Visit Counter

Sunday, September 27, 2020

The difference is night and day


Kamala Harris praises BLM, says ongoing protests are 'essential' for change in US

Harris praised the 'brilliance' and 'impact' of Black Lives Matter


Don't know how we can be any farther apart. I was being facetious using the word we. 

Trump on Friday:




Meanwhile in Insanityville:




Question:

If the stupidity ever came to pass of defunding the police. Who would suffer more whites or blacks?

----------------------------------






Peaceful protests against racial injustice are critical for the nation's progress and help to keep law enforcement in check, Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., said Friday.

"Nothing that we have achieved that has been about progress, in particular around civil rights, has come without a fight, and so I always am going to interpret these protests as an essential component of evolution in our country -- as an essential component or mark of a real democracy," the vice presidential nominee said during the NAACP's national convention.

She added that protests were "necessary" as "the people's voices must be heard, and it is often the people who must speak to get their government to do what it is supposed to do, but may not do naturally unless the people speak loudly -- and obviously peacefully."

Harris also praised the "brilliance" and "impact" of "Black Lives Matter," which has received media praise but also come under fire for promoting left-wing stances like opposing the nuclear family. "I actually believe that 'Black Lives Matter' has been the most significant agent for change within the criminal justice system," she said.

Her comments came during mass protests surrounding the deaths of Black Americans like Breonna Taylor, whose case prompted a series of demonstrations earlier this week. While the vast majority of demonstrations -- which began in late May -- have been peaceful, some have resulted in property destruction.

Footage quickly emerged purportedly showing buildings vandalized and burned in Louisville, Ky., after a grand jury decided to indict just one of the officers involved in Taylor's death.

Across the country, violent confrontations during these demonstrations have led to deaths and injuries, including for demonstrators, journalists and police officers. In Louisville, Kentucky, two officers were shot, and subsequently hospitalized, during protests surrounding Taylor's case.

Former Vice President Joe Biden and other Democrats have been criticized for allegedly not doing enough to denounce violent demonstrations, while President's Trump campaign has attempted to tie their statements to on-going riots.




In May, Biden released a statement in which he distinguished between violent and peaceful protests.

“Protesting such brutality is right and necessary. It’s an utterly American response. But burning down communities and needless destruction is not. Violence that endangers lives is not. Violence that guts and shutters businesses that serve the community is not,” the statement read.








Share/Bookmark

Saturday, September 26, 2020

Ginsburg: This ad contradicts her 'dying wish'... Barry and Killary back her up

 



Ginsburg says, “The president is elected for four years, not three years.”

“So the power he has in year three continues into year four,” she adds.

Video 587











Share/Bookmark

Friday, September 25, 2020

One of the headlines today

 




(Can't believe this. What are we Venezuela?)



This is how Trump answered the dissension on whether or not he would commit to a peaceful transfer of power.

Video 586


To piss them off even more...


Trump needs to fill the SC seat. This election is going to be wrought with voter fraud... the worst in our history! It's going to take a l-o-n-g time to sort out what ballots are good, from those that are fraudulent. I fully expect it to ultimately wind up in the SC and we damn sure don't need a 4-4 tie!

The best outcome Trump wins in a landslide but even then the Dems will suddenly find truck loads of 'lost ballots' that weren't counted. Watch and see.








Share/Bookmark

Thursday, September 24, 2020

And she hasn't even been nominated yet...



Media assault on Amy Coney Barrett begins as Trump weighs decision


The liberal site Refinery 29 called Barrett “the Potential RBG Replacement Who Hates Your Uterus.” Yes, that would be a reference to her pro-life views. But Barrett and her husband have seven children, including one she carried to term after learning he would have Down’s syndrome, and two adopted from Haiti.

(Really sounds like a terrible person...doesn't it?)

Remember when Kagan and Sotomayor were appointed. They didn’t go through anything near what Gorsuch and especially Kavanaugh went through.

Oh…and if they’re going to pound her for her Catholic faith (I'm Catholic) wonder how many dumbass Catholics out there who will still vote Democrat?


Meet her replacement:


What's more concerning... Amy or these two?




---------------------------




Barrett is clearly the front-runner, having spent a second straight day at the White House as the president moves toward his Saturday announcement.

Howard Kurtz 2 hours ago



A media campaign has erupted against Amy Coney Barrett, even though President Trump hasn’t actually nominated her to the Supreme Court.

Barrett is clearly the front-runner, having spent a second straight day at the White House as the president moves toward his Saturday announcement. And of course there should be substantial scrutiny of her record if she’s picked, given that replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a lifetime appointment.

But there are early signs this is going to be ugly, and that her religion will be front and center. That subject came up in 2017 when the Senate approved her as a federal appeals court judge in Chicago.

Newsweek jumped on the judge with a smear that turned out to be factually wrong.

Barrett is a devout Catholic, and the magazine described her (as previous profiles have) as a member of People of Praise, “the charismatic Christian parachurch organization, which was founded in South Bend, Indiana in 1971, teaches that men have authority over their wives. Members swear a lifelong oath of loyalty to one another and are expected to donate at least 5 percent of their earnings to the group.”

So she should be disqualified because of her religious affiliation? Isn’t that the essence of anti-Catholic prejudice?

Newsweek went a step further and invoked Margaret Atwood’s novel, “The Handmaid’s Tale,” “where women’s bodies are governed and treated as the property of the state under a theocratic regime.”

Uh, but Newsweek, in its zeal, tied the novel to the wrong group. Its correction:

“This article's headline originally stated that People of Praise inspired 'The Handmaid's Tale'. The book's author, Margaret Atwood, has never specifically mentioned the group as being the inspiration for her work. A New Yorker profile of the author from 2017 mentions a newspaper clipping as part of her research for the book of a different charismatic Catholic group, People of Hope. Newsweek regrets the error.”

As National Review puts it, “the attacks over the last few days have been steeped in anti-Catholicism, other types of bigotry, and lazy error.”

The liberal site Refinery 29 called Barrett “the Potential RBG Replacement Who Hates Your Uterus.” Yes, that would be a reference to her pro-life views. But Barrett and her husband have seven children, including one she carried to term after learning he would have Down’s syndrome, and two adopted from Haiti.

As for those who see her as a threat to Roe v. Wade, the New York Times noted that in 2016, Barrett “said that the core holding of Roe v. Wade was that women had the right to an abortion, and that was not likely to change in the future, but how states restrict abortion might. ‘I think the question of whether people can get very late-term abortions, you know, how many restrictions can be put on clinics, I think that would change,’ she said.”

Barrett is a onetime Antonin Scalia clerk with impeccable legal credentials. But there was a moment at her confirmation hearings that became a rallying cry for the Christian right. It was when Dianne Feinstein cited her Catholic beliefs as giving many on the Democratic senator’s side “this very uncomfortable feeling,” adding: “The conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you.”

Judges are supposed to rule based on their reading of the law--Barrett is a “textualist”--and not their religious beliefs. But why is there an automatic assumption that she would do that? Joe Biden is a committed Catholic, and as a matter of public policy he supports abortion rights.

Jonathan Turley, the George Washington University law professor who testified against the Trump impeachment, writes in the Hill that “the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also was religious. She publicly declared: ‘I am a judge, born, raised and proud of being a Jew. The demand for justice, for peace and for enlightenment runs through the entirety of Jewish history and Jewish tradition.’ She noted that she was the only justice to have a mezuzah affixed to her office door…

Ginsburg regularly studied and attended conferences on Jewish religious law. She often discussed how she insisted the traditional certificates reading ‘the year of our Lord’ be changed as unacceptable for Jewish lawyers. She was right, of course, but her references to faith did not make her a religious zealot.”

Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin agrees that certain arguments are out of bounds. “I'm Catholic, okay,” he told Fox News. “And religion should not enter into it. It sure doesn't with me."

Obviously, there’s going to be a huge political battle over Barrett or any other Trump nominee. Gone are the days when Ginsburg, Bill Clinton’s nominee, could by confirmed by a vote of 96-3, or Ronald Reagan’s nominee Scalia could be confirmed 98-0. (I remember that well, since I covered the Scalia hearings.)

Liberal lawyer Jill Filipovic writes on NBC’s website that “it would be such an insult to Ginsburg's life and her work to appoint a judge like Barrett: someone who is happy to take advantage of the opportunities her predecessors created, who is smart enough to grasp how she got where she did and is nonetheless reactionary enough to help burn RBG's legacy to the ground.”

But that’s why we have elections. I’d much prefer to see even a fierce ideological debate over Barrett and not a religious one.






Share/Bookmark

Wednesday, September 23, 2020

October confirmation hearing

 







Share/Bookmark