Category Archives: Conservatives

Rest in peace, Justice Antonin Scalia

Antonin Scalia

Yesterday, America suffered a grievous loss when Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia — pro-life, Christian, Constitution originalist, conservative in every sense of the word, and a towering intellect — was found dead.

Scalia was a guest at the Cibolo Creek Ranch resort in West Texas, reportedly as part of a private group of about 40 people. When he didn’t appear for breakfast Saturday, someone went to his room to check on him and found him dead.

We are told Scalia died in his sleep on the night of February 12 or in the early morning of February 13, 2016, of natural causes. (New York Post)

Scalia would be 80 years old this March 11. He left a wife, Maureen, and nine children, and a heart-broken nation.

Chief Justice John Roberts said in a statement Saturday afternoon (LifeNews):

“I am saddened to report that our colleague Justice Antonin Scalia has passed away. He was an extraordinary individual and jurist, admired and treasured by his colleagues.  His passing is a great loss to the Court and the country he so loyally served.”

On June 26, 2015, by a razor-thin margin of one, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 5-4 in Obergefell v. Hodges, in favor of the absurd notion of same-sex marriage. Henceforth, homosexual couples must be allowed to marry in every state of the disunion. To give you an idea of what America lost yesterday, here’s the dissenting opinion penned by Justice Scalia:

I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy….

Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best. Individuals on both sides of the issue passionately, but respectfully, attempted to persuade their fellow citizens to accept their views. Americans considered the arguments and put the question to a vote. The electorates of 11 States, either directly or through their representatives, chose to expand the traditional definition of marriage. Many more decided not to. Win or lose, advocates for both sides continued pressing their cases, secure in the knowledge that an electoral loss can be negated by a later electoral win. That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work….

When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so….

But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law. Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its “reasoned judgment,” thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect….

Thus, rather than focusing on the People’s understanding of “liberty”—at the time of ratification or even today—the majority focuses on four “principles and traditions” that, in the majority’s view, prohibit States from defining marriage as an institution consisting of one man and one woman. This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ “reasoned judgment.” A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy….

[T]his Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans19), or even a Protestant of any denomination…. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.

But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003. They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since….  They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their “reasoned judgment.” These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.

The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic…. Of course the opinion’s showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent. “The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.”23 (Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say.) Rights, we are told, can “rise . . . from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.”24 (Huh? How can a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives [whatever that means] define [whatever that means] an urgent liberty [never mind], give birth to a right?) … I could go on. The world does not expect logic and precision in poetry or inspirational pop philosophy; it demands them in the law. The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.

The 5-4 Supreme Court vote actually should be 3-4 because two justices who voted in favor of same-sex marriage, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Elena Kagan, should have recused themselves (or removed by Chief Justice John Roberts) due to conflict of interest, both having performed homosexual marriages.

The four dissenters are John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas — all Catholics. (Read more: “Judicial Tyranny: Dissenting opinions on Supreme Court’s ruling on homosexual marriage”)

Scalia’s death leaves the Supreme Court split 4-4 between conservative and liberal, raising the stakes even higher in this pivotal presidential election year. 

While Obama can nominate a candidate to fill the vacancy, winning confirmation by the Republican-controlled Senate in an election year would be difficult. The communications director for Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, a member of the Judiciary Committee, posted a tweet that said the chances of the Senate approving Obama’s appointment was “less than zero.” (USA Today)

Please pray for the repose of the soul of Antonin Scalia.

To Justice Scalia:

I beseech you, pray for us! Intercede for America and ask God for His mercy on our wretched country.

H/t FOTM‘s MomOfIV

~Eowyn

Obama goes after Social Security recipients’ guns

Obama said that his top priority for his remaining time in office is gun control.

He’s already done it to our military veterans — getting the dysfunctional Veterans Administration to take guns away from veterans deemed “mentally unfit”. (See “Obama regime prohibits disabled veterans from owning firearms and ammunition”)

Now, Obama is extending the same BOHICA “courtesy” to Social Security recipients.

Obama guns

Alan Zarembo reports for The Los Angeles Times, July 18, 2015, that Obama plans to ban millions of Social Security recipients from owning guns, as “part of a concerted effort by the Obama administration after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Conn., to strengthen gun control, including by plugging holes in the background check system.”

For the links to the posts FOTM has published on the Sandy Hook false-flag, go here.

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), with a database of more than 13 million records, is used to prevent gun sales to felons, fugitives, drug addicts, illegal immigrants, domestic abusers, dishonorably discharged service members, and others. The law requires gun stores to run the names of prospective buyers through the computerized background check system before every sale.

Already, Obama’s Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) has expanded the category of “others” to include veterans who are incompetent to manage their pension or disability payments, and are assigned a fiduciary. Conservative groups have denounced the policy as an excuse to strip veterans of their gun rights.

Social Security has never participated in the background check system. Now, Obama means to change that by including some 4.2 million Social Security (SS) recipients who “lack mental capacity” — whose monthly disability payments are handled by others (“representative payees”) due to “marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease.”

Critics — including gun rights activists, mental health experts and advocates for the disable — say that although such a ban would keep people who pose a danger to themselves or others from owning guns, the strategy undoubtedly would also include people who may just have a bad memory or difficulty balancing a checkbook.

Yale psychiatrist Dr. Marc Rosen, who has studied how veterans with mental health problems manage their money, points out that “Someone can be incapable of managing their funds but not be dangerous, violent or unsafe. They are very different determinations.” Rosen said some veterans may avoid seeking help for mental health problems out of fear that they would be required to give up their guns.

Ari Ne’eman, a member of the National Council on Disability (NCD), said the NCD would oppose any policy that used assignment of a representative payee as a basis to take any fundamental right from people with disabilities.

Steven Overman, a 30-year-old former Marine who lives in Virginia, said he “didn’t know the VA could take away your guns” and that his case demonstrates the flaws of judging gun safety by the yardstick of financial competence.

After his Humvee hit a roadside bomb in Iraq in 2007, Overman was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and a brain injury that weakened his memory and cognitive ability, and was deemed 100% disabled by the VA. In 2012, after declaring Overman incompetent and making his wife his fiduciary, the VA reported him to the background check system. So Overman surrendered his guns to his mother and began working with a lawyer to get them back because he enjoys target shooting and has never felt he is a danger to himself or others.

More than a year and a half after Overman filed his challenge, the VA finally lifted its incompetence ruling, allowing his removal from the background check system. Overman, who hasn’t worked since leaving the military, said he and a friend are now thinking of opening a gunsmith business.

In the case of the proposed Social Security Administration policy to take guns from SS recipients, what is even more of a concern is that the agency has been drafting its policy outside of public view.

Even the National Rifle Association (NRA) was unaware of it. Told about the initiative, the NRA issued a statement from its chief lobbyist, Chris W. Cox, saying: “If the Obama administration attempts to deny millions of law-abiding citizens their constitutional rights by executive fiat, the NRA stands ready to pursue all available avenues to stop them in their tracks.”

On April 23, 2015, Rep. Jeff Miller (R-FL) introduced a bill to change the VA’s gun policy. H.R. 2001, the Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act, would require a court to determine that somebody poses a danger before being reported to the background check system. The bill has been referred to the House Committee on Veterans Affairs.

H/t FOTM’s maziel

~Eowyn

Trump & Sanders win 2016 New Hampshire primary

Trump is back in the lead

2016 NH primary GOP

Hillary loses to Sanders by huge 22% margin

2016 NH primary Democrats

May this be the beginning of the end to Hillary Clinton.

HT Glenn47

HT Glenn47

~Eowyn

Republicans Who Will Reinstate The Draft

can·non fod·der – noun
soldiers regarded merely as material to be expended in war

draft-women

Photo from an article in Las Vegas Review Journal

BREITBART: Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie Say Women Must Register For Wartime Emergency

by JORDAN SCHACHTEL | 7 Feb 2016 | Washington, DC

The Republican establishment hopefuls in the 2016 race want the government to make women sign up for the modern version of the emergency military draft…

Read the whole article.


Please note Dr. Eowyn’s article, The biggest Wall Street whores among 2016 presidential candidates are… 

Her article names Bush, Clinton, Cruz and Rubio as the candidates who are most heavily funded by Wall Street and other agenda-driven PACs.

Conclusion:
The candidates most likely to draft our loved ones against their will, are also the ones with the most strings attached to shadowy money sources!

Hmmmm…

University’s mock election predicts Bernie Sanders will be next president

For some years now, Western Illinois University (WIU) has conducted mock presidential elections. Using that simulation, the university claims to have accurately predicted the outcomes of the 2007 and 2011 presidential elections.

According to a press release from the university, from October 20 to November 2, 2015, WIU conducted the largest and most elaborate mock presidential simulation in the U.S., involving thousands of its students, who took part in simulations of the Iowa Caucuses, other state primaries, the Democratic and Republican parties’ nominating conventions, and the Electoral College vote.

WIU mock presidential election

Through those simulations, the participating students determined primary winners and the winning presidential ticket.

And the result?

According to WIU’s third Mock Presidential Election (MPE), the Democratic ticket of Bernie Sanders (president) and Martin O’Malley (vice president) won.

Bernie Sanders is a declared Socialist who only changed his party ID to Democrat in order to run for the 2016 presidency.

Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley

Here’s the breakdown:

  • Democratic Party’s Sanders/O’Malley won more than 400 Electoral College votes and 741 popular votes.
  • Republican Party’s Jeb Bush (president)/Marco Rubio (vice president) got 114 electoral votes and 577 popular votes.
  • Libertarian Party’s Lex Green (president)/Rand Paul (VP) won 159 popular votes.
  • Green Party’s Jill Stein(president)/Peter Schwartzman (VP) got 50 popular votes. See www.wiumpe.com for more information.)

The university’s Centennial Honors College Director Richard Hardy said that “students from every college at Western [Illinois University] and virtually every school and department on campus participated by helping to organize the MPE and attending the sessions.”

The Mock Presidential Election simulation process had been developed by Hardy and John Hemingway, associate professor of Recreation, Park and Tourism Administration, when they were senior teaching assistants for American Government classes at the University of Iowa in the mid-1970s. In 2006, Hardy and Hemingway reconnected at WIU and began organizing the campus-wide Mock Presidential Election events.

For more information, see www.wiumpe.com, or contact Hardy at (309) 298-2228 or RJ-Hardy@wiu.edu.

If WIU’s simulation is correct, I can tell you why:

  1. Millions of registered Republicans did not vote because GOP elites finagled to have Jeb Bush, who has been at the bottom of every opinion poll, be the party’s nominee.
  2. Even more millions of Americans did not vote because they couldn’t vote for Donald Trump. Flawed as he is, Trump is the only candidate who is articulating the frustrations and aspirations of many.

H/t FOTM’s MomOfIV

~Eowyn

The biggest Wall Street whores among 2016 presidential candidates are…

No. 1: Jeb Bush, Republican

No. 2: Hillary Clinton, Democrat

No. 3: Ted Cruz, Republican

No. 4: Marco Rubio, Republican

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Wall Street or the securities and investment industry dominates the campaign contribution money race, having given $102 million to the 2016 presidential candidates and their super PACs.

top 5 industry donors for 2016 presidential candidates

Here’s another clearer graph (source: ZeroHedge):

Wall Street donations to 2016 presidential candidates

Still think there’s a difference between Democrats and Republicans?

Still think Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are for the “little guy”?

Donald Trump has received the least amount of money from Wall Street and, therefore, is the least beholden to Goldman Sachs, et al.

See also:

On January 12, 2016, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act — a bill that would have given Congress the authority to audit the Federal Reserve — fell 7 votes shy of clearing the 60-vote threshold needed to advance out of the chamber. The vote was 53-44.

The 44 senators who voted “No” are all Democrats.

Spearheaded by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), the bill, if passed, would have expanded oversight over the central bank and, for the first time, empowered the Government Accountability Office to audit the Federal Reserve.

This was how the 2016 presidential candidates who are senators voted (source: The Daily Signal):

  • Rand Paul (R-KY), Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) voted “Yes”.
  • Ted Cruz (R-TX) initially said he would vote “Yes,” but ended up not voting.

See also:

~Eowyn

Want to give yourself a 32% pay raise? Get elected to the NY City Council!

In January I told you how the good mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio, backed a plan to give hefty pay hikes to the city’s elected officials — including himself — but with the catch that council members go full-time and give up their lucrative “lulu” bonuses. The caveat for the mayor receiving a pay raise? De Blasio said he would not accept the raise unless elected to a second term in two years.

The plan then also called for the city council members to receive a 23 percent pay raise. But yesterday, they outdid themselves: their pay raise went up by 32 percent.

Bill de Blasio and Speaker Karen/Photo via Weasel Zippers

Bill de Blasio and Speaker Karen Mark-Viverito/Photo via Weasel Zippers

The NY Posts  reports that the members voted on this raise, which was above the recommendations of a salary commission, and there were seven dissenters. Their new salaries will be $148,500, which is $10,000 more than the mayoral-appointed commission had said was justified. Their current salary is $112,500.

The three Republican members, Steve Matteo and freshman Joe Borelli of Staten Island, and Eric Ulrich of Queens, issued a joint statement explaining why they voted no:

“There is a critically important reason the City Charter requires any changes to salaries for elected officials be evaluated and ultimately recommended by an independent body: because there is an inherent and obvious conflict of interest in having to vote oneself a pay raise,” the trio said.

“We felt the salary recommendations made by the Quadrennial Commission were the starting point of a public conversation about our jobs and our compensation. However, once it became clear that the proposed legislation by the Council would go beyond those recommendations, it precluded any potential support from our delegation.”

Forty members voted yes on the measure, including Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito. Her salary will climb to $164,500. She said the extra pay was justified because the commission didn’t take into account one of the Council’s reform measures to greatly restrict outside income.

“We believe that there’s a value that should be added to the loss of that potential outside income. It was a modest amount of $10,000, and that is what we did in terms of that consideration,” she told reporters prior to the vote. “That’s a serious reform that is way overdue and has been demanded of this council over years and possibly decades, and so we’re taking that into account.”

It’s good to be a public servant!

Read the whole story here.

DCG