Hillary Clinton surprisingly tweeted a clearly false allegation against Judge Brett Kavanaugh on Wednesday that had already been widely disproven. Clinton told followers that Kavanaugh referred to birth control pills as “abortion-inducing drugs.” He didn’t but that does not appear to matter to many spreading this false story, including Clinton. Clinton said that she wanted to be
“sure we’re all clear about” about Kavanaugh’s comment to “set off a lot of alarm bells.” It did but not the alarms that she intended. The false account was first spread by Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Cal.) who received four Pinocchios for the claim from The Washingon Post.
Clinton tweeted “I want to be sure we’re all clear about something that Brett Kavanaugh said in his confirmation hearings last week. He referred to birth-control pills as ‘abortion-inducing drugs.’ That set off a lot of alarm bells for me, and it should for you, too.”
Hillary Clinton
✔@HillaryClinton
I want to be sure we’re all clear about something that Brett Kavanaugh said in his confirmation hearings last week. He referred to birth-control pills as “abortion-inducing drugs.” That set off a lot of alarm bells for me, and it should for you, too.
“[Priests for Life] was being forced to provide a certain kind of health coverage over their religious objection to their employees, and under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the question was first, was this a substantial burden on the religious exercise? And it seemed to me quite clearly it was. It was a technical matter of filling out a form, in that case with — that — they said filling out the form would make them complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs that they were — as a religious matter, objected to.”
What was most disturbing was Harris’ release of an edited video of that cut out the words “they said.”
Kavanaugh was referring to the argument of the challengers. The analysis had to consider their view of contraceptives. Indeed, the appellate arguments in the first opinion used precisely this language:
It is undisputed that Plaintiffs all sincerely believe that life begins at conception and that contraception is contrary to Catholic tenets. Priests for Life, for example, was founded to spread the Gospel of Life, which “affirms and promotes the culture of life and actively opposes and rejects the culture of death.” Pls.’ Br. 11. Catholic doctrine prohibits “impermissible cooperation with evil,” and thus opposes providing access to “contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing products,” which the Church views as “immoral regardless of their cost.” Id. at 12. The specific acts to which Plaintiffs object are “provid[ing], pay[ing] for, and/or facilitat[ing] access to contraception,” any of which they believe would violate the Catholic Church’s teachings. Id. at 15.
This type of unfair editing has been shown in other Internet attack like the one targeting Ted Cruz’ opponent Beto O’Rourke where an video was edited to make him look like he was celebrating flag burning.
These attacks only destroy the credibility of these campaigns. I have previously written that, while the Democrats are wrong about “smoking gun” evidence put forward at the hearing on Kavanaugh’s opposition to Roe v. Wade, his interpretative methodology is clearly hostile to the reasoning of Roe. Yet, opponents like Harris and Clinton seem eager to claim any “gotcha” moment — even one that never occurred.
What is most striking is that there is plenty for both sides to use in rallying their supporters, but these unfair attacks are increasing with the anger (and panic) in some quarters. There is clearly a calculated risk here. These politicians are confident that more people will be outraged (or not care to check the facts) on the false narrative than there are people outraged by being misled. That would be a particularly sad statement about the state of our politics.
I saw where President Carter is trying to caution the Dems not to go too far to the left. One tweeter wished that Jimmy could get internet at his house.
I woke up late this a.m. and watched the weather channel and saw many photos and videos of ugly hurricanes. Then I just opened this computer and this website and see the ugly photo of Hillary. I puked. Not on my computer. But in the toilet. No more Hillary photos please.
How low can they go?
They haven’t struck bottom yet. As long as they have followers (voters) that lack the ability to discern fact from fiction, more importantly, as long as they suffer no consequences of this strategy, they will continue to use it.
So someone before the court can make a claim that the judge believes is false but still get a favorable opinion based on that claim? Interesting.
betty, it has to do with the law, not the judge’s personal beliefs.
In my humble opinion, this is what cost Clinton the election; she started to play like Trump: lying, blaming, trying to make Trump look stupid-he does that better than anyone. Before this, Clinton focused on the issues and was told, by her genius assistants to play like Trump, cuz he was getting so much attention. Now she is at it again. If the Republicans could manage to keep Bush hidden then the least the Democrats can do is put a leash on this mutt. She is a liability. The best way to get rid of Trump is to let him be the only one blathering and lying and blaming etc. Trump looks stupid enough all by his self, to all but his most rabid supporters, enough to get his orange butt bounced and those of enough members of Congress and the Senate. When the opposition plays Trump’s lying game, it distracts from what a travesty he is.
Some of what you say is true, however, all one has to do is look at the results Trump is having to know he is the right President at the right time.
Results are mostly lies, 5,000 of them.
Results are mostly lies. Let me provide you a video that with actual charts demonstrates that what you call lies are absolutely true. This is from the Council of Economic advisors and shows that the liar is Obama.
Everyone should watch this video as it demonstrates where the economy was heading (down) and where it went when Trump was elected (up)
Issac, why not comment on these charts that demonstrate the radical change between Obama and Trump policies and how they positively have affected all of America.
Allan
Economists on both sides are together touting Obama’s recovery program to have been the overall upswing that Trump bumped with his tax cut. Economists on both sides identify this tax cut bump as temporary and as only augmenting the general upswing started with the Obama administration. So far under Trump there has been nothing permanent or time tested. Trump’s moves: tax cuts, tariff wars, and the rest may evolve into a stronger economy but at this time the general consensus of opinions is that the recovery is a result of the Obama administration’s input.
You must be one of those people that hear a lie so often and then start to believe it.
Issac, we know how you parse information. Poorly. Take the graphs provided on the video and deal with them one by one and then add the ones you would like to add from somewhere else. Watch the video again and explain why the curve looks like a u or a v where things are falling under Obama and rapidly rising under Trump. You probably haven’t even analyzed the video.
Your consensus is limited to your bubble and that is why you can’t step out and analyze the video below.
Here it is again.
What does Clinton have to offer? Nothing
What does Harris have to offer? Nothing
What does Booker have to offer? Nothing
That is why those on the left do little but play tricks and take quotes out of context. People might be starting to learn and hopefully these types of lies will bite the Democratic Party and cause a change in attitude.
What does Trump have to offer? Plenty. We have already mentioned many of those things, but todays WSJ reveals Median Household Income Rose 1.8%. That is worth talking about. The left has no policy to offer but to keep on lying.
Alan
Why is Trump afraid to talk to Mueller?
“Why is Trump afraid to talk to Mueller?”
A lot of people are afraid to talk to the FBI and to Mueller because they have the ability to entrap people for non crimes and statements made in error. Some of these laws that permit this need to be changed.
A special council requires a stated crime. Why after two years was that crime not stated. Why don’t we know what the scope is for the Mueller investigation? That should come long before the special prosecutor asks for anything from the President.
Why is Rosentein unwilling to release the FISA applications? Why has Rosenstein and the FBI redacted so much that we now find out the redactions were protecting individuals from being prosecuted for illicit activities? Did Rosenstein step over the line?
Allan
What ‘non crimes’ has Mueller trapped anyone into? Trump is afraid to talk to Mueller because Trump is an idiot and most likely a criminal many times over. His handlers know that he is capable of stuffing both feet in that fish mouth. And, what’s wrong with ‘tricking’ an idiot like Trump into giving himself up on his crimes? Crimes are crimes and the higher up in government the greater should the punishment be. Let’s have an in-depth look at Trump’s tax returns, face up. Let’s scrutinize carefully Trump’s dealings with Russian money, banks, oligarchs. Trump supporters are hypocrites. They want absolute exposure of every Democrat misdeed but when it comes to this treasonous travesty of a President, it’s ‘give him a chance’, ‘he saved the world’, etc. Trump has lied or misrepresented facts over 5,000 times since taking office. This proves beyond a reasonable doubt the old saying, ‘Tell a lie often enough and dupes will believe it.’
Intimidation is being used for process crimes and this has been discussed over and over again. You just don’t want to absorb the dangers behind such actions so I will let you remain in ignorance.
Trump actually isn’t afraid to talk to Mueller, but if it were up to me I wouldn’t have him talk. There has been no transparency in the DOJ or by Mueller as far as what crime Mueller is investigating. The FISA warrants haven’t been released with all the names and for all we know a criminal cabal is running the DOJ and Mueller’s investigation. Do I think they are criminal? How would I know without such information, but we can see it is political and politics is not appropriate in our judicial system.
“And, what’s wrong with ‘tricking’ an idiot like Trump into giving himself up on his crimes?”
That is not the way our criminal justice system is supposed to act and Trump wouldn’t be tricked into anything but a non crime that is based on convoluted law where the individual had no intent to break any law or didn’t even know he was doing so.
You have everything backward, Issac. Trump supporters want the laws to be followed equally for all parties whether Democrat, Republican or outsider. It is you that only wants to focus on political rivals. You are as hypocritical as one can get. Take note how you list the number of lies Trump has made but you are such a hypocrite you won’t list the most important lies he has made while President that were not exaggerations, errors or otherwise not actually lies. When you do so we can further categorize the nature of your hypocrisy. If you don’t make the list then we know that you are a total hypocrite that shouts out claims only to run away when asked for proof.
Yeah, let’s have a look at those taxes.
That is the job of the IRS and they have reviewed his taxes many times.
When are you going to post your tax returns here on the blog?
bill mcwilliams – can I refer you to the cases of Flynn and Papodopulus. And if he is, as I think, ADHD, he has no filter on his brain which means you really cannot control what is going to come out of your mouth or how it is going to come out. Where you would be controlled enough to say “No comment” God only knows how he will respond.
And I don’t think Trump is afraid, he is the King of the Jungle. It is his lawyers who are afraid.
Perhaps he’s kind of busy being the leader of the free world, and is determined not to be slowed down by a political witch hunt helmed entirely by political enemies that in no way answers to any definition of “justice” and is obviously a weapon of the unelected bureaucracy to obstruct, entrap, smear, and politically destroy an elected administration it finds inconveniently in its way.
Waiting to see how Late4Yoga is going to spin this HRC story into delusional Trump-Russia collusion diatribe.
Other than Huma Abedin and Susan Thomases, has there ever been anyone who was the least bit fond of HRC?
Apparently Wes Hubble was. At least once.
FFS – I am think it took Wes more than once. My theory is that her body is so acidic that it kills sperm on arrival. 😉
Harsh, Paul.
Funny, but harsh.
Given her enraptured following and her personal demeanor I’m guessing parthenogenesis.
mespo – you may be correct. It usually results in a female and by all accounts Chelsea is female.
I did my research, Prof. Schulte. Now I need that midterm grade on my hypothesis from an originality/humor if not plausibility and frequency perspectives. 😀
mespo – well, it does take care of those who say that no man in his right mind would have sex with her problem and the frequency problem. I am thinking of this from a serious science perspective. We know that Bill was going to bed with everybody but her and she probably doesn’t want to go to bed with him. However, for political optics they need a child. If anyone is capable of it, Hillary is. It is either that or the turkey baster solution and an anonymous donor.
Agreed.
mespo – do you think we could (in the interest of science) get Bill, Hillary and Chelsea to agree to DNA tests? Well, we all ready have Bill’s from the Starr investigation, but I am not sure if it was destroyed. We would need Hillary’s and Chelsea’s for sure.
Paul C. & mespo…..I’m enjoying the Abbott and Costello routine…LOL
Cindy Bragg – this is serious scientific inquiry. Please, it is not a laughing matter. Lives are at stake.
Paul:
You want me to get DNA samples from Hillary and Chelsea? Is combat pay still around? Are there cotton swabs big enough?
mespo – I was thinking we could send Seal Team Six. She has armed security, I do not know about Chelsea.
Paul C. Schulte…..Scientific??? I believe the reference to the kitchen tool known as “turkey baster” precluded any hope of a serious scientific dialogue; however, with my connections and your good looks, we could ask casserole doyenne Martha Stewart to regale us with her knowledge of the cuisine sciences.
And I think your phrase should read “Lives are at steak” 🙂
Cindy Bragg – the reference to the turkey baster comes from a case where a lesbian couple used a turkey baster to inject sperm into the lucky winner. I think their efforts were successful, if memory serves me correctly. And I think they sterilized the baster both before and after “Operation Babymaker!”. I thought, given the circumstances, it was a rather clever way to solve a problem.
Paul C. The turkey baster as a Baby Maker!!! Does Butterball know?! 😁
mespo…….combat pay….Seal Team Six….you and Prof Schulte are killing me…LOL
It’s Webb Hubbell, kids — not Wes.
anonymous – did Webb have a brother Wes? 😉 You are correct. 🙂
😎
Actually, some modes of contraception are abortifacients, and are properly banned.
No birth control should be banned!
But, but,…There’s a baby in the sperm of that man just waiting to enter a woman’s egg; with birth control you’ll kill that baby, can’t kill a baby…….even if it will kill the incubator, or it can’t be afforded, or if that sperm came from a family member, or another rapist. Can’t kill that baby!!!!!! God’s will. The Bible says “first breath”. no, no, can’t kill the baby.
ps: I agree with you, justice holmes
“There’s a baby in the sperm of that man”
Basic biology teaches that the sperm alone is not a baby. Didn’t they teach you that when you were in school?
It seems that the purpose of birth control is to keep that sperm from entering the egg as if that sperm were the baby ’cause you can’t kill the baby.
betty, you ought to pick up a book on basic biology. First the sperm and egg create a zygote which generally has all 46 chromosomes. You need 46 and the sperm doesn’t meet that specification. In 3-5 days the zygote moves from the fallopian tubes to implant in the uterus. At this point the cells multiply to form the placenta, amniotic sac and the baby.
Birth control is used to alter things so that this is prevented though the hormones used, if used in another way, can kill the implanted zygote and some later stages. The first form of contraception prevents the sperm from reaching the egg. The least expensive contraceptive can be used over and over again. One places a penny between the knees and holds it there tight. A later phase in contraception attempts to block the ability of the zygote to adhere to the uterine wall.
You can talk like a kid or you can talk like an intelligent adult. That is your choice.
Allan – there is a cheaper method than the penny and it is crossing your legs. 😉
Haven’t you been told not to cross your legs? How can that be cheaper when the penny is still there?
Allan – you don’t need the penny to begin with, so cheaper by at least 1 penny.
Guess you haven’t listened to protestors outside Planned Parenthood . I have. They inspired me to go in and make a donation. A donation to the protestors school science program might also be in order but I don’t think they would understand it. They get their understanding of science from the pastor’s bastardized interpretation of the Bible.
Betty, it is you that doesn’t seem to understand biology. I hope my short explanation of a bit of it helped you, but you should still take a book out of the library to get a better grasp of the subject.
You made a donation. Congratulations. It seems you think that was a good thing to do. If so why not go back and donate 100 or 1000X your original donation and do it monthly. That will certainly help even more. I hope you do.
Just make sure that if you give everything you got away you are still left with a penny.
A Clinton lying? Perish the thought, JT.
The former Secretary of State has yet to make peace with her electoral loss. She wants to remain relevant as a leader of her political party. In this context, the best grounds are those on the far left, where ideology trumps reality and sincerity. Sadly, the most active members of the Democratic Party are also its most ideological, a situation that renders objective reality, reason and compromise toxic to electoral politics.
Ideology ought to mean the study of ideas. Unfortunately it now usually means a system of ideas and ideals. One such is expressed in legal form in the Constitution. How realistic and sincere is that?
David Benson owes me nine citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after fifteen weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – this word “ideology” is a perfect example of why only you can find the correct definition in the OED.
i·de·ol·o·gy
ˌīdēˈäləjē,ˌidēˈäləjē/Submit
noun
1.
a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
“the ideology of republicanism”
synonyms: beliefs, ideas, ideals, principles, ethics, morals; More
2.
archaic
the science of ideas; the study of their origin and nature.
You select the second and archaic meaning of the word, not the modern meaning. Now, let’s get those New Balance on and get headed to the library.
Paul C Schulte is a fool who doesn’t read so good.
David Benson owes me nine citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after fifteen weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – but I write more better English than you do. 😉 BTW, you need to get working on getting those citations for me. You are 15 weeks behind now.
DBB, PHD, FBS:
Methinks it is thou that “don’t read so good” or are hopelessly “archaic.” By the way, the Constituion is both sincere and realistic. Lest you disbelieve, why don’t you publicly commit a federal crime and see how sincerely and realistically you get locked up.
He’s a Nike man, I’ll wager. Just do it, DBB!
mespo – he is probably one of the liberals supporting the slave labor practices of Nike. I was hoping he would buy American.
The New Balance Postal is a shoe I recommend–well constructed, comfortable, and they do not have a big logo splash on the side (only a small cloth tag and a logo on the sole).
Saucony is very comfortable, seems to be about the only tennis shoe my foot likes. The logo is visible, however.
I wore New Balance for years. I liked them for comfort, walking 8-10 miles daily. But I got plantar fasciitis 3 times. Foot doc told me to buy Brooks. Still comfortable, better support, no painful PF anymore.
I have been posting once in awhile. Word Press doesn’t save my name any longer and so several have been post as anonymous. I just made the Brooks sneakers comment for the record. I don’t like anonymity online. Using ones name keeps one honest.
“Using ones name keeps one honest.”
Nick, I agree. Sometimes my name has gotten lost as well but I redo everything and check the box and my name stays preserved most of the time. Sometimes when it comes up as anonymous I post again stating I was the poster.
Nick:
I’m a Brooks man, too. With the inserts. So long heel pain.
Both Paul C Schulte and mespo727272 seem unable to comprehend even at the 10th grade level.
But to help mespo727272, the question was addressed to ozpaez. You were not called upon. However, consider that a result of the Constitution was the civil war.
that a result of the Constitution was the civil war.
I take it American history and historical sociology aren’t your strong suits. And you’ve crapped your pants again.
Intelligent discussion here certainly isn’t yours.
David Benson owes me nine citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after fifteen weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – you do not involve yourself in discussion, intelligent or otherwise. You just do trolling drive-bys.
David Benson owes me nine citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after fifteen weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – Consider the result of the Declaration of Independence was a revolution in America, followed closely by a revolution in France. I am not sure what your point is? Go back to reading Weart.
Off topic.
David Benson owes me nine citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after fifteen weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – Directly responsive to you comment. How can it be off topic? Oh, and btw, who cares?????
DBB:
“Both Paul C Schulte and mespo727272 seem unable to comprehend even at the 10th grade level. ”
**************************
I don’t know about Paul, but I liked the 10th Grade. We had the run of the high school having matriculated from the Junior High full of spit and vinegar. Some of the guys were intimidated by the juniors and seniors but I knew lots from playing sports and they were cool even taking me hunting sometimes. I enjoyed the moving from class to class and the hijinks in the halls. Plus, the girls were certainly cuter by age 16 than at age 13 and were excellent tutors. I learned a lot. All in all a good time.
Now about your opining out of specialty: why not stick to electron cycles instead of historical ones? You probably know about that. Suggesting the Constitution led to the Civil War is like suggesting your parents marriage certificate led to their divorce decree. Maybe correct in a facile way, but only that way.
mespo – according to our standardized tests, I was comprehending at a senior in high school by the time I was in the fourth grade.
Paul:
I knew it. BDD was the reverse and gone downhill since — especially in the attribution department.
Paul:
In fairness to me, I did have this going for me as Brantley Gilbert explains:
Hillary’s instincts are demonstrably flawed, narcissistic, rather than strategic. She’s the uncontrollable variable because she operates on impulse unmoored to principle or even basic knowledge of the issues. It’s not just about what’s printed on paper, but what’s surrendered in public.
HRC ought to just ride off into the sunset.
This is nothing for the person who personally led the “bimbo eruption” brigade for her husband, Slick Willy. There is not a low, low enough for the Clintons. If they will not do it personally they will have a surrogate do it for them. Why do you think the death rate of people involved with them is so high?
Looks like Hillary is desperate to remain relevant in a Democrat party that is willing to spin comforting lies for its followers and stage phony “bring it on” confrontations. Unfortunately nobody told Clinton that in contemporary politics repeating Harris’ lie just isn’t as cool as making up her own.
The last time Hillary Clinton convinced herself she had a smoking gun…
Darren….was she under as much fake sniper fire as Democratic Sen. Dick Blumenthal was during his fake time as a fake soldier, pretending to be in Viet Nam?!
Cindy Bragg,..
Say what you will about Sen. Blumenthal.
But during his 6 months of active duty, not one Viet Cong was able to threaten the base in Parris Island where he was stationed😄.
And when he served the remainder of his commitment to the Marine Reserves in Washington DC, there were no attacks by the Viet Cong on our capital😉.
Had Blumenthal not been there to deter the VC and NV regular army, who knows what might have happened?😊☺
Tom Nash – should we thank the Senator for his service or be thankful he was not stationed somewhere where others killed be killed because of his incompetence?
😁
That brings up a true conundrum. When we had a catastrophic landslide here in WA that destroyed a small town, killing several, our governor–who never lets a good photo-op go unexploited–struck a pose showing him in a line unloading supplies from a truck. I rhetorically asked my wife, “what’s Inslee doing wasting time loading supplies? He should be in a command truck somewhere pulling in resources from across the state.” But then I realized that was the best place he should be and not screwing everything up with the disaster recovery teams with his incompetence and getting in the way of people who know what they are doing.
Darren Smith – sometimes having the governor throw some light-weight cartons out of a truck gives the rest of the volunteers a morale boost. Honestly, disasters are always a problem because whatever you do it is not the right thing.
Terrible thing that happened with the mudslide in Oso, Washington.
43 people died in that avalanche of mud a few years ago.
LOL!
To be clear, Cindyindie’s LOL was not in reference to the mudslide tragedy…just unfortunate placement below where I commented on the scale of the casualties.
Tom……..yes!Thank you for clarifying….Wish we had delete or edit button!
Just another lying liberal – look at Harry Reid and how he lied about Romney to name another egregious lie.
Just another lying liberal – look at Harry Reid and how he lied about Romney to name another egregious lie.
Kamala Harris will NEVER be a “natural born citizen.”
Kamala Harris will NEVER be eligible to be U.S. president.
Kamala Harris’ parents were foreign citizens at the time of her birth.
– A “citizen” could only have been President at the time of the adoption of the Constitution; not after.
– The U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, requires the President to be a “natural born citizen,” which, by definition in the Law of Nations, requires “parents who are citizens” at the time of birth of the candidate and must be “…born of a father who is a citizen;…”
– Ben Franklin thanked Charles Dumas for copies of the Law of Nations which “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting,…”
– The Jay/Washington letter of July, 1787, raised the presidential requirement from citizen to “natural born citizen” to place a “strong
check” against foreign allegiances by the commander-in-chief.
– Every American President before Obama had two parents who were American citizens.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Law of Nations, Vattel, 1758
Book 1, Ch. 19
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ben Franklin letter December 9, 1775, thanking Charles Dumas for 3 copies of the Law of Nations:
“…I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787
From John Jay
New York 25 July 1787
Dear Sir
I was this morning honored with your Excellency’s Favor of the 22d
Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore
Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet,
which sailed Yesterday.
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to
provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the
administration of our national Government, and to declare
expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.
Mrs Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect
Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere
I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt
John Jay
You shall thoroughly enjoy John Cusack’s (yes, the actor/director) interview of our esteemed Dr. Turley, circa 2012, in which Turley clearly demonstrates that Obama views the Constitution not a rules road map, but as a means to his political ends. Turley also documents Obama’s felony crimes such as his Presidential Kill List (Obama incinerated with a drone, sans judicial charge, American Muslim child Anwar Al-Awlaki), and also intentionally allowed Cheney and his CIA felons to get clean away with felony torture crimes.
Of course, then-AG Holder and his two DOJ lieutenants created the lies that allowed Jamie Dimon and Goldman Sachs to get clean away with felony banking crimes that cost US taxpayers a few trillion dollars, and caused the 2008 Great Depression.
There was no Great Depression, nor did recovery measures cost the U.S. Government a sum in the trillions of dollars, nor was Dimon’s bank a problem institution.
I hope Cusack continues along the path of, say, Oliver Stone, and begins to cast off the false left/right dichotomy and simply go for populism and truth. I’m not a huge fan of his oeuvre but I have watched High Fidelity probably about 20 times. It’s a Chicago thing.
Obama was, is and will forever be ineligible. The Supreme Court is the singular American failure. Banks are private property “…in exclusion of every other individual…” per Madison. With the exception of Eminent Domain, government has no authority to possess or dispose of any aspect of private property – rent control, affirmative action, fair housing, etc. are all unconstitutional. Government has no authority to expend tax dollars to support any free enterprise or private property or “bailout” any free market organization. Private property free enterprises will succeed or fail as a result of their efforts without any form of interference by government. Bailouts are unconstitutional. Investors love to buy up the remnants of insolvent corporations. Caveat Emptor. Customers and citizens must be responsible for their own actions, contracts and endeavors. Investors are responsible for their own decisions and must retain sufficient acumen to avoid and/or hedge against the cycles of commerce. Employment levels, profits, insolvencies and all other aspects of the free enterprises of free Americans are absolutely NONE of the government’s business or purview per the Constitution. Courts exist to resolve problems between customers and enterprises.
I’m not familiar with the case but Anwar Al-Awlaki et al. may have legally been considered traitors conducting treason, foreign agents and/or allies of enemies.
George, surely you know that was a viewpoint which was rejected by the Supreme Court long ago. What you say is the viewpoint of constitutional scholar Richard Epstein and you are free to think that should be the law, but it is not the law at this time.
I am fresh off a conversation with dhilli where I pointed out what the law is, may not be what we like, or what is just, or even what is a proper and sound interpretation of the constitution— but courts say what the law IS, that is their function.
dhili called me an apologizer for Stalinism and genocide because I said that, but it’s a foundation premise to recognize that the law is what the government says it is, even if the law is bad or should be changed.
right now Congress under the “Commerce clause” can definitely “Regulate” all that kind of stuff as much as it wants. wickard v fillburn is the most egregious outlier making the point, if i recall correctly
i agree that Eminent Domain is exercised in part and indirectly through forms of regulation. That is what Epstein discusses in his books. They are worthy but mostly just recommendations of what law should be, not what it is.
I very much appreciate your response. Thank you for the rebuttlal, however unsound. You just said that redistributionist dictators have nullified the Constitution and taken over the government. Please cite the constitutional mandate for governmental intercession in the free enterprises of Americans. I love to read.
Allow me to ask if you believe the American Founders held the same opinion on British Rule which was summarized for public consumption as “…taxation without representation.” My guess would be that the Founders knew what was right and righteous and were resolved to definitively effect that condition. You are, how should I say this diplomatically, not a coward, but a compliant, deferential and subservient sycophant to those who would nullify the manifest tenor of the Constitution and impose their own self-serving, tyrannical and oppressive dictatorship. I hope that is not harsh. Barring the imposition of fundamental law, the Founders provided Americans the 2nd Amendment.
You may enjoy Hamilton on the subject:
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
Geo,
I think that you are still confusing the question of what the law is with what it should be. first you have to establish what the law is, before the conversation is really meaningful.
“substantive due process” is still a viable constitutional doctrine in a lot of areas but “economic due process” — that is is that you were recommending– was overturned in the FDR era
lochner v. new york (1905) is the case that was the high water mark of not allowing the states to interfere with contracts and cut away people’s property rights with regulations bit by bit.
I gave you the name of the case that marks the farthest swing of the pendulum the other direction, Wickard v Fullburn
The constitutional text that justifies this is called “The commerce clause”
you might like the works of professor richard epstein read his book TAKINGS
I used to agree with a lot of what you said and I still agree with a lot of Epstein’s thinking. but you have insulted me here a little:
“You are…a compliant, deferential and subservient sycophant to those who would nullify the manifest tenor of the Constitution and impose their own self-serving, tyrannical and oppressive dictatorship. I hope that is not harsh”
it’s not harsh but it is wrong. I was just making a simple point and you have now joined Dhilli in misunderstanding it. I’ll say it again because actually I am charitable to folks who show the same misunderstandings that i used to have myself. I will put it in caps.
FIRST UNDERSTAND WHAT THE LAW IS
IT IS WHAT THE GOVERNMENT SAYS IT IS
THAT IS LAID DOWN IN STATUTES AND CASES
THEN
IF YOU WANT TO SAY WHAT IT SHOULD BE, OK! GREAT
TELL US WHAT JUSTICE IS AND RECOMMEND CHANGES.
BUT THE LAW IS THE LAW UNJUST OR NOT
Now about all your quotes from the Founders. If they are not cases or text of actual statutes (we can agree the constitution and its amendments are statutes too) but if its not a statute or a case holding or an executive order or rule of competent agency — THEN IT IS NOT THE LAW
maybe it SHOULD BE the law but it is NOT the law now.
That certainly applies to “takings” methodology per Epstein and what is called “Economic due process”
Mr. Kurtz, you are thoroughly enjoyable. If you know law, you know that fundamental law, the Constitution, holds dominion. It would be far easier to focus on one issue. Statute law cannot be valid if it stems from violations of fundamental law. Does anyone believe, for example, that three “Reconstruction Amendments” were properly ratified in an absurdly short period of time and under the duress of post-war military occupation in lieu of prosecuting millions of criminal illegal aliens (i.e. the slaves were transformed from “property” to “illegal aliens” as the Naturalization Act of 1802 required citizens to be “…free white person(s)…” in 1863)?
I don’t speak, I quote.
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
America is far from the “manifest tenor” of its Constitution, all acts contrary to which must be declared void by the judicial branch.
Secession is not precluded and was, therefore, constitutional and slavery must have been addressed through tools of freedom and free enterprise – boycotts, divestiture, etc. The American Founders seceded from the British Empire.
Congress has the power to tax merely for “…general Welfare…” omitting and, thereby, excluding individual welfare – Article 1, Section 8.
The right to private property “…in the exclusion of every other individual…” precludes rent control, affirmative action, quotas, fair housing, non-discrimination, quotas, forced busing, etc.
James Madison defined private property as
“that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”
The commerce clause assures the free flow of commerce among the states. The commerce clause assures that no bias favoring one entity or state over another creeps into American free enterprise. Government has no authority to tax for “bailouts” or otherwise interfere with or intercede in free enterprise.
Regulation of free enterprises is unconstitutional and nowhere to be found in the Constitutions. Please cite the Article and Section that grants the power to regulate every aspect of any American free enterprise.
You are saying that the criminal elected officials, bureaucrats contractors and lobbyists – the military/industrial “deep state” complex – are legitimate and may persist in their fraudulent, dictatorial dominion while the American Founders fully intended that the People would throw off a tyrannical and oppressive government. Presumably, the were referring to one that has not voided all acts contrary to the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution they wrote.
The pendulum will swing back to the American Revolution side once again.
“I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”
– Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
The DNC has lost its last neuron! OMG. speechless. How low can they go? Thank you for this blog.