contempt in a civil court and suffer imprisonment rather than violate his sacred duty and violate the seal of confession and his duty to the penitent.

This is not a gray area in the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. A priest/confessor who violates the seal of confession incurs an automatic excommunication reserved for forgiveness to the Apostolic See in Vatican City, Italy.

In this case, the priest acted appropriately and would not testify about the alleged confessions. Church law does not allow either the plaintiff (penitent) or anyone else to waive the seal of confession.

Canon Law is very explicit on this:

Can. 983 states that “The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.” The punishment for breaking the seal is explicitly noted in Can. 1388: “A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs a latae sententiae [by the commission of the act] excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; one who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the delict.”

There is one oddity here, while the diocese says the seal can NOT be released even at the request of the penitent several online Catholic sources say otherwise including Simona Fisher at the National Catholic Register:

However, a penitent may give a priest permission to talk about what was confessed. The penitent may release him from the seal.

and Fr. William Saunders at Catholic Education.org

However, a priest may ask the penitent for a release from the sacramental seal to discuss the confession with the person himself or others. For instance, if the penitent wants to discuss the subject matter of a previous confession — a particular sin, fault, temptation, circumstance — in a counseling session or in a conversation with the same priest, that priest will need the permission of the penitent to do so. For instance, especially with the advent of “face-to-face confession,” I have had individuals come up to me and say, “Father, remember that problem I spoke to you about in confession?” I have to say, “Please refresh my memory,” or “Do you give me permission to discuss this with you now?”

Or if a priest needs guidance from a more experienced confessor to deal with a difficult case of conscience, he first must ask the permission of the penitent to discuss the matter. Even in this case, the priest must keep the identity of the person secret.

This is a rather important thing to clarify, is the ability of the penitent to release the seal limited to conversation with themselves or conversation concerning advice concerning the sin?  You will note in Fr’ Saunders example even with the release the priest can’t give the identity of the penitent.

It’s worth noting that the civil suit in question is being brought by the family of a penitent who wants the priest to corroborate the testimony of the penitent herself concerning a person unconnected to the church that supposedly abused her.  The priest is not accused of abuse here but the civil suit names both the late alleged abuser, her confessor and the church as defendants:

The petitioners claimed Bayhi was negligent in advising the minor regarding the alleged abuse and failed his duty as a mandatory reporter in compliance with the Louisiana Children’s Code. It also holds the diocese liable for failing to properly train the priest regarding mandatory reporting of sexual abuse of minors.

As this case has been through the courts for years it’s logical to assume that the Diocese interpretation is correct, after all if there was any confusion concerning it the family could have requested clarification from the vatican as this case has been going through the courts for years and was ruled on by a lower court (which upheld the confessional seal).

So what is going on here? I have a thought.

I think the purpose of the suit over the confessional seal wasn’t so  much to get the priest to testify, but to ensure he did not.

Let’s assume for a moment that if the priest testified and confirmed that yes indeed the girl confessed as she stated.  This would actually tend to excuse both the Diocese and himself.  Not only would any advice he gave would be subjective but as he is specifically forbidden to act upon any information he received under his obligation under the confessional seal he can not be considered negligent for said action even if he was able to discern who the person confessing was.

And of course such testimony would cover the Diocese as well as they certainly couldn’t:

#1 Train him based on events they didn’t know about

#2 Train him to violate the confessional seal.

However consider what a jury might think if the priest doesn’t testify in fact fights all he way to the supreme court to avoid it.

That might cause a civil jury to think that he and the Diocese has something to hide and given the history of the abuse scandal that would likely not be hard to sell to a jury.   (And for that ease the Church bears full responsibility as their cowardice in being more concerned with avoiding scandal than promoting righteousness led to that state).

But in order to get this effect they would have to demonstrate an attempt to get the priest to testify, thus they launch the suits in hopes of getting the Diocese to settle to avoid a possible bad result and if that didn’t get the desired settlement the expectation of defeat would still produce the ability to imply the refusal of the priest to testify meant he had something to hide.

Victory in that confessional seal suit however is a disaster for the civil case.

You must remember any penalties the priest would be subject to are civil rather than criminal.  With only cash at risk If a priest chooses to go to jail  for contempt rather than testify suddenly instead of looking like a person trying to hide something he becomes a person willing to go to jail when he doesn’t have to, for the sake of principle.

The plaintiff of course might have hopes that the US Supreme Court might reverse Louisiana but I have to believe that our friends on the left will be doing all they can to win this case for the sake of upending the sacrament.

And that’s the irony here, the goal is money and the path to that goal seems to be the destruction of the sacrament and it’s reputation.

Which I think will serve the left just fine.

If you turn to any liberal site or cable channel a ton of talk is being given to the dissent of Justice Ginsburg

It’s quite a switch from what they were saying about her a few months ago:

TPM: Top Liberal Scholar Calls On Justice Ginsburg To Resign

National Review: Justice Ginsburg Resign Already

Daily Kos: Ruth Bader Ginsburg – I love you. Please resign right now.

or even three days ago at the Huffington Post:

Thank You for Your Service, But It’s Time to Go Justice Ginsburg

It’s also interesting to see their sudden interest in Supreme Court dissents, something I don’t recall a lot of media interest in before:

It brings to mind how once Democrats were in the minority in the house, suddenly what a house minority leader had to say was worth covering.

While both of these things are of some interest what I find most interesting is the tactic because as a Catholic it’s so familiar.

After Vatican 2 and Humanae Vitae the left in the Church and the media who supported them were disappointed by the result. While there were changes in the Mass and an increase in the use of the laity it was not what they had dreamed of. So rather than talking about what doctrines actually were and what the counsel documents actually said they created a false narrative aided and abetted by many in ministry who preferred the church in their own image rather than the church as it was.

Thanks to the get along to go along attitude of many who knew better entire generations was either catechised falsely or not at all and the church & society paid for it.

This is the goal of the left in the Ginsberg dissent to create a de facto narrative in their minds similar to the Bush Gore election, and by that narrative hope to effect both how the issue is reported and perhaps even how some of the liberal judges rule on future cases as more Christian businessmen assert their rights.

Of course this is not the 70’s. Both the internet exists as does a strong cadre of conservatives ready to push back, and the reality of the decision in encoded in US law so don’t expect the kind of legal apostasy that we saw in the church but rest assured they’ll give it the old pagan try.

WGBH talked about the Buffer Zone ruling and I saw a familiar face on the stage

Ms. Fay’s blog is the Fog of Law and she wrote on the McCullem ruling here.

I also think it’s hugely important that this was a consensual speech case, not a protest case. You can adequately scream at people from thirty-five feet away (more if you have a megaphone), but you can’t offer literature, solace, a place to live, or financial help. Eleanor McCullen has saved hundreds of babies by offering real, concrete help to women in a crisis pregnancy, and she is not able to do so from shouting distance.

Hey I thought all those anti-abortion people were a bunch of old men who don’t care about women?

Incidentally note the end of the conversation, the point on the alternatives being offered (such as visitation house) is one of the most ignored facts of the Pro-Life movement and puts to lie the idea that pro-lifers only care about children in the womb.

Olimometer 2.52

As of right now I am one $25 tip jar hit from meeting our daily goal (to meet our monthly one)

Can you afford to be that one? If so please consider hitting DaTipJar below

There are a lot of things we can say about the 5-4 ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby.

We can say it’s an important win for religious liberty (it is) we can say that differentiating between a “closely held” corporation and a big publicly held one is far (it is).  You can claim that it’s a horrible defeat for women (that’s nonsense) and you can fundraise off of visions of coathangers (I suspect that’s blast mail has already gone out).  You might even claim it’s in the long run a win for Obamacare because it removes one of the drivers for the full repeal movement.

But while religious groups will be happy with the ruling & businesses will be happy as well in the list of winners would be incomplete if it didn’t include the group that won biggest by this ruling. the Establishment GOP and that victory driven not by Hobby Lobby’s victory but by the fact that it was 5-4.

After Mississippi,  the tea party and the base have been rightly outraged.  There were plenty of people asking themselves if it might be worth it to lose a seat like Mississippi on the theory of:  If we don’t make the GOP pay now?  When do we?

Hobby Lobby gives the GOP exactly the right answer.

If Hobby Lobby had lost it would have pushed the full repeal of Obamacare to the forefront.  This is something that even if the establishment wanted to deliver (and it’s becoming apparent they do not) they could not as long as President Obama is in office).

If Hobby Lobby had won say 6-3 or better than the protections for religious liberty would have been pretty secure, secure enough that there would be no urgency.

But this ruling was 5-4, and that means that the left has the four votes needed to bring a new case to the court and is only a single vote away from reversing its course.

That makes control of the Senate and the ability to block a potential Supreme Court Justice during the last two years of the Obama administration where he would have absolutely no reason to restrain himself (Think Justice Bill Ayers or Elizabeth Warren).

I am a Tea Party supporter and I believe that the GOP has not earned the loyalty of its base, but elections take place every two years, Supreme Court appointment do not and when they happen they happen for life.

If the choice is between punishing the Mississippi GOP in general and Thad Cochran in particularly for their actions or having that 51 vote in the senate to stop a Barack Obama Justice I’ll put up with that graft for another 6 years.  If the difference between Harry Reid or Mitch McConnell deciding if a Supreme Court nominee goes forward is Scott Brown being that 51st GOP Senator from NH then I say Go Scott Go!

If I’m Reince Priebus I’m thanking my lucky stars.

Update: Given the latest developments in the Mississippi scandal this came none too soon for the GOP

Olimometer 2.52

July is here and thanks to a solicitation to small tip jar hitters June was the first month since January were we made our bills.

The trick will be to see if we can make this happen without sending out a solicitation to tip jar hitters.

I think our work here speaks for itself. If you think its worthwhile I would ask you to hit DaTipJar below. If we can draw $50 a day we’ll make our goal with no problem.

Update: Now only one $25 tip jar hit away from the daily goal.

Can you say 9-0!

The buffer zones serve the Commonwealth’s legitimate interests in maintaining public safety on streets and sidewalks and in preserving access to adjacent reproductive healthcare facilities. See Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western N. Y., 519 U. S. 357, 376.

At the same time, however, they impose serious burdens on petition­ers’ speech, depriving them of their two primary methods of com­municating with arriving patients: close, personal conversations and distribution of literature. Those forms of expression have historically been closely associated with the transmission of ideas.

While the Act may allow petitioners to “protest” outside the buffer zones, petitioners are not protestors; they seek not merely to express their opposi­tion to abortion, but to engage in personal, caring, consensual conver­sations with women about various alternatives. It is thus no answer to say that petitioners can still be seen and heard by women within the buffer zones. If all that the women can see and hear are vocifer­ous opponents of abortion, then the buffer zones have effectively sti­
fled petitioners’ message.

As for the Commonwealth’s arguments about safety & overcrowding:

The Commonwealth has not shown that it seriously undertook to address these various problems with the less intrusive tools readily available to it. It identifies not a single prosecution or injunction against individuals outside abortion clinics since the 1990s. The Commonwealth responds that the problems are too widespread for individual prosecutions and injunctions to be effective. But again, the record indicates that the problems are limited principally to the Boston clinic on Saturday mornings, and the police there appear per­fectly capable of singling out lawbreakers.

But this law was never about lawbreakers, it was about silencing foes of abortion trying to save both the lives of children & the souls of their mothers.

Massachusetts being Massachusetts and the Democrats with a 100+ majority in the house and a 36-4 advantage in the senate I expect a new buffer zone law will be passed in record time.

But for now this three point line is gone!

Now you’ll have to excuse me I going to go to Worcester and exercise my constitutional rights.

Update: I have some videos from my trip to Worcester
and shot this video:

To my surprise there were no other protesters there but I understand there were people there in the morning (as always) but left before 10 (as always)

I’d like to quote one of the most basic common sense lines from the opinion syllabus:

In any event, to determine whether someone intends to block access to a clinic, a police officer need only order him to move; if he refuses, then there is no question that his continued conduct is knowing or intentional.

Just go up and ask? That’s the most exciting new idea I’ve heard in years!

My real fear is that the Problem pregnancy center will get attacked again. They have a better camera system that before so hopefully if anyone tries that they will be nailed.

Update 2: Here is the USA Today report and ThinkProgress is practically in tears, which is always a good thing.

Update 3: The rage and anger of the “let us kill your baby” left is really something.