Political News - Conservative Views -Join the Discussions
So . . .GA6 and SC5 remain repub.
Okay. So what! In the last 7yrs the dems have lost well over a thousand seats across the board and now the GOP has control of BOTH the Senate and the HoR -- and now the WH. Yet, are we even close to REAL Obamacare repeal; or tax reform? No. Are we closer to REAL spending cuts or a Balanced Budget? Nuh-uh. How about the runaway costs of SocSec; any closer to any reform there? HAH!
So, excuse me for not popping the bubbly over the GA or SC "wins". I grade on actual legislative RESULTS - not merely on intentions. We get enough of that w/ the bullsh*t COMMON CORE education system.
That's my not-so-humble opinion!
EXCLUSIVE – Nearly 60,000 immigrants with arrest records -- including 10 accused of murder -- have been allowed to stay in the United States under the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) revealed Monday.
Is America headed toward a civil war? Sanders, Nielsen incidents show it has already begun
Flash Poll: The Threat Within
Waters Encourages Public Harassment of Trump Administration Officials: ‘Create a Crowd … Tell Them They’re Not Welcome’
Scandals Sanitized with Linguistic Trickery
The fix was in.
Clinton Emails: What the IG Report Refuses to Admit
By Andrew C. McCarthy
June 19, 2018 1:29 PM
Look to Trump, Not Trey Gowdy, to Address Bias at the FBI and DOJ
The fix was in.
WEEKLY UPDATE: MCCAIN STAFFER SUGGESTED FINANCIALLY RUINOUS AUDITS TO LOIS LERNER
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, October 26, 2017
Attorney General Jeff Sessions Announces Department of Justice has Settled with Plaintiff Groups Improperly Targeted by IRS
Socialist Activist Who Harassed Homeland Security Secretary Works For The Department Of Justice
This was a good interview by Tucker Carlson, imo.
Op ed Why do we need more people in this country, anyway/Fox News
Op ed Why do we need more people in this country, anyway/Fox News Former National Security Council official Michael Anton speaks out on 'Tucker Carlson Tonight' as America's immigration debate rages on. #Tucker
why do we need more people in this country anyway? --
SS - their main point being that the SS Ponzi scheme requires enough more workers than retirees to survive. But they didn't touch on the Bretton Woods financial system having a basic requirement of 2.2 children per two parent household population growth to maintain an economy. More than 2.2 kids per family = economic growth, less than 2.2 kids per family = a shrinking economy. ...and our country has been below 2.2 for at least couple decades now.
.. now apply what they did talk about, how stupid it is to have a system designed to be reliant on perpetual population growth to even a more fundamental aspect of 'civilization' - the financial system, Bretton Woods. It also depends on perpetual population growth, with a minimum amount of growth necessary to maintain the system. -- Stupid is as stupid does... civilization as we know it knowing becoming completely reliant on Ponzi schemes that inevitably must fail.
Good point Larry, never considered population growth.
Let us also include free federal and state funding abortion into the discussion. Killing future generations of Americans who would have been taxpayers. Replacing the aborted with immigrants from foreign nations who will not assimilate.
yeah Am, no doubt the abortion argument vs. the need for immigrants to maintain Ponzi schemes is more than valid. The compounding effect of doing stupid by killing our own and importing incompatibles to replace them is too.
but to me they're arguments to prolong the lives of systems which by design must inevitably fail. My experience tells me doing that usually/predominantly results in a much more miserable failing experience. I think focusing on ending the reliance on Ponzi schemes would be the most productive agenda - exercising the importance of holding tight to sound principles. The abortion argument can and should be won on those grounds as well. Science is on the abortion argument's side - the other side's argument is solely = 'when life begins is a matter of opinion', and when politics is rightfully excluded that's an argument easily won.
Americans - especially those dependent on Social Security and Medicare - are going to wake up one day to find our systems completely bankrupt and insolvent. We must cut spending, and we need to do it yesterday.
Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, The Principles of Natural and Politic Law 
XIV. As for what concerns the duration of laws, and the manner in which they are abolished, we are to observe the following principles.8
1. In general the duration of a law, as well as its first establishment, depends on the free will and pleasure of the sovereign, who cannot reasonably tie up his own hands in this respect.
2. And yet every law, of itself and by its nature, is supposed perpetual, when it contains nothing in its disposition, or in the circumstances attending it, that evidently denotes a contrary intention of the legislator, or that may induce us reasonably to presume that it was only a temporary ordinance. The law is a rule; now every rule is of itself perpetual; and, generally speaking, when the sovereign establishes a law, it is not with a design to repeal it.
3. But as the state of things may happen to alter in such a manner, that the law, grown useless or hurtful, can no longer be put in execution; the sovereign can, and ought, in that case, to repeal and abolish it. It would be absurd and pernicious to society, to pretend that laws once enacted ought to subsist for ever, let what inconveniency soever arise.
4. This repeal may be made in two different manners, either expressly or tacitly. For when the sovereign, well acquainted with the state of things, neglects for a long time to enforce the observance of the laws, or formally permits, that affairs relating thereto be regulated in a manner contrary to his disposition; from thence a strong presumption arises of the abrogation of this law, which falls thus of itself, though the legislator has not expressly abolished it.
It is plain we have only glanced here upon the general principles. As for the application that ought to be made of them to each species of laws, it requires some modification, pursuant to their different nature. But it is not our business to enter here into those particulars.
How many sorts of laws.XV. Law may be divided, 1. into divine or human, according as it has God or man for its author.9
2. Divine law may be subdivided into two sorts, namely, natural and positive or revealed.
Natural law is that which so necessarily agrees with the nature and state of man, that without observing its maxims, the peace and happiness of society can never be preserved. As this law has an essential agreeableness with the constitution of human nature, the knowledge thereof may be attained merely by the light of reason; and hence it is called natural.
Positive or revealed law is that which is not founded on the general constitution of human nature, but only on the will of God; though in other respects this law is established on very good reasons, and procures the advantage of those who receive it.
We meet with examples of these two sorts of laws in the ordinances which God gave formerly to the Jews. It is easy to distinguish such as were natural, from those that, being merely ceremonial or political, had no other foundation than the particular will of God, accommodated to the actual state of that people.
With regard to human laws, considered strictly as such, viz. as originally proceeding from a sovereign who presides over society, they are all positive. For though some natural laws are made the subject of human laws, they do not derive their obligatory force from the human legislator; since they would oblige all the same without any intervention on his part, because they come from God.
Before we leave these definitions, we must not forget to observe, that the science or art of making and explaining laws, and of applying them to human actions, goes by the general name of Jurisprudence. http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/burlamaqui-the-principles-of-natu...
STARBUCKS AND THE 21st CENTURY
It's been reported that far left liberal coffee house ceo, Kevin Johnson, will be closing down approx 150 locations. Is it because of lost sales due to the ceo's politically correct sensitivity policy? Nope. Not even close!
The locations which will put 1000s out of work will be in cities w/ a $15 per hour minimum wage policy.
StarBucks is like a cheerleader rooting for the Seahawks - but doesn't want to show up at a game; and seems to want the team to LOSE!
"Progress" is for SUCKERS!
Hmmm... I wonder if Maxipad Waters will be scream out for the mob to hunt down; spit at; and gove death threats to Kevin Johnson, his family, and his staff for taking away jobs that will make 1000s go hungry and probably die? I SERIOUSLY doubt it.
♪ Progress and hy-po-cri-sy
live together in perfect har-mo-ny ♫ ...
Ladies And Gents, I Give You The Beginnings Of The Maxine-Democrats
“Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.".
Those were the words of one of the democrat heroins of "tolerance", Maxine Waters
She echoed the words of the radical left's revolutionary leader and savior, Barack Obama: "Get in their faces! You bring a gun!". It also echoes the organized actions of the very regime that the left accuse Conservatives of being: Adolf Hitler's National Socialist (nazi) Party when they literally hunted jews down in Germany and across Europe; placing the jews in internment (aka concentration) camps during WW2. Notice the term "Socialist" is/was part of their banner / philosophy.
And, speaking of those "internment" camps - which seems to be the left's favorite word of the day, the POTUS had ordered the same to be done to Japanese-Americans back in WW2. Was it President Trump? Nope. He was merely an infant then. No, the POTUS that ordreed that was Franklin D Roosevelt. A democrat.
For the Maxine-left to pretty much say "We don't want YOUR KIND here" is also very reflective of the Confederate South's Jim Crow era prior to the Civil War. And the dominant political party there was...yes, you guessed it, the Democrat Party as well. I'm sure that you SEE the pattern of behavior there. Those that dpn't is because they won't! Why?
Because presenting facts to liberals is like turning on the lights on rtas and cockroaches; or exposing vampires to sunlight.
It sure is too bad, though, that those radical creatures don't scatter and disappear. God knows that they will never go towards the light of the facts and truth. Once again their actions will result in more innocent people getting badly hurt or even killed. Godspeed, Steve Scalise.
random thoughts about reading through today's news..
. Jared patched through an imposter to Air Force 1?? man, he's a constant screw up isn't he.
. the potential scotus nominees I've seen so far all have giant red flags imo - one is from D.C. (disqualifier), another from Chicago (disqualifier), a snarky Austin Texas guy who thinks he's a witty tweeter (disqualifier), and a hyphenated diversity nominee. - not impressed so far
. given all the articles of hype about volcanoes and space discoveries I'm starting to think maybe they're preparing us for their next global scam faux crisis.. ?Evacuate Earth !! ? speaking of space discoveries, the news that space is full of carbon grease surely pisses off some of the anti-fossil fuel nuts ;' /
"a snarky Austin Texas guy who thinks he's a witty tweeter (disqualifier), and a hyphenated diversity nominee. - not impressed so far"
Potential nominee profile: Don Willett
By Edith Roberts on Jun 29, 2018 at 2:53 pm
Of all the names on President Donald Trump’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees, Don Willett’s may be the best known outside rarefied legal circles. That’s because while he was running for his second term on the Texas Supreme Court in 2012, Willett embraced Twitter as a way to get his campaign message across, and Twitter embraced him back. Although Willett dialed down on his tweeting after he was nominated for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, he has 109,000 Twitter followers and has sent almost 26,000 tweets – full of memes and puns and celebrating everything from Texas-shaped cornbread to the Constitution – including one or two that took mild jabs at Trump. The Texas legislature even named Willett the state’s “Tweeter Laureate.” He has called himself, in his trademark down-home style, “probably the tweetingest judge in America, which, admittedly, is like being the tallest Munchkin in Oz.” His regular-guy work habits include writing at what he calls “my satellite office: my neighborhood Chick-fil-A,” where last November he helped perform the Heimlich maneuver on a fellow patron who was choking on a gluten-free bun. Willett’s folksy manner overlays a fierce commitment to an approach to judging that is controversial even among conservatives.