The beginning of the end for the USA

I’m reading Martin van Creveld’s The Rise and Decline of the State and came across this passage regarding government centralizing services:

By that time even the United States, traditionally the stronghold of rugged individualism and low taxes (to make the House of Lords vote money for his plans, Lloyd George had threatened to create the necessary number of new peers), was feeling the need to do something for its working population.  A modest first step had been taken in 1912 when the Commonwealth of Massachusetts passed a law requiring the payment of minimum wages.  However, it only lasted a few years; in 1923 a Supreme Court decision declared a State of Oregon minimum-wage law for women unconstitutional.  Other measures to extend government control and limit private enterprise were equally unsuccessful.  For example, the number of persons who benefited from a government vocational education scheme instituted in 1917 was so small that statistics about it simply ceased to be published.  In 1920 a law calling for the abolition of child labor failed to make it through Congress.  Five years later, a Kansas law for the compulsory arbitration of industrial disputes was similarly thrown out of the High Court.  In 1929, the last year of prosperity, all American federal welfare expenditure combined only amounted to $0.25 per head of population, which constituted perhaps one percent of its British equivalent.

In the event it took the Great Depression and 12 million unemployed to shake the United States out of the world of laissez faire and into the one in which, whatever the names attached to the various schemes, welfare came to be financed out of taxation.  The foundations were laid in 1933 when President Roosevelt, ignoring howls of Republican opposition, set up the Federal Emergency Relief Agency (FERA).  Its first director was a social worker, Harry Hopkins; armed with a war chest of $500,000,000, it provided work for at least some of those who needed it.  Over the next six years this and numerous other programs led to the spending of some $13 billion over and the construction of 122,000 public buildings, 77,000 bridges, and 64,000 miles of roads inter alia – all, however, without making a real dent in the Depression which only ended in September 1939 when, following the outbreak of war in Europe, the stock exchange went through the roof.

Administratively speaking, the annus mirabilis of the New Deal proved to be 1935.  That year saw the introduction of social security including old-age insurance and assistance, unemployment compensation, aid to dependent children, and aid to the blind.  In 1939 survivors’ and disability insurance, already a standard feature in the most advanced European countries, were added to the list.  By that time every American citizen had been issued with his or her social security card and the Department of Health and Human Services had been created to oversee the system’s operation.  Even the Supreme Court was prepared to cooperate, though not before Roosevelt, having fought a battle royal with Congress, packed it with his own supporters.  In 1937 a Washington State minimum wage law was declared constitutional.  Another ruling did the same for social security itself; the age of big government had truly begun.

If only we could go back to the days where the Supreme Court actually respected the Constitution and “rugged individualism” was the law of the land.  Instead we let the socialists take over and burden us with the albatrosses of welfare and social security, and a bit later open borders.

Self-responsibility is a powerful motivator.  Yes, some people suffered by some of those Supreme Court decisions and yes, some people would have suffered if some of those social service programs weren’t in place (note that these social service programs did not end the Depression).  But you know what?  Having the onus on you and you alone to survive and fulfill your destiny is a powerful motivator.  When there is no guaranteed safety net most people will be motivated to work, or else that’s it.  With that also comes a greater sense of satisfaction.  And it is better for EVERYONE in the long run.  Sometimes we need to let things fail.  Some short-term pain saves a lot worse long-term suffering.  These decisions made decades ago have shackled us and our children and future generations.  They have destroyed far more lives than the few individuals who would have suffered at the time.

Adding these disastrous programs, in combination with the 1965 Immigration Act, which opened the floodgates for people who had no allegiance to the founding of the country and do not have the will (or often the capacity) to possibly live up to the original American ideal, and you have a bonafide disaster on your hands.  The demographic alteration that took place because of that cannot be emphasized enough.  The country, as it was before these social services programs and opening the borders, fundamentally changed forever.  And for the worse.

A Week of Gratitude 2018: Supreme Court Judges

As we near Thanksgiving and reflect on the past year there is much to be thankful for despite all the negativity and evil out there.  And even though Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch was nominated and confirmed in 2017 both his and Justice Kavanaugh’s appointments are something we should be very thankful for.

Our Constitution has been under attack like never before in the past few decades and has only ramped up since President Trump took office.  I think perhaps it’s easy to take for granted all that President Trump has accomplished despite the best efforts of the Democrats to stop him.  And so much early success has spurned us to hope and expect for more from him.  And while I can’t speak for anyone else, I distinctly remember going into the election of 2016 that even if nothing else is accomplished, Supreme Court nominations would be the most important thing to win in the presidential election.  This serves as something of a safeguard and the ultimate checks and balances of a government gone amok.  And with the possibility of a progressive party coming into control looking to change the entire outlook of the values and rights this country was founded on, this was not a trivial matter.

320px-Associate_Justice_Neil_Gorsuch_Official_Portrait.jpg

Thankfully, President Trump has delivered.  Justice Gorsuch replaced Justice Scalia, who died under very suspicious conditions.  The court at that time was in a very precarious position, 50/50 divided liberal/conservative.  One can make all the arguments one wants, but the Supreme Court is not supposed to be politically charged or motivated.  It’s one of the reasons why it’s a lifetime appointment; so they are not swayed by political pressures.  And while many want to interpret the Constitution as a living, breathing, document, Justice Gorsuch believes in interpreting the Constitution as our Founding Fathers wrote and hoped to interpret it, rather than bending the words to the day’s topic du jour to make it fit another meaning and enact new policy and change.  Legislation, one should recall, is not meant to be done by judges, much as the left wants that to be the case.  By securing Justice Gorsuch, only 51, he has secured a conservative seat on the bench for several decades.

293px-Brett_Kavanaugh_July_2018

Justice Kavanaugh, as everyone by now knows, went through quite an ordeal to be nominated and confirmed.  Justice Kavanaugh, 53 himself, replaced a retiring Justice Kennedy.  Justice Kennedy was widely thought to be the centrist Justice.  This being such an important replacement, one that could tip the scales one way or the other, the Democrats sunk to their usual lows, and perhaps lower than usual, to besmirch his good name.  As the saying goes, you know you’re over the target when you start taking flak.  As I’ve written about before, Justice Kennedy wasn’t keen to judge on cases involving gun control and the second amendment.  This often times left the matter in a precarious position with a less secure future.  This will not be the case with Justice Kavanaugh and the left knew it.  The mud slinging was unprecedented.  Unsubstantiated sexual allegations were coming from all sides, with Christine Ford as the centerpiece.  And while many posited the question “what possible benefit could she have for making this up?” I offer you Exhibit A.  Suffice to say, we should not be weeping for Christine.  This was such a hot issue and really raised an important question to our country: Do we still believe in the notion of innocent until proven guilty?  Shockingly, though perhaps we shouldn’t be shocked by this anymore, this was a country divided on this question.  Many on the left thought Kavanaugh should not be nominated despite the fact there was exactly ZERO evidence supporting her claims, and in fact several of the claims were proven to be outright false.

Thankfully, despite their best efforts, the Democrats failed in both cases and we now have two more conservative judges on the Supreme Court.  Something tells me Justice Kavanaugh will not soon forget how he was treated.  That’s something to consider going forward.  And unless the Democrats try to pack the courts, an idea not unfamiliar to the left, it appears the court is secured for a few more decades.  And with the possibility of filling at least one more seat, President Trump has left us in a good position.  This was the most important issue going into the election and he has delivered in spades.

Thanksgiving is a time for reflection and gratitude.  As we spend time with our families and loved ones this year, let us be thankful for what we have and what has been preserved.  But we cannot rest on our laurels and we certainly need to stop taking our liberties for granted.  We were thisclose to losing the Supreme Court to the most corrupt politician in American history.  And given how spineless most of the Republican party is, a majority in the Senate would not leave me with a good feeling that HRC wouldn’t have prevailed.  Even if she hadn’t, having the option to add several judges once a Democrat majority in the Senate came into fruition was a very real possibility.   Especially knowing how much they have stuffed the ballot boxes during the midterms.

Planned Parenthood looking for new judicial nominations director

PlannedParenthoodJudge

It looks like Planned Parenthood is looking for a new judicial nominations director.  What does that entail, you ask?  For those interested in applying:

Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) seeks a dynamic and effective Director, Judicial Nominations who will report to the National Director of Legislative Affairs in the Office of the Vice President of Policy and Government Relations. The Director will be responsible for the development and execution of all related campaigns’ priorities and goals, the facilitation of internal cross-departmental alignment, the execution of all program components by both Government Relations staff and other PPFA teams, and the reporting process to internal and external PPFA audiences. The Director will also oversee the formulation and execution of critical programmatic work and be responsible for executing a strategic, intense campaign that educates members of the Senate on the harmful records of nominees, elevates for Planned Parenthood supporters and affiliates what is at stake for reproductive health and rights.

DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

  • Develop and execute year-long national and state advocacy plans focused on high impact, high priority judicial nominations in the lower courts.
  • Work closely with the National Director of Legislative Affairs, consultants, and team members to create a clear path for defeat and delay of targeted nominations.
  • Direct day-to-day work of key cross-team campaigns, including leading regular meetings with key staff and consultants, facilitating ally engagement, working with targeted states and affiliates, ensuring resource production, and capturing successes and lessons learned.
  • Ensure productive collaboration and broad integration between Government Relations, Organizing & Electoral Campaigns, Communications, Litigation & Law and other key PPFA departments and divisions.
  • Identify new areas of partnership on initiatives that will help further Federation-wide priorities.
  • Work with cross-functional teams to design and execute in-state 360 campaigns that hold Senators accountable for appointing judges that value and protect access to abortion.
  • Drive high-visibility efforts like phone calls, media, letter-writing campaigns, grassroots actions, storytelling, engaging grasstop influencers, etc.
  • Lead in-depth research in consultation with Litigation & Law including review and analysis of nominee’s case law and writings; interrogation of nominee’s personal and professional beliefs, associations, and memberships; as well as general opposition research in order to identify each nominee’s vulnerabilities and be able to drive a cohesive national narrative that informs in-state target Senator campaigns.
  • Create grassroots strategies that build movement and leverage the Planned Parenthood base to link the importance of judicial nomination fights to the security of the issues we value.
  • Develop tactics that tie harmful nominees to cross-movement issues, to the overall Trump agenda, and to the consequences of lifetime appointments of extremist judges to the future of progressive rights.
  • Maintain circuit court nominations tracker including the development of fact sheet and reference materials.
  • Develop a scoring mechanism to rate harmful nominations and draft public-facing oppositions.

So the Supreme Court nomination decision didn’t go their way and now they want to hire somebody new to lobby for judges that will decide in their favor.  As a friendly reminder, we as taxpayers give Planned Parenthood on average $500 million dollars a year, which is spent on who knows what.  Remind me again how it’s legal that a company that receives tax payer money can lobby like this?  Aren’t these supposed to be apolitical organizations?  We get zero choice in whether we give money to a company caught selling aborted baby parts for profit.  And now we get no choice in giving them money even though they very clearly have a political agenda.

Thank God Brett Kavanaugh was nominated.  He was the crucial Kennedy swing vote replacement in the conservative/liberal Supreme Court breakdown.  Hopefully President Trump can get in at least one more with Ginsberg shuffling off this mortal coil soon.  Make no mistake about this, the Supreme Court nominations were probably the single most important issue during the presidential election.  It shapes the country for decades.  President Trump, at least temporarily, has stemmed that tide.  It’s why they pushed so hard during this nomination process.  The Constitution is being attacked more now than ever.  Imagine what of it would be left if Hillary Clinton had been given the opportunity to nominate two Supreme Court judges.  The second amendment could’ve been abolished entirely in her first term, and that is hardly an exaggeration.

The Judicial System in 2018

As we wait for the results of the 7th Kavanaugh investigation it gives time to reflect on the proceedings and the future implications going forward.  Without a doubt this has forever marred future Supreme Court Justice nominations.  Not surprisingly, only when a Republican president nominates a Supreme Court Justice is it ever this divided on party lines.  Once again the double standard reveals itself.  Consider for a moment that Ruth Bader Ginsberg, arguably the most extreme and liberal Supreme Court Justice ever and nominated by Bill Clinton, was voted in 96-3.  Only when a Republican nominates a justice is it ever this painful and close.  You can make arguments both ways regarding Garland but the decision seemed pretty reasonable given the timing of it.

A larger thought as the country becomes ever more divided and diverse.  Would you still want to be judged by a jury of your peers in 2018?  Consider the case of Kavanaugh.  He was accused without any evidence from a woman who can’t even remember the year that she claims this happened.  And yet, half of the country is completely okay with this kangaroo court fiasco.  Would you really feel comfortable with them if you were on the stand for a rape accusation and there was zero evidence whatsoever against you?  Could you be that confident that they’d rule in your favor when we know that half the country makes the bulk of their decisions purely based on feelings and not facts?

Or how about a case where a person of color is on stand for a crime where there is a lot of evidence supporting the accusation.  Would it be that far fetched to see a jury of mostly people of color vote on racial lines and claim something ridiculous like institutional racism for validation of letting him or her off?  Or even just a run of the mill immigration case.  Where half the country doesn’t even want laws or borders I wouldn’t be confident they’d judge the case dispassionately and purely rationally.

Diversity here, as pretty much everywhere else, is not our strength.  We’ve seen this even with those who are supposedly held to a higher standard.  How many judges of color made ridiculous decisions, usually politically motivated, which is supposed to NEVER happen?  President Trump was entirely justified in his travel ban in 2017.  Obama did a similar ban in office with little resistance.  How many times was Trump’s ban shut down on absolutely ridiculous grounds?  They held the country hostage on political motivations in decisions they should never have had the power to make in the first place.

As the country becomes more diverse these are serious issues that need to be addressed.  I honestly don’t know how to proceed going forward if we’re to continue diversifying our country into extinction.  I do not have an answer for how to fix this in those conditions.  I’m skeptical it can be fixed under those conditions.

The Kavanaugh Circus continues

President Trump late Friday called for a one week or less FBI supplementary investigation before the vote to make Brett Kavanaugh a Supreme Court Justice after a very divided 11-10 subcommittee and recommendation from RINO Jeff Flake.  If it hadn’t been abundantly obvious before this entire fiasco began, the feral left has shown their true colors more clearly than ever before to the ordinary citizen.

What’s most worrying about this entire charade is how divided the country is about it.  It is becoming increasingly difficult to communicate with the other side, or even agree upon what we are all seeing.  As Scott Adams has eluded to many times, it seems as if the country is watching two different movies at the same time, living in two different realities.  Where one side is incredulous that a man and his reputation has been attacked and destroyed so viciously with empty, evidence-less accusations, the other side cheers on the witch hunt demanding justice as if it were clear as day he did something wrong.  The basic tenets of the rule of law are at stake here.  Are we a country that believes one is innocent until proven guilty, or have we morphed into a Bolshevist style government that would rather unjustly punish 9 innocent people to catch 1 true criminal, if there even was one?

Consider too, for a moment, the unequal distribution of penalties and investigation doled out for one side versus the other.  An ordinary citizen can come forward, vaguely claim sexual misconduct 30 years earlier, and demand an FBI investigation days before a major vote without any evidence whatsoever, and the RINOs bend to her will.  Mountains of evidence can be presented against one Hillary R Clinton and it’s brushed aside with zero repercussions whatsoever.  Do they really think this will end well?  Do they really think ordinary citizens will tolerate this unequal balance of justice forever?  Do they really think ordinary citizens will continue to respect the rule of law when they see how carelessly it is treated and ignored at what should be the most respected level of responsibility in the government as public servants?

My only hope at this point is that when they don’t find anything they come down with hard justice against Ford.  False and empty accusations must be punished severely.  A false rape accusation can ruin a life.  Ask the Duke lacrosse team.  If we’re going to take an investigation seriously from a woman who can barely remember anything from the experience, and constantly confuse details and misremember things in general, then she should be justly punished.  Because one should not be rewarded for bad behavior.  For those asking “what possible reason would Ford have to lie?” I offer you exhibit A, just one of several gofundme pages opened on Ford’s behalf.

Screen Shot 2018-09-29 at 9.20.41 AM

Couple this with the inevitable book deal and national tour of interviews and she’s carved out a pretty lucrative charade for herself.  Is this the America we really want to live in?  Where one can make a fortune ruining someone’s life with zero evidence whatsoever?  I really hope this is the tipping point for centrists.  That they see the extent to which the left will go to sabotage and destroy any shred of decency or peaceful government proceedings.  Vote them all out.  They are tearing this country apart.

When this vote finally does go through, and Kavanaugh is actually confirmed, the silver lining here is he will never forget this experience.  I’m sure it will be in the front of his mind with every decision he ever rules on in the Supreme Court.  He will fight harder than ever to preserve the Constitution and hopefully undo decades of attacks against it from a left who has become increasingly violent and extreme in their actions.

Really, Hillary?

Failed Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton recently weighed in on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh with this gem:

“It is a blatant attempt by this administration to shift the balance of the Court for decades and to reverse decades of progress,” the former Democratic presidential nominee declared.  I used to worry that they [the Republicans] wanted to turn the clock back to the 1950s. Now I worry they want to turn it back to the 1850s.”

On the one hand I’m tired of seeing this old hag with her scowling face on TV.  On the other hand, it’s great having HRC weigh in on any issue.  She is a destructive force to the feral left and will only push more people right.  So he wants to turn the courts back to the way the Democrats liked it?  Slavery huh?

One thing she is right about is that President Trump does want to shift the balance of the courts, and his decisions will remain intact for decades.  She’s wrong, as per usual, on the intent, and this isn’t turning back progress at all, just setting things as they always should have been.  Tyler O’Neil over at PJ Media has a great article that goes more in depth on this.  But the Supreme Court should never be dictating law or driving change.  You shouldn’t be able to predict how the Supreme Court will vote on every case before it’s even heard.  The fact that you can predict a 5-4 outcome on so many issues has been a problem for a long time.  President Trump is looking to fill the Supreme Court that will respect what the intent of the Constitution represents as it was written by our Founding Fathers.  Not this “living document” nonsense where you can bend it to mean whatever you want to further whatever social change you want.  Only a sociopath like HRC could think they’d actually try and bring back slavery.

The Kennedy retirement should bode well for 2A preservation

There are a lot of issues to discuss regarding Justice Kennedy’s upcoming retirement, which we will over the course of the next few weeks.  Justice Kennedy was a moderate conservative and often times the swing vote in very close cases, including those for gay rights and abortion.  With him gone, many on the feral left are freaking out.  Another area, which has been largely ignored by the Supreme Court in general, is the issue of gun control.  Via the Huffington Post:

There has been a lot of speculation about why the five court conservatives, including Kennedy, have not reviewed any of the lower court cases upholding various gun restrictions. The most common theory is that neither the four conservatives other than Kennedy, nor the four liberals, knew how Kennedy was going to vote.

Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor, and author of one of the most important books ever written on the Second Amendment, Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in Americaspeculated in 2014 that among the other justices that “there must be some concern about the way Kennedy is going to go” in future gun cases. Well, that concern is now moot.

And:

The Supreme Court has only ruled in favor of an individual right to own guns in two decisions, and in neither one did Kennedy write his own opinion. He did, however, make up one of the five votes in both 2008’s D.C. v. Heller, and 2010’s McDonald v. City of Chicago. Both cases invalidated complete bans on possessing handguns in each city. The Supreme Court has not, however, returned to the Second Amendment since McDonald was decided, despite thousands of lower court cases wrestling with the balance between the right to keep and bear arms and public safety.

So it looks like he begrudgingly upheld 2A in two cases, didn’t write an opinion piece on either, and the Supreme Court was afraid to review anymore 2A cases because they weren’t sure how he would vote.  This is all a moot point now with him gone.  President Trump will surely nominate someone much more conservative and pro 2A.  And with the changes to how one can be nominated by a simple majority rather than 60 votes, so long as President Trump nominates before any potential changes at the mid-term elections he should be able to get in whomever he wants.

This bodes well for America.  Pro-Western men need to constantly remind themselves that we are dealing with children on the left.  You need to drag them kicking and screaming to truth and what is right.  Treat them how you would treat your children.  You wouldn’t let your children stay up all hours of the night and eat candy just because they wanted to.  No.  The same goes here.  Even though they will not like it, the changes we are trying to make will benefit them just as much as they benefit us.

This is another reason I abhor “never-Trumpers” like little Ben Shapiro.  Supreme Court Justice nomination was the most important election issue of all, with immigration reform a close second.  With President Trump’s nomination this will cement a majority conservative Supreme Court for decades to come.  Especially considering one or two other leftist Justices will likely be retiring soon, it is game over at the Supreme Court level for some time.  And that is great for everyone.