Category: Tom Trinko

Why we all Hate Lawyers


Recently President Trump commented on the Bowe Bergdahl case —  the guy who deserted in combat and thereby caused Americans to be seriously wounded trying to rescue him because he didn’t have the guts to leave a note saying he deserted.

Lawyers, including conservatives at National Review, are  now declaring that the President can’t comment on an unclassified matter of national importance because he might keep a traitor from getting a fair trial.

In a sense they’re right, but they don’t realize why.

We talk of the DC bubble but there is another bubble that has a direct impact on Americans; the Legal Bubble (LB).

In the LB, lawyers, judges and various support people have bought into the very illiberal idea that the justice system isn’t about justice, but about following the rules.  That’s why they have no problem throwing out physical evidence because a cop found it after making a decision that it took five judges six months to figure out was wrong.

That’s a necessary change in perspective to mollify the consciences of attorneys like Hillary Clinton, whose job apparently entails, to greater or lesser extent, ensuring that child molesters, rapists, murderers, and drug dealers avoid paying for their crimes.

After all, a lawyer who thinks the purpose of the courts is to ensure that the innocent are found innocent and the guilty are found guilty couldn’t make much money, because while the cops do make mistakes they don’t do so often and when truly innocent people are accused of real crimes — not fake ones like not baking cakes for gay “weddings” — they rarely have the sort of money the drug dealers and other crooks have to spend on lawyers.

If criminal lawyers are going to stay rich, we can’t have them rooting for justice. In the LB, those shysters can sleep well because they’ve been taught in law school that so long as the rules are followed it’s perfectly ok if a child rapist is let loose to prey on other children.

That’s why non-lawyers hate lawyers. Too many lawyers will use the law to unjustly hurt others in return for money.

Now, it’s true that many lawyers are fine folk. They take care of wills and business law issues. They don’t work to put drug dealers back on the street. They prosecute crooks. They’re honest. 

But they’re condemned by their company and by the fact that they buy into the LB ideal; follow the rules, don’t worry about justice.

In the Bergdahl case, we’re being told by denizens of the LB that because Trump heads the military he can’t say what he thinks about an admitted traitor — remember that Bergdahl pled guilty before Trump said anything about Bergdahl since Trump became President. 

That’s the motto of the LB; the criminal is the only one we care about, his victims have no rights — after all, they can’t pay us. Even the President’s 1st Amendment rights must bow to an admitted traitor’s right, nowhere enumerated in the Constitution, to not be justly sentenced.  A fair trial does not have to be a trial with everyone in the country being silent.

To the LB folk it’s all a game.  If the President says what is true it doesn’t matter; it’s the equivalent of his stepping on the line during his tennis serve. Because the LB makes the law a game so as to comfort the shysters who make a royal living off the dead bodies of drug addicts and the battered bodies of raped women we are told that a traitor could walk free because the President commented on his case.

Apart from the obvious insanity, the argument is fundamentally flawed because it presupposes that the judge in this case will either be unethical and choose to “listen” to the President in order to curry favor or be so stupid as to not be able to distinguish between Trump expressing an opinion and Trump issuing an order.

The question is, if the judge is that unethical or that stupid, then why is he a judge? In the LB, all judges command respect even the ones who clearly distort the Constitution in direct defiance of their oaths.  Hence it would be impossible for an LB denizen to think that the judge would actually change his sentencing based on Trump’s comment.

The reality is that many lawyers don’t care if justice is done; they’ve found a technicality by which a guilty person can get off and that’s what they really live for.

The conservative lawyers who are all upset about this — but weren’t apparently concerned about tainting jury pools when Obama said Bergdahl was a hero — are more likely concerned that people will lose confidence in the system if the rules aren’t followed.

What they don’t realize is that after years of courts acting like royalty and ignoring the Constitution, after years of seeing guilty people walk because of technicalities, what will cause the people to lose what little confidence they have in the system is not Trump commenting on Bergdahl but Bergdahl not getting a stiff sentence for his treason because Trump said what the people were thinking.

That’s why conservative lawyers are attacking Trump — well the fact that Trump isn’t an oily member of the ruling elite does also contribute — because they know that justice isn’t the issue any more; it’s all about following the rules. No sane person would condemn the President for saying that they should throw the book at an admitted deserter whose actions led to other people, the real heroes, being shot.

There is no danger of people losing confidence in the system because of Trump’s comment. There is a great danger of people losing what little trust they have in the system if Bergdahl gets off on a technicality.

You can read more of tom’s rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious and feel free to follow him on Twitter

Recently President Trump commented on the Bowe Bergdahl case —  the guy who deserted in combat and thereby caused Americans to be seriously wounded trying to rescue him because he didn’t have the guts to leave a note saying he deserted.

Lawyers, including conservatives at National Review, are  now declaring that the President can’t comment on an unclassified matter of national importance because he might keep a traitor from getting a fair trial.

In a sense they’re right, but they don’t realize why.

We talk of the DC bubble but there is another bubble that has a direct impact on Americans; the Legal Bubble (LB).

In the LB, lawyers, judges and various support people have bought into the very illiberal idea that the justice system isn’t about justice, but about following the rules.  That’s why they have no problem throwing out physical evidence because a cop found it after making a decision that it took five judges six months to figure out was wrong.

That’s a necessary change in perspective to mollify the consciences of attorneys like Hillary Clinton, whose job apparently entails, to greater or lesser extent, ensuring that child molesters, rapists, murderers, and drug dealers avoid paying for their crimes.

After all, a lawyer who thinks the purpose of the courts is to ensure that the innocent are found innocent and the guilty are found guilty couldn’t make much money, because while the cops do make mistakes they don’t do so often and when truly innocent people are accused of real crimes — not fake ones like not baking cakes for gay “weddings” — they rarely have the sort of money the drug dealers and other crooks have to spend on lawyers.

If criminal lawyers are going to stay rich, we can’t have them rooting for justice. In the LB, those shysters can sleep well because they’ve been taught in law school that so long as the rules are followed it’s perfectly ok if a child rapist is let loose to prey on other children.

That’s why non-lawyers hate lawyers. Too many lawyers will use the law to unjustly hurt others in return for money.

Now, it’s true that many lawyers are fine folk. They take care of wills and business law issues. They don’t work to put drug dealers back on the street. They prosecute crooks. They’re honest. 

But they’re condemned by their company and by the fact that they buy into the LB ideal; follow the rules, don’t worry about justice.

In the Bergdahl case, we’re being told by denizens of the LB that because Trump heads the military he can’t say what he thinks about an admitted traitor — remember that Bergdahl pled guilty before Trump said anything about Bergdahl since Trump became President. 

That’s the motto of the LB; the criminal is the only one we care about, his victims have no rights — after all, they can’t pay us. Even the President’s 1st Amendment rights must bow to an admitted traitor’s right, nowhere enumerated in the Constitution, to not be justly sentenced.  A fair trial does not have to be a trial with everyone in the country being silent.

To the LB folk it’s all a game.  If the President says what is true it doesn’t matter; it’s the equivalent of his stepping on the line during his tennis serve. Because the LB makes the law a game so as to comfort the shysters who make a royal living off the dead bodies of drug addicts and the battered bodies of raped women we are told that a traitor could walk free because the President commented on his case.

Apart from the obvious insanity, the argument is fundamentally flawed because it presupposes that the judge in this case will either be unethical and choose to “listen” to the President in order to curry favor or be so stupid as to not be able to distinguish between Trump expressing an opinion and Trump issuing an order.

The question is, if the judge is that unethical or that stupid, then why is he a judge? In the LB, all judges command respect even the ones who clearly distort the Constitution in direct defiance of their oaths.  Hence it would be impossible for an LB denizen to think that the judge would actually change his sentencing based on Trump’s comment.

The reality is that many lawyers don’t care if justice is done; they’ve found a technicality by which a guilty person can get off and that’s what they really live for.

The conservative lawyers who are all upset about this — but weren’t apparently concerned about tainting jury pools when Obama said Bergdahl was a hero — are more likely concerned that people will lose confidence in the system if the rules aren’t followed.

What they don’t realize is that after years of courts acting like royalty and ignoring the Constitution, after years of seeing guilty people walk because of technicalities, what will cause the people to lose what little confidence they have in the system is not Trump commenting on Bergdahl but Bergdahl not getting a stiff sentence for his treason because Trump said what the people were thinking.

That’s why conservative lawyers are attacking Trump — well the fact that Trump isn’t an oily member of the ruling elite does also contribute — because they know that justice isn’t the issue any more; it’s all about following the rules. No sane person would condemn the President for saying that they should throw the book at an admitted deserter whose actions led to other people, the real heroes, being shot.

There is no danger of people losing confidence in the system because of Trump’s comment. There is a great danger of people losing what little trust they have in the system if Bergdahl gets off on a technicality.

You can read more of tom’s rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious and feel free to follow him on Twitter



Source link

A Free Press Is Not Enough


We currently, despite Democrat attempts to the contrary, have a free press in America.  Yet the systemic left-wing bias of the mainstream media(MSM) – ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, Washington Post, L.A. Times, etc – means there is little difference between the accuracy of the information most Americans receive and the accuracy of the information people living in Communist China receive.

In both cases, highly skilled propagandists shape, through omission and commission, the news in order to create a false reality the ruling class uses to motivate people to go against what is in the people’s  best interest and instead support policies that benefit the ruling elites.

Many Americans believe, because of the Fake News generated by the MSM, lots of things that aren’t true, including:

– Mankind is causing the Earth to warm in catastrophic ways.  Real science says that at worst, it’s unclear, and at best, there’s no catastrophe at all.

– Twenty-five percent of the population harbors sexual attractions exclusively to members of the same sex.  The real number is more like 1-2%.

– Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election.  No evidence has been found after months of investigations and illegal leaks.

– Republicans are racists.  It’s Democrats who oppose school choice for blacks, who don’t care that black women are five times as likely to abort their babies as white women, who bring in cheap foreign labor while black unemployment is twice white unemployment, and who don’t care about thousands of blacks being shot in our inner cities each year.

– The unborn aren’t human.  Science says an unborn child is human from the moment of conception.

– Planned Parenthood provides women’s health care.  Baby part-selling PP really provides only contraception and abortion.

What liberal-driven discussion about a “free” press ignores is that to be useful to the American people, the press needs to be not just free, but also honest.

It’s not honest for the MSM to say Bill Clinton lying under oath to protect himself from a sexual harassment lawsuit has no bearing on his ability to be president and then turn around and say that because President Trump makes some aggressive tweets, he’s not fit to be president.

It’s not honest for the MSM to scream about Trump’s Russia problem when there is not a shred of evidence, given that the same MSM ignored copious evidence of Obama and the Clintons conspiring with Russia.

Nothing Trump has said threatens a free press; it only threatens a dishonest one.  This is why the MSM are so upset.  They know they aren’t journalists; they know they are in fact propagandists.

The MSM’s fear is based on the solid fact that once people know they’re being lied to, the ability of the propagandists to guide the people goes down dramatically.  We’ve seen this in Nazi Germany as the war drew to a close, we saw it in the Soviet Union, and we’re seeing it now in North Korea.

Lincoln was right: you can’t fool all the people all the time.  But dictatorships, and liberals in America, depend on having absolute control over what the people believe – something they can’t have once the people get access to honest news.

A major reason for so many people voting for Hillary is that even though the number of news sources has exploded, the MSM are still able to mislead a large fraction of Americans.

A significant fraction of Hillary voters lives in an alternative reality constructed by the MSM, where Hillary is honest, global warming is real, the unborn aren’t human, and blacks aren’t being shot by the thousands in Democrat-run inner cities.

Hillary voters believed the lies spewed by the MSM because unlike the liberals running the MSM, most Hillary voters are honest people who couldn’t imagine the media so consistently lying to them.

While there are honest alternatives to the MSM’s near monopoly, the MSM and liberal politicians have been demonizing them from the start – a policy that has been successful in keeping a significant fraction of the Democrat base from seeking out truthful news sites.

Additionally, since modern liberals are fascists at heart, ever since the MSM monopoly began to crumble, with the advent of conservative talk radio, liberals have been striving to stop any speech they don’t agree with.  That that belies liberals’ supposed concern for a “free” press is just one more thing the MSM doesn’t report on.

Trying to silence opposing voices occurs not because liberals are snowflakes, but because they are fascist storm troopers who know they can get the power they lust after only by keeping the people cocooned in a web of lies.

That’s why, in the 1980s, liberals tried to end conservative talk radio and why Bill Clinton blamed Rush Limbaugh for the Oklahoma City bombing.

That’s why the left has been demonizing Fox News with language far worse than anything Trump has said about CNN.  Interestingly, but not surprisingly, liberals feel that their baseless hate attacks on Fox are not attacks on the “free” press but that Trump’s accurate assessment of CNN is an attack.

Similarly, the same liberals who condemn Trump’s supposed attacks on the free press have no problem with attempts to silence Rush and conservative speakers on college campuses.

When you realize that in the minds of the MSM, a “free” press is free in the same sense that a college campus that bans conservative speakers is free, their double standards make perfect sense.

In a truly Orwellian twist, modern liberals believe that freedom means being denied any information that does not conform to what the new fascists believe in.

In liberals minds, we are free when we bow down to the beliefs of the liberal elites, who, in their own minds, merit our obedience because of their own greatness and altruism.

When you listen to some left-wing media liar moaning about how evil Trump is for shining the light on Fake News, remember that he is just doing what Goebbels did when he denounced the “lies” of allied radio stations and what numberless communists have done in the Soviet Union, China, and North Korea when they declare that anything that disagrees with what the government-controlled press says is lies.

Modern liberal beliefs are not rational, nor can they be defended by facts.  They are a new faith adhered to with the same fervor with which true-believing Communists believed in the New Soviet Man.

Because liberal ideas can’t win a fair fight with conservative ideas, liberals’ only hope is to ensure that the fight isn’t fair.  Their weapon of choice is constructing a monolithically liberal media whose objective is advancing their faith, not informing the public.

Modern technology has presented liberals with a losing hand.  They can no longer control what people know; essentially, too many Americans have taken the red pill and awoken from their MSM-inspired dream.  When given the facts, Americans are staunchly conservative.

Liberals know that once people see behind the curtain, they will stop doing what benefits the liberal elites and start doing what is best for themselves, the American people.

You can read more of Tom’s rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious, and feel free to follow him on Twitter.

Americans don’t need just a free press; they need access to accurate information in order to make up their own minds about what they want the government to do.

While it’s true that a free press is a prerequisite for the people to have access to the data they need, it’s not sufficient.

We currently, despite Democrat attempts to the contrary, have a free press in America.  Yet the systemic left-wing bias of the mainstream media(MSM) – ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, Washington Post, L.A. Times, etc – means there is little difference between the accuracy of the information most Americans receive and the accuracy of the information people living in Communist China receive.

In both cases, highly skilled propagandists shape, through omission and commission, the news in order to create a false reality the ruling class uses to motivate people to go against what is in the people’s  best interest and instead support policies that benefit the ruling elites.

Many Americans believe, because of the Fake News generated by the MSM, lots of things that aren’t true, including:

– Mankind is causing the Earth to warm in catastrophic ways.  Real science says that at worst, it’s unclear, and at best, there’s no catastrophe at all.

– Twenty-five percent of the population harbors sexual attractions exclusively to members of the same sex.  The real number is more like 1-2%.

– Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election.  No evidence has been found after months of investigations and illegal leaks.

– Republicans are racists.  It’s Democrats who oppose school choice for blacks, who don’t care that black women are five times as likely to abort their babies as white women, who bring in cheap foreign labor while black unemployment is twice white unemployment, and who don’t care about thousands of blacks being shot in our inner cities each year.

– The unborn aren’t human.  Science says an unborn child is human from the moment of conception.

– Planned Parenthood provides women’s health care.  Baby part-selling PP really provides only contraception and abortion.

What liberal-driven discussion about a “free” press ignores is that to be useful to the American people, the press needs to be not just free, but also honest.

It’s not honest for the MSM to say Bill Clinton lying under oath to protect himself from a sexual harassment lawsuit has no bearing on his ability to be president and then turn around and say that because President Trump makes some aggressive tweets, he’s not fit to be president.

It’s not honest for the MSM to scream about Trump’s Russia problem when there is not a shred of evidence, given that the same MSM ignored copious evidence of Obama and the Clintons conspiring with Russia.

Nothing Trump has said threatens a free press; it only threatens a dishonest one.  This is why the MSM are so upset.  They know they aren’t journalists; they know they are in fact propagandists.

The MSM’s fear is based on the solid fact that once people know they’re being lied to, the ability of the propagandists to guide the people goes down dramatically.  We’ve seen this in Nazi Germany as the war drew to a close, we saw it in the Soviet Union, and we’re seeing it now in North Korea.

Lincoln was right: you can’t fool all the people all the time.  But dictatorships, and liberals in America, depend on having absolute control over what the people believe – something they can’t have once the people get access to honest news.

A major reason for so many people voting for Hillary is that even though the number of news sources has exploded, the MSM are still able to mislead a large fraction of Americans.

A significant fraction of Hillary voters lives in an alternative reality constructed by the MSM, where Hillary is honest, global warming is real, the unborn aren’t human, and blacks aren’t being shot by the thousands in Democrat-run inner cities.

Hillary voters believed the lies spewed by the MSM because unlike the liberals running the MSM, most Hillary voters are honest people who couldn’t imagine the media so consistently lying to them.

While there are honest alternatives to the MSM’s near monopoly, the MSM and liberal politicians have been demonizing them from the start – a policy that has been successful in keeping a significant fraction of the Democrat base from seeking out truthful news sites.

Additionally, since modern liberals are fascists at heart, ever since the MSM monopoly began to crumble, with the advent of conservative talk radio, liberals have been striving to stop any speech they don’t agree with.  That that belies liberals’ supposed concern for a “free” press is just one more thing the MSM doesn’t report on.

Trying to silence opposing voices occurs not because liberals are snowflakes, but because they are fascist storm troopers who know they can get the power they lust after only by keeping the people cocooned in a web of lies.

That’s why, in the 1980s, liberals tried to end conservative talk radio and why Bill Clinton blamed Rush Limbaugh for the Oklahoma City bombing.

That’s why the left has been demonizing Fox News with language far worse than anything Trump has said about CNN.  Interestingly, but not surprisingly, liberals feel that their baseless hate attacks on Fox are not attacks on the “free” press but that Trump’s accurate assessment of CNN is an attack.

Similarly, the same liberals who condemn Trump’s supposed attacks on the free press have no problem with attempts to silence Rush and conservative speakers on college campuses.

When you realize that in the minds of the MSM, a “free” press is free in the same sense that a college campus that bans conservative speakers is free, their double standards make perfect sense.

In a truly Orwellian twist, modern liberals believe that freedom means being denied any information that does not conform to what the new fascists believe in.

In liberals minds, we are free when we bow down to the beliefs of the liberal elites, who, in their own minds, merit our obedience because of their own greatness and altruism.

When you listen to some left-wing media liar moaning about how evil Trump is for shining the light on Fake News, remember that he is just doing what Goebbels did when he denounced the “lies” of allied radio stations and what numberless communists have done in the Soviet Union, China, and North Korea when they declare that anything that disagrees with what the government-controlled press says is lies.

Modern liberal beliefs are not rational, nor can they be defended by facts.  They are a new faith adhered to with the same fervor with which true-believing Communists believed in the New Soviet Man.

Because liberal ideas can’t win a fair fight with conservative ideas, liberals’ only hope is to ensure that the fight isn’t fair.  Their weapon of choice is constructing a monolithically liberal media whose objective is advancing their faith, not informing the public.

Modern technology has presented liberals with a losing hand.  They can no longer control what people know; essentially, too many Americans have taken the red pill and awoken from their MSM-inspired dream.  When given the facts, Americans are staunchly conservative.

Liberals know that once people see behind the curtain, they will stop doing what benefits the liberal elites and start doing what is best for themselves, the American people.

You can read more of Tom’s rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious, and feel free to follow him on Twitter.



Source link

Trump vs. the Neo-Fascists


One of the great horrors of the novel 1984 was the thought police who punished people for having incorrect thoughts. That’s the sort of communist worldview that the vast majority of Americans reject.

It’s dismaying that liberals have adapted communist tactics and implemented a new thought police in the guise of the judiciary. Liberal judges have decided that they can read peoples innermost thoughts. That’s the basis for both the 9th and 4th Circuit Courts declaring that Trump’s temporary travel ban is unconstitutional.

Both courts agree that the executive order as written is constitutional. Both courts agree that if Hillary or Obama had issued the exact same order it would be constitutional. Both courts declare it to be unconstitutional because they claim to know what Trump was really thinking when he signed the orders.

Those two circuit courts are saying that they know that Trump’s thoughts are not sufficiently pure and hence that disqualifies him from exercising his constitutional authority.

Essentially, liberals are declaring that federal judges are a thought police that has the authority to punish a President whose thoughts don’t toe the line defined by the judges.

Earlier liberals realized that even judges who think they are god can’t actually read people’s minds. That’s why the Supreme Court ruled that all a court should take into account when assessing the constitutionality of an executive order is what the order says.

That makes sense since if the government started acting outside of what an executive order said, by say banning all Muslims from entering the U.S., the court could take action against that activity. Hence there’s no reason to ban an order that is itself constitutional.

Unfortunately, this latest power grab by liberal judges goes far beyond anything they have tried before. Essentially, the judges are saying that if they determine that a President, or presumably Congress, has ever expressed displeasure with any group for any reason they, the judges, can declare that the President, or Congress, can make no laws that the court doesn’t approve of that impact that group.

For example we know that Obama disparaged Christians, who “cling” to their religion, and hence using this new principle of law the HHS mandate would be unconstitutional.

Of course the liberal judges would not rule the HHS mandate unconstitutional because they agree with it. Which points to the most troubling aspect of this new trend; the judges are saying that if the President disparages any group a judge likes, than the judge is entitled to take over the President’s power, as defined in the Constitution, as it relates to that group.

This means, for example, that if Trump should decide to take women out of combat roles in the Army the courts could tell him he can’t do that because he’s spoken poorly of women in the past.

The court’s actions are a gross violation of separation of powers. The Supreme Court has ruled many times that the Executive Branch is responsible for immigration and foreign policy. Yet these judges have declared that they can usurp the Executive Branch’s powers if they decide that they don’t like what the President is thinking. Clearly since the judges are the ones who decide what thoughts and policies are acceptable there is no limit to what authority the judges can steal.

There’s really no reason the courts can’t extend this same reasoning to areas other than discrimination against a group. For example, the courts could conclude that Trump can’t exit the Paris accords because he’s expressed doubt about the reality of global warming… err climate change and because the judges believe in climate change they know that Trump’s thoughts are wrong.

This takes judicial tyranny to a whole new level. These two circuit courts are saying that if judges don’t like a President’s attitude, not his actions, on an issue there is no limit to what the courts can do.

A woman from the Baltic countries who had lived under both communists and Nazis said she preferred the Nazis because as long as you did what they wanted they left you alone, but the communists insisted that people think the way the communists did.

The same is apparently true of modern liberal judges; following the Constitution — as reimagined by liberal judges — is no longer enough. Now politician’s thoughts must be judged to be pure, in the sense of following the liberal line, in order for them to be able to exercise their Constitutional authority.

Of course the reality is that the judges know what they’re doing and hence they are simply traitors who refuse to accept the results of the election. As with their communist forbears the ends justify the means, and hence anything that crosses the judge’s minds is a positive good so long as it “resists” Trump.

We must recognize that we are at war in America. While conservatives accepted Obama’s elections and even stuck to the legal process when Obama repeatedly violated the Constitution, the neofascists, nee liberals, are willing to use violence and illegal actions by the Deep State to negate the peoples votes.

Clearly liberal judges feel absolutely no need to follow the law, the Constitution, or even common sense if those conflict with their fascist desires for a new Amerika. Liberals who aren’t judges support both the fascist acts of the judges and the violence that “antifa” thugs use to silence speech they don’t like.

These are not our father’s liberals whose policies were wrong but who believed in Democracy, God, and Freedom of Speech. These are the sons and daughters of the liberals who sided with Hitler until he attacked the Soviet Union and who spent the Cold War telling us it was America’s fault.

If the new fascists succeed, our children will grow up in a dictatorship of evil where the elites rule over us from their coastal retreats.

No matter what you think about Trump, we have to go to war with the President we have, and so far he’s done a pretty good job of fighting the neofascists. Worrying about Trump’s tweets while judges are stealing our freedom is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic; it’s only going to help those who are trying to enslave us all.

We need to return to an America where judges only decide what laws mean instead of deciding what the laws should be.

We must resist the “resisters” with as much energy as they use in trying to enslave us. None of us can sit by and just assume things will work out because we’re not fighting people of good will anymore; we’re fighting monsters that want to steal what our forefathers died to give us, our freedom.

You can read more of tom’s rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious and feel free to follow him on Twitter

One of the great horrors of the novel 1984 was the thought police who punished people for having incorrect thoughts. That’s the sort of communist worldview that the vast majority of Americans reject.

It’s dismaying that liberals have adapted communist tactics and implemented a new thought police in the guise of the judiciary. Liberal judges have decided that they can read peoples innermost thoughts. That’s the basis for both the 9th and 4th Circuit Courts declaring that Trump’s temporary travel ban is unconstitutional.

Both courts agree that the executive order as written is constitutional. Both courts agree that if Hillary or Obama had issued the exact same order it would be constitutional. Both courts declare it to be unconstitutional because they claim to know what Trump was really thinking when he signed the orders.

Those two circuit courts are saying that they know that Trump’s thoughts are not sufficiently pure and hence that disqualifies him from exercising his constitutional authority.

Essentially, liberals are declaring that federal judges are a thought police that has the authority to punish a President whose thoughts don’t toe the line defined by the judges.

Earlier liberals realized that even judges who think they are god can’t actually read people’s minds. That’s why the Supreme Court ruled that all a court should take into account when assessing the constitutionality of an executive order is what the order says.

That makes sense since if the government started acting outside of what an executive order said, by say banning all Muslims from entering the U.S., the court could take action against that activity. Hence there’s no reason to ban an order that is itself constitutional.

Unfortunately, this latest power grab by liberal judges goes far beyond anything they have tried before. Essentially, the judges are saying that if they determine that a President, or presumably Congress, has ever expressed displeasure with any group for any reason they, the judges, can declare that the President, or Congress, can make no laws that the court doesn’t approve of that impact that group.

For example we know that Obama disparaged Christians, who “cling” to their religion, and hence using this new principle of law the HHS mandate would be unconstitutional.

Of course the liberal judges would not rule the HHS mandate unconstitutional because they agree with it. Which points to the most troubling aspect of this new trend; the judges are saying that if the President disparages any group a judge likes, than the judge is entitled to take over the President’s power, as defined in the Constitution, as it relates to that group.

This means, for example, that if Trump should decide to take women out of combat roles in the Army the courts could tell him he can’t do that because he’s spoken poorly of women in the past.

The court’s actions are a gross violation of separation of powers. The Supreme Court has ruled many times that the Executive Branch is responsible for immigration and foreign policy. Yet these judges have declared that they can usurp the Executive Branch’s powers if they decide that they don’t like what the President is thinking. Clearly since the judges are the ones who decide what thoughts and policies are acceptable there is no limit to what authority the judges can steal.

There’s really no reason the courts can’t extend this same reasoning to areas other than discrimination against a group. For example, the courts could conclude that Trump can’t exit the Paris accords because he’s expressed doubt about the reality of global warming… err climate change and because the judges believe in climate change they know that Trump’s thoughts are wrong.

This takes judicial tyranny to a whole new level. These two circuit courts are saying that if judges don’t like a President’s attitude, not his actions, on an issue there is no limit to what the courts can do.

A woman from the Baltic countries who had lived under both communists and Nazis said she preferred the Nazis because as long as you did what they wanted they left you alone, but the communists insisted that people think the way the communists did.

The same is apparently true of modern liberal judges; following the Constitution — as reimagined by liberal judges — is no longer enough. Now politician’s thoughts must be judged to be pure, in the sense of following the liberal line, in order for them to be able to exercise their Constitutional authority.

Of course the reality is that the judges know what they’re doing and hence they are simply traitors who refuse to accept the results of the election. As with their communist forbears the ends justify the means, and hence anything that crosses the judge’s minds is a positive good so long as it “resists” Trump.

We must recognize that we are at war in America. While conservatives accepted Obama’s elections and even stuck to the legal process when Obama repeatedly violated the Constitution, the neofascists, nee liberals, are willing to use violence and illegal actions by the Deep State to negate the peoples votes.

Clearly liberal judges feel absolutely no need to follow the law, the Constitution, or even common sense if those conflict with their fascist desires for a new Amerika. Liberals who aren’t judges support both the fascist acts of the judges and the violence that “antifa” thugs use to silence speech they don’t like.

These are not our father’s liberals whose policies were wrong but who believed in Democracy, God, and Freedom of Speech. These are the sons and daughters of the liberals who sided with Hitler until he attacked the Soviet Union and who spent the Cold War telling us it was America’s fault.

If the new fascists succeed, our children will grow up in a dictatorship of evil where the elites rule over us from their coastal retreats.

No matter what you think about Trump, we have to go to war with the President we have, and so far he’s done a pretty good job of fighting the neofascists. Worrying about Trump’s tweets while judges are stealing our freedom is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic; it’s only going to help those who are trying to enslave us all.

We need to return to an America where judges only decide what laws mean instead of deciding what the laws should be.

We must resist the “resisters” with as much energy as they use in trying to enslave us. None of us can sit by and just assume things will work out because we’re not fighting people of good will anymore; we’re fighting monsters that want to steal what our forefathers died to give us, our freedom.

You can read more of tom’s rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious and feel free to follow him on Twitter



Source link

at-painter-og-image.png

Liberal Judges Unwittingly Declare ObamaCare Religious Mandate Unconstitutional


They don’t realize it, but liberals have just declared that Obama’s HHS mandate — which forced Catholics to cooperate with providing abortion and contraception — is unconstitutional.

The new interpretation of the Establishment Clause espoused by the activist judges who are striking down Trump’s EO is that anything that has a disparate impact on a religious group is unconstitutional.

The rulings by activist judges declaring Trump’s EO on immigration to be unconstitutional were based on arguments that if the EO/law had a disparate impact on any faith, or that if the person behind the EO/law ever said anything that could be construed to violate the new liberal interpretation of the establishment clause, then the EO/law in question was unconstitutional.

Clearly since many religious groups believe that contraception and abortion are morally licit while the Catholic Church, and some Protestant denominations, believe that contraception and abortion are not morally licit any EO/law that requires funding contraception and abortion will have a disparate impact on Catholics since it forces them to violate their deeply held religious beliefs.

Further, even if liberals argue that the HHS mandate is not discriminatory on its face all conservatives have to do is show that anyone involved in generating it ever said anything negative about the Church’s stance on abortion to meet the criteria set by the activist judges.

After all the liberal judges admitted that Trump’s EO itself is not discriminatory but that because Trump supposedly said discriminatory things during the campaign the EO is unconstitutional.

Interestingly, that means that if the exact same EO had been issued by Obama, Bush, Clinton, or any other president it would have been Constitutional. 

Even the ultra-liberal Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren recognized that it’s not sane to strike down a law which is on its face legal, as the Hawaiian judge admitted, because of supposed illicit motives:

“This Court will not strike down an otherwise constitutional statute on the basis of an alleged illicit legislative motive.”

This newly found liberal orthodoxy is germane to other aspects of the liberal judicial agenda.

For example saying that Christian bakers must supply cakes to gay weddings is clearly unconstitutional for two reasons, the first being that not all religions object to gay weddings, hence the ruling on the face of it violates the Establishment Clause by having a disparate impact on different faiths and second because supporters of the rulings forcing Christians to go against their beliefs have publicly stated that they disagree with those Christian’s beliefs.

Hence judicial fiats demanding that Christians go against their beliefs with respect to gay weddings fail both of the criteria established by the liberal judicial activists; they have an explicit disparate impact on different faiths and the supporters of these rulings have publicly expressed a bias against Christian beliefs and a desire to make exercising those beliefs illegal.

Another example is that under the new Establishment Clause interpretation any law that rejects school vouchers is unconstitutional. That’s because some faiths have schools and some don’t. Hence denying vouchers has a disparate impact since the faiths that don’t have schools aren’t impacted while faiths that do have schools are.

Further, it’s a historical fact that the Blaine amendments banning financial support to religious schools were passed by lawmakers who openly declared that the objective was to prevent funding Catholic schools, which makes those laws unconstitutional under the new liberal view.

One last example, of the many that are available, is that any attempt to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions is clearly unconstitutional under the new interpretation of the Establishment Clause, since non-Catholic hospitals will not be impacted by such laws while Catholic ones will. But that clearly shows a disparate impact and of course the people who push for such laws are quite open in announcing their disdain for Catholic beliefs.

The reality is that this new view of the Establishment Clause can be used to eliminate almost the entire liberal agenda on social issues.

While we know that a core belief of liberalism is a deeply seated hypocrisy, and hence liberals will argue against applying the “reasoning” about the EO to anything they like using the logical consequences of liberal “reasoning” may help convince low information voters of the absurdity of the liberal position.

Also, if the activist rulings about Trump’s EO are not overturned then conservatives can use the new interpretation to legally assail much of the anti-religious agenda of the activist judges who are striving to impose their personal beliefs on America via fascist processes.

Understanding the implications of the latest bit of judicial activism makes it clear that the liberals have handed us a win/win situation.  If the courts uphold the latest bit of fascist overreach by activist judges then conservatives can use that to dismantle a great deal of previous judicial activism.  On the other hand if the courts strike down the insane reasoning of these activist judges conservatives win because the legal coup against Trump will have failed.

You can read more of tom’s rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious and feel free to follow him on Twitter

They don’t realize it, but liberals have just declared that Obama’s HHS mandate — which forced Catholics to cooperate with providing abortion and contraception — is unconstitutional.

The new interpretation of the Establishment Clause espoused by the activist judges who are striking down Trump’s EO is that anything that has a disparate impact on a religious group is unconstitutional.

The rulings by activist judges declaring Trump’s EO on immigration to be unconstitutional were based on arguments that if the EO/law had a disparate impact on any faith, or that if the person behind the EO/law ever said anything that could be construed to violate the new liberal interpretation of the establishment clause, then the EO/law in question was unconstitutional.

Clearly since many religious groups believe that contraception and abortion are morally licit while the Catholic Church, and some Protestant denominations, believe that contraception and abortion are not morally licit any EO/law that requires funding contraception and abortion will have a disparate impact on Catholics since it forces them to violate their deeply held religious beliefs.

Further, even if liberals argue that the HHS mandate is not discriminatory on its face all conservatives have to do is show that anyone involved in generating it ever said anything negative about the Church’s stance on abortion to meet the criteria set by the activist judges.

After all the liberal judges admitted that Trump’s EO itself is not discriminatory but that because Trump supposedly said discriminatory things during the campaign the EO is unconstitutional.

Interestingly, that means that if the exact same EO had been issued by Obama, Bush, Clinton, or any other president it would have been Constitutional. 

Even the ultra-liberal Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren recognized that it’s not sane to strike down a law which is on its face legal, as the Hawaiian judge admitted, because of supposed illicit motives:

“This Court will not strike down an otherwise constitutional statute on the basis of an alleged illicit legislative motive.”

This newly found liberal orthodoxy is germane to other aspects of the liberal judicial agenda.

For example saying that Christian bakers must supply cakes to gay weddings is clearly unconstitutional for two reasons, the first being that not all religions object to gay weddings, hence the ruling on the face of it violates the Establishment Clause by having a disparate impact on different faiths and second because supporters of the rulings forcing Christians to go against their beliefs have publicly stated that they disagree with those Christian’s beliefs.

Hence judicial fiats demanding that Christians go against their beliefs with respect to gay weddings fail both of the criteria established by the liberal judicial activists; they have an explicit disparate impact on different faiths and the supporters of these rulings have publicly expressed a bias against Christian beliefs and a desire to make exercising those beliefs illegal.

Another example is that under the new Establishment Clause interpretation any law that rejects school vouchers is unconstitutional. That’s because some faiths have schools and some don’t. Hence denying vouchers has a disparate impact since the faiths that don’t have schools aren’t impacted while faiths that do have schools are.

Further, it’s a historical fact that the Blaine amendments banning financial support to religious schools were passed by lawmakers who openly declared that the objective was to prevent funding Catholic schools, which makes those laws unconstitutional under the new liberal view.

One last example, of the many that are available, is that any attempt to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions is clearly unconstitutional under the new interpretation of the Establishment Clause, since non-Catholic hospitals will not be impacted by such laws while Catholic ones will. But that clearly shows a disparate impact and of course the people who push for such laws are quite open in announcing their disdain for Catholic beliefs.

The reality is that this new view of the Establishment Clause can be used to eliminate almost the entire liberal agenda on social issues.

While we know that a core belief of liberalism is a deeply seated hypocrisy, and hence liberals will argue against applying the “reasoning” about the EO to anything they like using the logical consequences of liberal “reasoning” may help convince low information voters of the absurdity of the liberal position.

Also, if the activist rulings about Trump’s EO are not overturned then conservatives can use the new interpretation to legally assail much of the anti-religious agenda of the activist judges who are striving to impose their personal beliefs on America via fascist processes.

Understanding the implications of the latest bit of judicial activism makes it clear that the liberals have handed us a win/win situation.  If the courts uphold the latest bit of fascist overreach by activist judges then conservatives can use that to dismantle a great deal of previous judicial activism.  On the other hand if the courts strike down the insane reasoning of these activist judges conservatives win because the legal coup against Trump will have failed.

You can read more of tom’s rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious and feel free to follow him on Twitter



Source link