Tag Archives: Trump

I voted for Trump three times, and . . .  

Posted on by
11

I always disliked Rob Reiner as a liberal activist, though I’ve admired his work including When Harry Met Sally and A few Good Men.

His work and his politics, however, don’t matter today. What matters is that he and his wife were murdered in their home. Their troubled son has been arrested.

It’s a horrible, violent tragedy, any way you look at it.

Unless you look at it the way the President did. Here’s his social media post in full:

Yep, the President marked the murder of this man and his wife — a murder for which their son has been arrested — by (1) ridiculing him the very next day for his politics, and (2) glorifying himself at their expense.

It should be noted that after Charlie Kirk was murdered, Reiner’s reaction was precisely the opposite of what we just saw from the President after Reiner himself was murdered. Reiner said the murder of Kirk was “horrible” and “unacceptable.” He went on to express admiration for the words of Kirk’s widow at his funeral.

I voted for Trump three times. To this day, I think the nation and the world are better off than we would have been with any of the three candidates he ran against. Witness the Joe Biden so-called Presidency.

Trump has improved America and the world, from the Mexican border to the Middle East, from his first term Supreme Court appointments to his second term war on wokeness. I applaud President Trump, and I’m proud of my votes for him.

But today, it appears the 79 years of Donald Trump may be catching up with him. Note that even the gold standard of senility – Joe Biden – was only 78 when he was elected.

Trump publicly ridiculed a man the day after he and his wife were murdered because he dislikes the man’s politics. He name-calls female reporters “Piggy” because he dislikes their questions.

His vainglory is clinical when it’s not comical. Think John Belushi with a samurai sword. He seems to be drifting into Nero and Caligula territory.

Some of his defenders contend he’s not ill, but just the biggest asshole to ever come near the White House (and that’s from his defenders).

OK, maybe the worst that can be said about Trump is that he’s just the world’s biggest asshole. But most Americans aren’t finding much comfort in that diagnosis, either.

You may say that he’s entitled to some anger after the way he’s been persecuted, and that I would be angry too. OK, I’ll buy that. But, unlike me, Trump has a country to run, a Presidency to fill, and an example to set.

Any way you slice it, in three years Trump will be gone. And in just one year, he’ll be a lame duck dealing with a hostile Democrat Congress.

It’s essential that the conservative cause – or MAGA if you prefer – survive. It’s a cause and a movement, not a person and a cult.

My loyalty is to that cause and that movement – to America – not to that man and his followers.

There’s a provision in the Constitution to deal with the incapacity of a President. It’s the 25th Amendment. At the request of the Vice President, a majority of the Cabinet certifies that the President is unable to perform his duties; Congress confirms it; and the Vice President assumes the Presidency.

That Vice President is JD Vance, not Kamala Harris. Thank God for that – and thank Trump.

Postscript: Condemn me if you wish. Name-call me if it makes you feel good. But consider this: If Trump is continuing to sink in the polls, and he is, and is losing three-time Trump voters like me, could it perhaps be time for a course correction before the GOP gets slaughtered in next year’s midterm elections? After all, your condemnation and name-calling won’t garner any more votes for our side – quite the opposite.

Blinded by their hate for Trump, the American left torches a Venezuelan freedom fighter

Posted on by
Reply

It’s a story right out of pre-woke Hollywood. Her country has been taken over by a series of corrupt socialist dictators (ah, but I repeat myself) who’ve seized the natural resources for their own personal enrichment. They’ve suspended or disregarded elections.

Not satisfied with stealing the country’s riches, the looters have also entered the drug business to support their palatial lives.

The regime operates in league with Russia, China, Iran and North Korea – not exactly upstanding citizens of the international community – whose main interests are in simply disrupting South America, along with sharing in the natural resource spoils.

All this is at the expense of the people. The country has gone from the richest in South America to one of the poorest in two generations. People are fleeing the country by the millions.

A brave, charismatic woman – a truly wise Latina – has stood up to the looting fascists. Risking her life, she demanded the ouster of the criminal dictator. She demanded fair elections. She’s been living in hiding, because the regime would surely imprison her, or worse, if they could find her.

Her name is Maria Machado. Her country is Venezuela. The Norwegian Nobel Committee this fall recognized her heroic work to free her country, and awarded her the Nobel Peace Prize.

President Trump has supported Machado and her efforts from the outset. He congratulated her for the prize, for her courage, and for her goals. She in turn said:

“This Nobel Prize is symbolic of that fight for freedom and is dedicated to the Venezuelan people and to President Trump for showing what strong leadership looks like in the moments that matter most.”

Speaking of strong leadership, the Administration assisted private American forces in extricating Machado from Venezuela for a harrowing journey to Oslo for the Nobel Prize. She arrived just hours too late to accept the prize in person, but her daughter accepted for her and read her stirring speech.

It’s an amazing story, still being spun. The Venezuelan dictator will fall – it’s just a matter of time (probably just weeks or months). Maria Machado will return to Venezuela. Socialist despotism in the Americas will be dealt a blow.

Stories in the American media (there isn’t really one in Venezuela anymore) including the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal have lauded Machado’s incredible efforts and harrowing journey. Give credit to the reporters and editors of both the Journal and the Times.

But the comments sections to those stories are chock full of hostility – not hostile to the Venezuelan regime, but hostile to Machado and Trump.

They’re hostile to Trump for the usual reason: Orange Man Bad! And they’re hostile to Machado for failing to scream “Orange Man Bad!”

The American left’s anger at Machado is heightened by the socialist dictator overlay to the story. They wonder, gee, what’s next? Will Trump go after our socialist friends in Cuba?  

The American left reluctantly admit that murderous terrorism is an “unfortunate accident” and narco-state kleptocracies are unseemly, but what’s really horrible are Western civilization, American capitalism and, most of all, Donald J. Trump.

How dare this woman thank and applaud Trump – in public, no less! – they grouse. In their eyes, she’s a freakin’ woman with freakin’ dark-ish skin. Doesn’t she know her place? When it comes to relations between white Yanquis and darkish Latinas, her place is to defer to us American liberals. What we say, goes. And what we say is:

“Orange Man Bad. We don’t care if you think he helps your so-called cause of fighting-for-freedom. Nothing done by Orange Man is good. Nothing. Especially when he undermines socialism.”

Ah, socialism. It invariably deteriorates quickly into corruption, graft, waste and cronyism, and then fascism, totalitarianism, torture and terrorism.

But the American left never stops trying it. They now argue that the proof it works is in the fact that Bad Orange Man thinks it doesn’t, and he’s always wrong.

But, in fact, socialism doesn’t work – even if Trump thinks it doesn’t. It never has, and it never will. In the matter of Venezuela, the left will wind up on the wrong side of history, once again.

The Supreme Court will back Trump on firing agency heads, but not on tariffs

Posted on by
5

In a Supreme Court term with several important cases on executive power, two stand out. Both will be decided this Spring.

One is the tariffs case, argued a few weeks ago. The three liberal Justices will go against Trump, of course, because Orange Man Bad. But even the conservative Justices – especially the three appointed by Trump – appeared skeptical that the President could unilaterally impose broad tariffs.

Tariffs are much like a tax. The taxing power is generally held by Congress, not the President.

Yes, there is a loophole allowing for emergency actions by the President, but the Justices were not buying the argument that there was an emergency requiring tariffs on coffee from South America, wine from France, machines from Germany, pharmaceuticals from Switzerland, cars from Japan, etc. etc. etc.

(Apart from the legal issue, I’ve written that the tariffs are somewhat defensible from an economic perspective.)

You may argue that the “emergency” is the overall trade deficit. That trade deficit emergency, goes the argument, requires sweeping action.

I won’t argue the point. I’m just telling you that the Supreme Court is not buying it. Expect a 7-2 decision against Trump, or maybe even a 9-0 decision.

Already, companies that have paid the tariffs (including some that we assume are on the righthand side of the political spectrum, such as Costco) have filed lawsuits against the government for a refund of the tariffs they’ve paid.

Confusion will ensue. The decision is likely to be fractured with multiple opinions expressing different reasoning, and will also be complicated since the tariff scheme itself is complicated.

The other case at the Supreme Court concerns whether the President has the power to fire the leaders of so-called “independent agencies.” Trump will win this one.

Independent agencies are curious creatures. Scour the Constitution, and you’ll never find a mention of them. They are largely the creation of New Deal legislation from the 1930s. Over the ensuing century, they took on a life of their own in the fertile and fecund federal bureaucracy, like slimy salamanders spontaneously generated from warm mudpuddles.

There’s no doubt the President can fire ordinary agency leaders, but these independent agency leaders seem to have a special status in the minds of Washington politicians.

They clearly are part of the executive branch, since they’re not part of the judicial or legislative branch, but purportedly cannot be fired by the chief executive – the President – because they’re “independent.” They effectively make policy and enact legislation without oversight from Congress or the President.

This raises two questions. First, how can Congress delegate away its legislative power under the Constitution to entities never mentioned in the Constitution?

Could Congress also delegate away their legislative power to private foundations like the Gates Foundation and foreign entities like the United Nations? (Congress thinks the answer is yes, and to some extent they already have.)

In any event, it’s quite ironic that the defenders of these independent agencies accuse Trump of violating the law by firing the agency leaders, when the very existence of the agencies is in violation of the Constitution.

The second question is, if the President cannot fire the leader of an independent agency, then who can?

Not Congress, since Congress wields no hiring and firing power beyond its own internal staffing. Outside that, its power to hire people is non-existent and its power to fire people is limited to the draconian and rarely-used power to impeach.

And not the judiciary, either. Judges have no power to hire or fire members of the executive branch. They can barely hire and fire their clerks and secretaries.

So, if the President has no power to fire these independent agency leaders, then they are virtually untouchable.

Presidents and Congressmen come and go, but bureaucracies go on and on – especially if their leaders cannot be replaced. The deep state lives forever.

This is of course the outcome desired by most Democrats, since the agencies are controlled by Democrats. In fact, Democrat federal employees outnumber Republicans two to one.

But it’s also the outcome desired by a certain cohort of never-Trump Republicans. It’s amusing to see their pseudo-scholarly rhetoric decrying the administrative state – until it’s Trump (gasp!) who proposes modest control over it. Then, and only then, reining in the unaccountable, unconstitutional administrative state run by unelected bureaucrats is . . . you know what’s coming . . . a threat to democracy.

The Supreme Court decision on this will likely be less hypocritical than those pseudo-scholar never-Trumpers. All nine Justices know that the administrative state of Democrats spawned by independent agencies is an unconstitutional cancer on democracy, and that the only means to rein it in is through the President.

Based on that common understanding, the six conservative Justices will side with the President and the three liberals will side against him.

Unlike freshmen college students, I can do the math. The math says Trump wins that one 6-3.

Trump was right not to want a second strike

Posted on by
13

The facts are still emerging through the fog of war (or is it the fog of law enforcement, or the fog of antiterrorism?). Sometimes people (including myself) draw conclusions on the basis of incomplete information, so let’s start with what’s really known.

Our military launched another missile attack on a drug-smuggling fast boat. The boat burst into flames and was dead in the water but did not immediately sink. On-scene surveillance showed that not all of the 11 crew members were killed. One or two men were seen moving in the water.

Unlike the footage of other fast boats being attacked by missiles, this footage has not been publicly released, but the facts in the preceding paragraph are undisputed.

A second missile strike was then ordered. It obliterated the wreckage of the boat and killed the two remaining survivors. That, too, is undisputed.

The mission was observed in real time by the Admiral in charge as well as his boss, the Secretary of War, in a room at the Pentagon. Both men saw the first missile strike.

The Secretary of War reports that he then left the room to attend another meeting. The second strike was then ordered by the Admiral who evidently believed he had authority from the Secretary of War.

Here’s where it gets foggy. One report says that the Secretary of War instructed the military in advance to “kill them all.” He denies saying that.

He did say afterward that he supports the Admiral’s ordering of the second strike, and went on to proclaim “the fake news is delivering more fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory reporting to discredit our incredible warriors fighting to protect the homeland.”

What’s the President say? When asked about the appropriateness of the second strike, he said:

“[The Secretary of War] said he didn’t do it, so I don’t have to make that decision.”

In the hurley-burley of the impromptu press conference aboard Air Force One, it’s not clear what, exactly, the Secretary told the President he “didn’t do.” It can’t be that he told the President they “didn’t do” a second strike, because they clearly did. Maybe what the Secretary said he “didn’t do” was to be the one who ordered it, since he was no longer in the room, or maybe what he told the President he “didn’t do” was to order the military to “kill them all.”

Apart from that ambiguity – something to be hashed out between the Secretary and the President – the most important words from the President about the second strike were the following:

“I wouldn’t have wanted that – a second strike. The first strike was very lethal. It was fine.”

Personally, I’ve defended the policy of bombing the drug smuggling fast boats. It’s a close call, legally, but the drug problem in America is very serious.

In the legal profession, there’s an expression: Hard facts make for hard law. America’s drug problem is a hard fact, and dealing with it requires some hard laws.

For that reason, I reluctantly support bombing fast boats loaded with lethal drugs in order to stop the drugs from entering America. I admit, it seems they could instead be simply followed and apprehended when they reach our shores, but Presidents get a lot of latitude in these matters of foreign affairs. I’ll give him that latitude in view of the seriousness of our drug problems.

But launching a second missile after the first missile wrecked and incinerated the boat, just for the purpose of killing the helpless survivors of the first missile, is a quite different thing.

Suppose the military had boarded the boat and found the two wounded survivors, rather than firing a second missile. Does anyone seriously contend they would be justified in executing them on the spot with a gun to their heads? If not, then why are they justified in executing them with a second missile launched from a different spot?

I think the President was right. The first strike was enough to stop the boat. There was no need to launch a second missile to kill the two wounded survivors in the water. Those killings were not necessary to the mission.

There’s a word for unnecessary killings. It’s on the tip of my tongue . . .

Like the President, I have little sympathy for drug runners, and if they die in the course of their criminality we shed no tears. But the President also knows that to murder them as they flail wounded in the water, well, that would make him worse than them. No thanks.

Bombing defenseless civilians clinging to a blown-up boat is murder

Posted on by
13

Credible reports are emerging on the latest shoot-fish-in-a-barrel episode in the Caribbean, where the force of the U.S. military is brought to bear on “fast boat” drug runners. For the record, I’ve supported these operations in the past.

A whistle-blower connected to the mission revealed that in this particular episode the boat and crew weren’t immediately vaporized. The initial missile strike destroyed the boat and killed nine on board, but the boat didn’t immediately sink. Two people were still alive in the water, wounded. The American military evidently saw from the air that the two men were alive.

The threat posed by this boat to American shores and American people was never imminent but was certainly real. Drugs kill, and they’ve recently killed more people than we’ve lost in highway deaths and gun shootings combined.

But the threat posed by this particular fast boat had ended. The boat was going nowhere.

The military had several options at that point. They could have simply went away. The effect would be to let the wounded go down with the boat or die of their wounds.

They could have rescued the wounded men and put them on trial for drug smuggling. Sure, the men were probably armed, and might have fought their rescuers – an apparent surrender can be an ambush. But that’s always a risk when taking a person prisoner. It’s one of the many risks that servicemen and women sign up for.

The mission leaders chose a third option. They conducted a “second strike” missile attack where they obliterated the already-disabled boat and killed the two wounded men who had survived the first strike.

That second strike was in direct violation of written Pentagon policy prohibiting attacks on shipwrecks where combatants on board are unable to fight.

I’ve defended these shooting-fish-in-a-barrel missions on the grounds that the law affords the President wide latitude in matters of foreign affairs. President Obama ordered lethal drone attacks on terrorists on foreign soil – including some who were American citizens, and I supported that as well. 

A President does not need a Declaration of War from Congress to take action to defend American interests. The last time Congress issued a Declaration of War was 1942. (Both wars against Iraq were approved by Congressional “resolutions” that fell short of a Declaration of War.)

So, the absence of express Congressional approval for these actions does not especially bother me. What bothers me is the circumstances of this particular episode.

Put aside the fact that there’s been no judicial adjudication that these drug runners are, in fact, drug runners. Threats to American shores do not always lend themselves to due process determinations by old judges in walnut paneled courtrooms a thousand miles away.

And put aside the fact that these drug runners who are being bombed seldom get to America – they go to intermediate points such as Mexico or Caribbean islands where their drug cargo is transferred to some other drug runner.

And put side the fact that while these drug runners are certainly wrongdoers who deserve punishment, they are hardly drug kingpins like El Chapo with nine-figure bank accounts. They’re typically impoverished fishermen or peasants looking for a five-figure payday. 

And put aside the fact that none of these fast boats has put up a fight. The crew are undoubtedly armed, but their arms are in the form of handguns, not surface-to-air missiles to deal with an F-16.

Put all that aside. It’s a close call, but I’m still willing to support the President in blowing up the drug runner boats. That’s not because I dismiss the gravity of doing so; in fact, it’s a matter of great gravity. Rather, it’s because I weigh that against the gravity of America’s drug problem.

Constitutional scholars are mixed on the legality of these fast-boat bombings.

But whatever the legality of a fast-boat bombing, making a second strike to kill the helpless wounded survivors – flailing in the water as they cling to their sinking boat – crosses a line. It’s in violation of Pentagon written policy, it’s a violation of the rules of war, it’s barbaric, it’s murder.

The President was understandably not aware of the situation in real time – he has other things on his agenda – but he said afterward that he would not have ordered the second strike.

The second strike was evidently on the direct orders of either the Secretary of War or an admiral in charge of the mission. Both were reportedly watching the mission live. The Secretary of War says the second strike was with his authority but he was out of the room when the order was given.

Either the admiral or the Secretary of War, or both, should resign or, in the case of the admiral, be court martialed. This cannot stand. It’s wrong.

Sadly, Republicans will be slaughtered in the 2026 midterms

Posted on by
10

As a three-time Trump voter with no regrets, I don’t like this message any more than most of you. So don’t shoot me, I’m just the messenger.

The message is the Republicans in next fall’s midterm elections will lose the House, bigly, and probably the Senate.

If politics is indeed “war by other means,” expect the political war next fall to be bloody. Think Battle of the Little Bighorn. Think Stalingrad. Think Pickett’s Charge. Think the Battle of Midway. Think Waterloo. It will be one-sided.

Oh, I know the President has done some terrific things – at great personal risk to himself, by the way – even if they were sometimes done unartfully.

Stopping illegal immigration is near the top of the list. His crude methods were probably by design but might have been by fortuitous accident. Either way, he sent a message that transcended language barriers: The United States of America doesn’t welcome illegal immigrants anymore, and illegals who come anyway may find themselves on a one-way flight to West Africa. Due process? Mayyyybe . . . .

As a result, illegal immigration is at the lowest point in decades. The southern border in particular is more like, well, a nation’s border. All this has produced some human pain. Fixing big problems that politicians tolerated and sometimes encouraged often has that effect.

In the Middle East, the President let the Israelis beat and batter the barbarians of Hamas and then brokered a quasi-peace between the two. Even better, he prevented a nuclear Iran/Israel war by handing the Persians their biggest defeat since the Battle of Marathon two and a half millennia ago.

On tariffs, however, the President got out of his depth. His tariffs were defensible as an economic matter, maybe, but not as a legal matter. He will lose when the Supreme Court issues its decision next Spring – perhaps in a 9-0 decision – and the Court signaled as much in oral arguments a couple of weeks ago. At best, the decision will be 7-2 against the President.

The unravelling of those tariffs, which will have been in effect illegally for as much as a year, will be messy and embarrassing for the administration.

Intangibles are the most notable things on the score card for this administration. On the plus side, the President has made “woke” a four-letter word. That’s more than a stylistic change. Wokeness and all that it entails – abolition of merit, obsession with skin color and sexual preferences, the euphemizing of language, ubiquitous victimization – was highly destructive to America and the world.

On the minus side, the President has shown a tendency to say or tweet what he thinks in a way that often and needlessly offends. The most recent example was when a reporter persisted in asking yet another follow-up question during a press conference. Most reporters are loathsome creatures, but they paid to ask – nay, shout – questions in that manner.

The President could have ignored the reporter, or rebuked her with something like “let’s move on.”

Instead, he barked “Quiet, piggy!”

That may not bother you but it does bother millions of Americans, particularly women. Such people vote.

Right now, approval surveys suggest that many of them are sufficiently turned off by these sorts of crude insults that their vote will be against the GOP next fall. The outcome of the special elections around the country a few weeks ago supports that conclusion.

Forget about peace in the Middle East, the solving of the immigration debacle, and the mixed outcome on tariffs. Because the people will forget about those things.

What many of them will remember is that they dislike the President on a personal level. People vote against people they dislike. Right now, a large and growing number of people dislike the President.

That’s a fundamental flaw in representative democracy, but it’s an unavoidable aspect of human nature. We’ll see the results next fall.

Now, before you bark “Quiet, piggy!” at me, remember: I’m just the messenger and just doing my job. (And in case you think it’s relevant, I’m 6’ tall and weigh 160 pounds.)

Schumer failed, so his fascist comrades hung him from a lamp post

Posted on by
6

The fascist who gave fascism its name came to an ugly end. Benito Mussolini was impaled on a meat hook and hung upside-down from a lamppost. Fascists don’t tolerate failure.

Democrat leader Charles Schumer is someone I don’t like, and I felt a certain schadenfreude when his Democrat “friends” blamed him for their caving on what has come to be called the “Schumer Shutdown” or, more accurately, the “Schumer Sh*tshow.”

But there’s something disquieting about the barrage of criticism from the left.

The gist of the criticism is that Schumer failed to keep all the Democrat Senators “in line.” In other words, he failed to coerce every Democrat to vote the way he told them to, despite his best efforts at coercion. At coercion, he failed.

Criticizing Schumer for failing at coercion says a lot about the criticizers. It says that they think other Democrats are Schumer’s subordinates, and he is supposed to be able to control their votes.

That sounds vaguely dictatorial to me.

It would come as news to the people of New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Illinois who elected these particular Democrats that the Senators they elected are required to vote not their conscience, and vote not for the interests of the people who elected them, but vote the way an old guy in New York tells them to.

It seems the left wing of the Democrat Party believes that the only acceptable vote for the rank and file is a vote for insanity and radicalism. When the Democrat leader tells his “subordinates” to vote for insanity and radicalism, then, by golly, that’s what they’re required to do, their conscience and their constituents be damned.

The predicament of the Democrat leader is even more precarious. It’s not enough for him to vote insanely and radically. He’s also supposed to succeed in coercing every other Dem into voting insanely and radically. Any failures in his coercion earn him a meat hook and a hanging.

Regardless of what it says on paper, regardless of Senate rules, regardless of the will of the people, the leftists in the Democrat Party have a tyrannical and bloodthirsty grip on the party.

Dems denuded without even a fig leaf

Posted on by
2

We went to bed on Sunday and there was vague talk of a shutdown workaround. We wake up on Monday, and the Democrats have caved.

Analogies, anyone? If this were a boxing match, the Democrats didn’t come out of their corner for the 8th round. If it were a softball game, the ten-run rule got applied. If it were a war, they flew the white flag and laid down their arms. If it were wrestling, they tapped out.

If it were poker, they folded, though the time to fold ‘em was a month ago. They didn’t know when to walk away, and so now they have to run.

Feel free to add your own analogies. That’s what the comment section is for!

This all transpired because Democrats are the minority party in Congress at the moment. They consequently got outvoted on the tax bill last winter. Getting outvoted often happens to the minority party.

The Democrats’ solution to being outvoted as the minority party was to demand to be treated like the majority party, else they would shut down the government. They demanded a re-do of the tax bill, specifically the part that let expire the Obamacare insurance subsidies enacted as a temporary measure during COVID.

The Republicans’ reaction was, “Huh? Do you think that Democrats get to act like the majority party when they are, and also get to act like the majority party when they aren’t?”

It wasn’t hard for the Republicans to call that bluff.

After the biblical 40 days and 40 nights, give or take, and over a dozen votes blocked by the Democrats, eight of the 43 Democrat Senators finally broke ranks Sunday evening and voted to re-open the government.

The stock market cheered. Food stamp recipients rejoiced. Federal workers felt relieved. Holiday travelers were glad.

Democrats fumed.

Now there’s a civil war in the Democratic party. By the media reports, it sounds like the biggest one since Democrats quit America a century and a half ago to continue holding in chains some of the men God created equal.

In the resolution to both civil wars, the Democrats got hardly anything in the bargain.

At least this time, Atlanta didn’t get torched.

But Chuck Schumer did. Imagine Schumer stark naked with only a fig leaf, surrounded by ravenous dog-like Democrats looking for someone to blame. Now take away the fig leaf and let loose the dogs.

That’s the Democrat Party right now. It ain’t pretty.

Democrats will end the filibuster when they’re back in power, so Republicans should end it now

Posted on by
2
U.S. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY)

The Senate filibuster is an odd rule. It says 60 votes out of the 100 Senators are necessary to end debate on a piece of proposed legislation.

Absent those 60 votes, the legislation never gets put to a vote. The effect is that it takes not just a majority of the Senate – 51 votes out of 100 – to pass legislation. It takes a supra-majority of 60.

The filibuster rule is not in the Constitution. In fact, it’s not even in a statute. It’s simply a rule dreamed up by the Senate. In various forms, it goes back to the 19th century, and has been tweaked many times since then.

The original idea behind the filibuster was this: If Senators want to keep debating some proposed legislation, then – politicians being politicians – they should. Talk is not just cheap, but good, and so more talk is better.

But – politicians being politicians again – they soon abused their right to talk. Filibusters became not a way to keep talking about legislation, but a way to kill it. Legislation supported by 59 Senators, which typically meant Senators from both parties, could be killed by just 41 senators opposing it.

The result has been the occasional paralysis of the Senate. Controversial legislation cannot get passed unless it falls within one of the limited exceptions to the filibuster rule.

This outcome frustrated Democrats a few years ago, because it enabled the Republicans to stop the confirmation of a few of the controversial federal judges nominated by Barack Obama. Republicans didn’t stop all confirmations, mind you, but only the ones they especially disliked. Obama still got  the great majority of his judges confirmed, and we still see them in action.

This filibustering of judicial nominations did not start with the Republicans, of course. Democrats were at least as adept at the practice and, arguably, were the ones to start the practice.  

For example, a brilliant and highly qualified nominee by George W. Bush name Miguel Estrada was filibuster by the Democrats. And then again. And again, and again. And again, and again. and again.  

Seven times, the Democrats filibustered Miguel Estrada.

When the Republicans repaid the filibustering favor, it didn’t sit well with the Democrats. The Democrat Senate leader was a sleazy old battle ax named Harry Reid who served in, or at least enjoyed, the Senate for 30 years and mysteriously amassed a fortune doing so. He threatened to, and did, abolish the filibuster for ordinary judicial nominations. From that time forward, it took only 51 Senators to break a filibuster on ordinary judicial nominations.

You might reasonably ask how he got the 60 votes to abolish the filibuster rule requiring 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.

Here’s where it gets curious. It takes 60 Senators to overcome a filibuster on proposed legislation, but it takes only 51 to change the Senate rules allowing for filibusters. And so, with a simple majority, Senator Reid jammed through his change to the rule requiring a supra-majority to confirm a judicial nominee, to require only a simple majority.

The Republicans warned Senator Reid and his Democrat colleagues that they would regret abolishing the filibuster. They warned that someday the tables would be turned, and it would be the Republicans who would take advantage of the power to confirm judicial nominations with a bare majority of 51 Senators, rather than the traditional 60 Senators.

That’s what happened, in spades. Senator Reid abolished the filibuster for judicial nominations with the exception of Supreme Court nominations. In 2017, the Republicans saw his bid and raised him.

President Trump had the opportunity to nominate three Supreme Court Justices in his first term to replace conservative and liberal Justices who died in office, and a moderate Justice who retired.

Unsurprisingly, President Trump nominated three conservatives. Unsurprisingly, the Democrats went ballistic and promised to filibuster. Unsurprisingly, the Republicans took the natural step of abolishing the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations, just as the Democrats had for lower court nominations. Unsurprisingly, all three were confirmed by Republican Senate majorities (even though the Democrats shamelessly defamed Justice Kavanaugh).

Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court is now 6-3 conservative, and will remain conservative for the foreseeable future.

This 6-3 conservative Supreme Court has been a key component to President Trump’s power. On political cases, the outcome is generally (not always) five or six conservatives to four or three liberals.

Which brings us to the government “shutdown.” Of course, the government is not shut down, but the word “shutdown” generates clicks for click-baiting whores that comprise today’s media, and so that’s the term they use – together with the suggestion that it’s all the fault of the Republicans because they refuse to un-do the tax bill that was passed last spring.

But that’s just an excuse. The real reason for the “shutdown” is that the Democrat leader, Now York’s Charles Schumer, is panicking that a loony Democrat woman with initials for a name will challenge him in a primary and defeat his ambition to stay in the Senate well into his 80s. He’s in need of loony lib cred in a state that prizes such stuff. (See, e.g. Zohran Mamdani.)

And so, the Democrats have filibustered the legislation to keep the government open a dozen times.

In ordinary times, the rank-and-file Democrats would go along with Schumer’s selfish shutdown scheme, for about as long as they can say those four words fast.

But in today’s political climate, even rank-and-file Democrats oppose practically everything Trump proposes, just because it’s Trump who proposes it. When the leftist base of the Democrats demand brave “resistance” to Trump, the rest of the Democrats willing grovel in compliance to show their bravery.

The Republicans could thwart the Democrats and end the shutdown in hours by taking a simple majority vote, a la Harry Reid, to suspend the filibuster. They wouldn’t even have to abolish it. They could do a one-time suspension of it. With 53 of the 100 Senators being Republican, that one-time suspension should pass.

By the way, if the Republicans were to abolish the filibuster for everything, not just as a one-time exercise, then they could run roughshod over the Democrats for at least the next year until the 2026 mid-term elections.

I like the idea of running roughshod over Democrats who are “bravely” groveling to their crazy leftist base.

Ah, you say, but then the Democrats would turn the tables against the Republicans next time the Democrats have a majority of the Senate.

Yes, they will.

But they will do that whether the Republicans suspend the filibuster now or not. These are Democrats, by golly. Do you expect them to abide by the filibuster later just because the Republicans do now? Do you expect them to play fair?

In California – and probably your state – illegals easily get driver’s licenses and are automatically registered to vote

Posted on by
2

There’s an odd little side show that caught my attention in the vaudeville act of “Dr.” Ian Roberts, the illegal immigrant from Guyana whom the Des Moines School District hired, heroized, and paid $300,000/year. (None of those particular things caught my attention in themselves, since they’re all par for the illegal immigrant course, these days.)

What caught my attention is that he’s registered to vote in Maryland, which was one of his waypoints on his grand and illegal tour through America. How, I wondered, did he manage to register to vote in Maryland?

It’s easy. In fact, it’s automatic.

Like about 18 other states, Maryland allows illegals to get driver’s licenses. Yes, it’s illegal for an illegal to be in America but, no, it’s not illegal in those states for them to get a driver’s license to drive around. Their presence is illegal, but their driving is not.

Okay, fair enough. On second thought, that’s not fair at all to the rest of us who wind up dodging illegals whose driving “skills” are the product of the roads and customs of such places as Guadalajara while we see our insurance premiums skyrocket.

But, anyway, there’s more.

In about 24 states, when the state issues a driver’s license, it automatically registers the person to vote – completely and willfully ignorant of whether the person is an American citizen.

Re-read that last paragraph. Yes, you got it right.

This scheme has a name. (The Democrats are great at branding things. See, e.g., “Affordable Housing,” “Reproductive Rights,” and “Me Too.”) They call this one “Automatic Voter Registration” or “AVR.” Democrats boast that AVR makes it easier to vote.

About that, they’re right.

Back to the erstwhile “Dr.” Ian Roberts. He got a driver’s license in Maryland while he happened to be on-the-lam there. Under their AVR system, Maryland automatically registered him to vote, as other states with AVR would have done.

Voila! He was in the country illegally, but had a valid driver’s license to drive around and was duly registered to vote.

Nothing odd or extraordinary took place. What happened undoubtedly happens thousands of times every day. It’s supposed to happen that way. There was no breakdown in the system. His voting registration was not a mistake.

The mistake was a bigger one. The mistake was a failure of American government. One political party has hijacked the levers, arms and dials of American government to produce deliberate and systematic voting fraud.