President Donald J. Trump

[K_Dubb]

The Left has been quite successful in constructing a two dimensional caricature of Conservatives - for example anyone opposed to a massive, bureaucratic government is 1) for no government at all, and 2) is racist.  Anyone who thinks taxes are too high is ''for'' the rich and doesn't care about people.  Anyone against abusive regulations is in favor of corporate misconduct, dirty air, dirty water, etc.  Anyone against any element of the gay agenda is ''homophobic''.  On and on it goes.

So of course when Conservatives state the need for new Amendments to rein in the federal government, our insistence on strict construction is brought up as a contradiction.  If we had been following the Constitution all along instead of undermining it - including judicial activism - we wouldn't need new Amendments to rein it in.  The proposed Amendments return us to original intent, and strengthen it.

Goodness, it doesn't take a devious Leftist caricature to see the contradiction; all you need is a healthy sense of irony.  I haven't seen any response to Levin's idea from the evil Leftists, probably because, whatever its merits, it is an escapist fantasy like so much of what passes for political discussion on the Right.

[CozyRozie]

Mr. President there is a message for you.

"Moscow warns Washington against ‘incendiary, provocative action’ in Syria"
Published time: 28 Jun, 2017 15:02

https://www.rt.com/news/394412-russia-us-syria-attack/

*Moscow has warned the US against taking unilateral action in Syria, as there is no threat from the Syrian military, Russia’s Foreign Ministry said.
The statement comes after the US accused Syria of preparing for a chemical attack, without giving any evidence.
Asked if Russia had warned the US administration against any unilateral action in Syria, Russia’s deputy foreign minister, Gennady Gatilov, replied that Russian officials have “always spoken about that, including in relation to their [US] latest strikes on Syrian armed forces.”

“We believe that it’s unacceptable and breaches Syria’s sovereignty, isn’t caused by any military need, and there is no threat to the US specialists from the Syrian Army. So it’s incendiary, provocative action,” Gatilov said, as cited by RIA Novosti.

On Monday evening, the White House claimed that Syrian President Bashar Assad was preparing a chemical attack and warned that the Syrian government would “pay a heavy price” if the attack was carried out, as cited by AP.
Hours later, the Pentagon said it had detected activity by the Syrian authorities in preparation for the attack.
Pentagon spokesman Navy Captain Jeff Davis said that the US had seen “activity” at Shayrat airfield that showed “active preparations for chemical weapons use.”

The US government failed to provide any further details or proof of such claims, while the State Department’s spokesperson, Heather Nauert, said it was “an intelligence matter.”*
../more in the link/


..things might get very twisted and something somebody will snap

[Kidnostad3]

Mr. President there is a message for you.

"Moscow warns Washington against ‘incendiary, provocative action’ in Syria"
Published time: 28 Jun, 2017 15:02

https://www.rt.com/news/

*Moscow has warned the US against taking unilateral action in Syria, as there is no threat from the Syrian military, Russia’s Foreign Ministry said.
The statement comes after the US accused Syria of preparing for a chemical attack, without giving any evidence.
Asked if Russia had warned the US administration against any unilateral action in Syria, Russia’s deputy foreign minister, Gennady Gatilov, replied that Russian officials have “always spoken about that, including in relation to their [US] latest strikes on Syrian armed forces.”

“We believe that it’s unacceptable and breaches Syria’s sovereignty, isn’t caused by any military need, and there is no threat to the US specialists from the Syrian Army. So it’s incendiary, provocative action,” Gatilov said, as cited by RIA Novosti.

On Monday evening, the White House claimed that Syrian President Bashar Assad was preparing a chemical attack and warned that the Syrian government would “pay a heavy price” if the attack was carried out, as cited by AP.
Hours later, the Pentagon said it had detected activity by the Syrian authorities in preparation for the attack.
Pentagon spokesman Navy Captain Jeff Davis said that the US had seen “activity” at Shayrat airfield that showed “active preparations for chemical weapons use.”

The US government failed to provide any further details or proof of such claims, while the State Department’s spokesperson, Heather Nauert, said it was “an intelligence matter.”*
../more in the link/


..things might get very twisted and something somebody will snap

The above is the exact response one would expect Russian Television to make.  If another strike is contemplated, the Administration must know that the public will demand more definitive evidence than was presented last time. 

[CozyRozie]

The above is the exact response one would expect Russian Television to make.  If another strike is contemplated, the Administration must know that the public will demand more definitive evidence than was presented last time.

..absolutely correct assumption.

Sorry I gave wrong link, here is proper link to that article in Russia Today.
https://www.rt.com/news/394412-russia-us-syria-attack/

[Up All Night]

More Winning > > >



The specter of a $100 million libel suit scared CNN into retracting a poorly reported story that slimed an ally of President Trump’s â€" and forcing out the staffers responsible for it, The Post has learned.

The cable network’s coverage of Trump transition team member Anthony Scaramucci came amid federal scrutiny of corporate parent Time Warner’s pending purchase by AT&T â€" and the widespread belief among media execs that CNN President Jeff Zucker can’t survive a merger.

CNN immediately caved after Scaramucci, a financier and frequent network guest, cried foul and threatened to take legal action, sources said Tuesday.

http://nypost.com/2017/06/27/cnn-staffers-didnt-resign-over-retracted-story-they-got-fired/

[Gd5150]

I surfed the morning tv news programs today to see how the corporate media is handling the revelations about CNN.  As expected, the subject was given short shrift or not mentioned at all.  They have pretty much gone back to snarky cheap shots delivered with facial expressesions conveying stunned amazement, deep concern or righteous indignation.  The President will never get an even break from these left wing activists and he is right to take it to the people via social media.  Tweet on Donald!

It appears that a massive expression of disapproval of the biased editorial policy and hostile reportage on the part of the more egregious of the offending news outlets in the form of letters to key sponsors threatening a boycott of their products is the only way to rectify the situation.  Choke off the revenue of these propagandists and they will either moderate their coverage or go belly up.  The tactic was used effectively against O'Reily and turnabout is fair play.

If Project Veritas is even mentioned, the medias focus will be, how could this happen? Will charges be pressed against Veritas for trespassing? How can we prevent this from happening again?

Media handled the 30,000 a 60,000 leaked Democrat emails the same way. That party should've been abolished after their racism, cynicism, corruption, was exposed. Instead the fake media focusing on the messenger and how this info was obstained.

Same with the hidden video of planned parenthood selling abortions and body parts like they were pushing full coverage on a rental car. Instead of outrage, the fake media focus was on the messenger.

Of course while the fake leaks about the fake Russian Matter were made, there was no concern for the messenger, or credibility, only the message no matter how far fetched and absurd it seemed.

The medias credibility is circling the drain. How many Dan Rather's and NBC's and CNNs do there have to be before leftwing lemmings wake up.

[ItsOver]

If Project Veritas is even mentioned, the medias focus will be, how could this happen? Will charges be pressed against Veritas for trespassing? How can we prevent this from happening again?

Media handled the 30,000 a 60,000 leaked Democrat emails the same way. That party should've been abolished after their racism, cynicism, corruption, was exposed. Instead the fake media focusing on the messenger and how this info was obstained.

Same with the hidden video of planned parenthood selling abortions and body parts like they were pushing full coverage on a rental car. Instead of outrage, the fake media focus was on the messenger.

Of course while the fake leaks about the fake Russian Matter were made, there was no concern for the messenger, or credibility, only the message no matter how far fetched and absurd it seemed.

The medias credibility is circling the drain. How many Dan Rather's and NBC's and CNNs do there have to be before leftwing lemmings wake up.

There's a lot of slow learners out there in la la land.

[PB the Deplorable]

Goodness, it doesn't take a devious Leftist caricature to see the contradiction; all you need is a healthy sense of irony.  I haven't seen any response to Levin's idea from the evil Leftists, probably because, whatever its merits, it is an escapist fantasy like so much of what passes for political discussion on the Right.

My post was in response to your comment that a Convention of States for the purpose of proposing new Amendments being an odd thing for strict constructionists to be planning.  It seems to me one would first need to be aware of how far we've drifted from the original Bill of Rights, and know what the proposed Amendments would be before deeming it a ''contradiction''.  Plus, now you're aware of the difference between a Convention of States and a Constitutional Convention, and that it's a legitimate Constitutional process.  I'd help you out with a short list of a couple examples of how all but one or two of the first 10 Amendments have been eroded, but I know you aren't really interested.

Anyway, we'll see whether a Convention of States will come about or not.  I think this country is too far gone already and won't have the will and ability to right itself, but we'll see.  I'm happy people are working on it.  I think there're up to something like 12 state legislatures having sighed on, with more to come.

[K_Dubb]

My post was in response to your comment that a Convention of States for the purpose of proposing new Amendments being an odd thing for strict constructionists to be planning.  It seems to me one would first need to be aware of how far we've drifted from the original Bill of Rights, and know what the proposed Amendments would be before deeming it a ''contradiction''.  Plus, now you're aware of the difference between a Convention of States and a Constitutional Convention, and that it's a legitimate Constitutional process.  I'd help you out with a short list of a couple examples of how all but one or two of the first 10 Amendments have been eroded, but I know you aren't really interested.

Anyway, we'll see whether a Convention of States will come about or not.  I think this country is too far gone already and won't have the will and ability to right itself, but we'll see.  I'm happy people are working on it.  I think there're up to something like 12 state legislatures having sighed on, with more to come.

The reflexive assumption that your interlocutor hasn't read the constitution is perhaps the most endearing thing about curmudgeons like you.

[Dr. MD MD]

Goodness, it doesn't take a devious Leftist caricature to see the contradiction; all you need is a healthy sense of irony.  I haven't seen any response to Levin's idea from the evil Leftists, probably because, whatever its merits, it is an escapist fantasy like so much of what passes for political discussion on the Right.

Fantasy?! So, the Clintons and Podestas didn't broker a uranium deal with Russia for which the Clinton foundation received several quid pro quos? The Dems didn't rig the primary for Hillary and fuck over Bernie? They didn't start spreading this bullshit Russia rumor when Hillary's "campaign" started tanking? Either pull your head out of your ass or stick to photoshop.  :

[Up All Night]

Phil Donahue Hits "Elite" Media For Hatred Of Trump:
He's Now Laughing At Press, "Giving Them Middle Finger"

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/06/28/donahue_hits_elite_media_for_hatred_of_trump_hes_now_laughing_at_press_giving_them_middle_finger.html

[21st Century Man]

CNN and the MSM ought to pay attention.  Meister, you too.  He's been quiet of late.  Hope he hasn't killed himself.

Bob Woodward Chides NYT, Mainstream Media: ‘Fair Mindedness is Essential’

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/28/bob-woodward-chides-nyt-mainstream-media-fair-mindedness-is-essential/

[PB the Deplorable]

The reflexive assumption that your interlocutor hasn't read the constitution is perhaps the most endearing thing about curmudgeons like you.

I have no way of knowing what anyone has read.  The important part of reading is to understand the ideas and concepts presented. 

That you confused a gathering of the states to propose Amendments - as spelled out in Article V - with a Constitutional Convention, and think adding Amendments to rein in a federal government that has gotten far beyond the powers it was granted by that Constitution is somehow contradictory to ''strict constructionalism'' suggests that if you've read it, its been awhile.

By the way, how old do you think I am?  How old does one have to be to understand the country is way off track?

[K_Dubb]

I have no way of knowing what anyone has read.  The important part of reading is to understand the ideas and concepts presented. 

That you confused a gathering of the states to propose Amendments - as spelled out in Article V - with a Constitutional Convention, and think adding Amendments to rein in a federal government that has gotten far beyond the powers it was granted by that Constitution is somehow contradictory to ''strict constructionalism'' suggests that if you've read it, its been awhile.

By the way, how old do you think I am?  How old does one have to be to understand the country is way off track?

Haha curmudgeon doesn't imply anything about your age.

Tthe kind of constitutional convention you describe as such, basically 1787 all over again, might as well be called an unconstitutional convention since there is no provision for it in that document.  The conventions in Article V for amendments have been called constitutional conventions ever since I learned about them and on the rare occasions the idea has been covered in the press.  I've never encountered anyone advocating what you mean by that term, but I've no doubt such moon-cows exist.

I wonder if the careful distinction originates with Levin, who made it on Hammity on Monday, provoking my initial observation.  It's a neat little sophistry to make the idea of changing the hallowed text more palatable by contrast.

[21st Century Man]

Haha curmudgeon doesn't imply anything about your age.

Tthe kind of constitutional convention you describe as such, basically 1787 all over again, might as well be called an unconstitutional convention since there is no provision for it in that document.  The conventions in Article V for amendments have been called constitutional conventions ever since I learned about them and on the rare occasions the idea has been covered in the press.  I've never encountered anyone advocating what you mean by that term, but I've no doubt such moon-cows exist.

I wonder if the careful distinction originates with Levin, who made it on Hammity on Monday, provoking my initial observation.  It's a neat little sophistry to make the idea of changing the hallowed text more palatable by contrast.

The point of the Convention of States is to clarify what the Founders meant in our Founding documents and perhaps abolish some later amendments that were added by advocates of a strong central government.  The 14th Amendment should be repealed and possibly rewritten so that it does not interfere with the powers of the states defined in the 10th Amendment. The 16th Amendment should be repealed completely and partially repeal the 26th limiting voters under 21.  If they are involved in National Service  ie the military then they can vote. The rest have to wait until 21.  It would probably be better to wait until 30 or limit voting to property owners but that's just my opinion.

Many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights have been watered down over the years and we no longer abide by them.  Much of the problem is due to how the 14th amendment has been interpreted by the courts. I think a convention of states fixes much of that.  It is risky as I'm sure there could be amendments proposed that I do not favor but we are so far down the rabbit hole, we might as well take a chance.

Unlike Mark Levin,  I find it highly unlikely that such a convention will ever happen but I can dream.

[PB the Deplorable]

Haha curmudgeon doesn't imply anything about your age.

Tthe kind of constitutional convention you describe as such, basically 1787 all over again, might as well be called an unconstitutional convention since there is no provision for it in that document.  The conventions in Article V for amendments have been called constitutional conventions ever since I learned about them and on the rare occasions the idea has been covered in the press.  I've never encountered anyone advocating what you mean by that term, but I've no doubt such moon-cows exist.

I wonder if the careful distinction originates with Levin, who made it on Hammity on Monday, provoking my initial observation.  It's a neat little sophistry to make the idea of changing the hallowed text more palatable by contrast.

That the idiots in the media don't understand the difference either doesn't really mean anything.  I would not expect them to get it right - they can't even simply report the events of the day without embarrassing themselves.

Throughout our history states have gotten together to discuss issues of interest, both regional and national issues.  They didn't call them 'Constitutional Conventions'.  A Constitutional Convention is an open-ended free-for-all to draft a new Constitution.  No one is proposing that, although it is in the interest of those in favor of, or benefitting from a massive wasteful bureaucracy to blur the difference between that and a convention of states.

By the way, I'm not the one describing it.  All I did was copy/paste Article V, which is the Amendment process.  It's straight from the US Constitution.  If you didn't understand it, that's on you.

[PB the Deplorable]

... Unlike Mark Levin,  I find it highly unlikely that such a convention will ever happen but I can dream.

North Carolina votes on it tomorrow, and if it passes they will be the 13th state to do so. 

[PB the Deplorable]

... Tthe kind of constitutional convention you describe as such, basically 1787 all over again, might as well be called an unconstitutional convention since there is no provision for it in that document...

There isn't?  Just to help you out, here is Article V again, in its entirely. 

''The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.''

[K_Dubb]

That the idiots in the media don't understand the difference either doesn't really mean anything.  I would not expect them to get it right.

Throughout our history states have gotten together to discuss issues of interest, both regional and national issues.  They didn't call them 'Constitutional Conventions', and they weren't typically discussing Amendments.  A Constitutional Convention is an open-ended free-for-all.  No one is proposing that, although it is in the interest of those in favor of, or benefitting from a massive wasteful bureaucracy to blur the difference.

By the way, I'm not describing it, I copy/pasted the Article V Amendment process.  All I did was then point out the two different ways it states Amendments can be added.  So, straight from the US Constitution.  If you didn't understand it, that's on you.  And no, the Constitution doesn't call it a Convention of States.  It just sets out the steps to be taken.  It's being called a Convention of States by the current proponents because that's what it is, and to differentiate it from a Constitutional Convention - which is a misnomer.

God, you are tiresome.  This isn't a question of comprehension but of your trying to impose a modern, ahistorical semantic distinction which detracts not a whit from my point, viz. that the desire to tinker with the Constitution is by no means restricted to the Left.

[K_Dubb]

There isn't?  Just to help you out, here is Article V again, in its entirely. 

''The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.''

You missed the two little words "as such".  Restated, the thing you are calling a Constitutional Convention... 

[albrecht]

God, you are tiresome.  This isn't a question of comprehension but of your trying to impose a modern, ahistorical semantic distinction which detracts not a whit from my point, viz. that the desire to tinker with the Constitution is by no means restricted to the Left.

I wonder if even the Constitution is legit anymore, as post-wars, "rebellions," expansions of Federal authority, and certainly Court and Executive aggrandizement and decisions. "When in the course of human events...."  time?  I was always more comfortable with the Articles.

[K_Dubb]

I wonder if even the Constitution is legit anymore, as post-wars, "rebellions," expansions of Federal authority, and certainly Court and Executive aggrandizement and decisions. "When in the course of human events...."  time?  I was always more comfortable with the Articles.

Haha for an irrelevant document it sure gets a lot of citations around here.

[albrecht]

Haha for an irrelevant document it sure gets a lot of citations around here.

"Thing," or "issues" folks should be worrying about:
www.federalregister.gov
Open borders
And almost two decades of war (s) and sucide rates (and 'family annihilation' crmes) at record pace
Islam
technological job displacement

[PB the Deplorable]

God, you are tiresome.  This isn't a question of comprehension but of your trying to impose a modern, ahistorical semantic distinction which detracts not a whit from my point, viz. that the desire to tinker with the Constitution is by no means restricted to the Left.

I would suggest what is tiresome is you pretending this process is not valid, is not a provision in Article V, and is really an attempt to draft a new Constitution.

Why do you think the Framers put a provision for the states to bypass the federal government in there, if not to be used as an escape hatch when DC is off the rails and incapable of fixing itself?  Which is where we are right now. 

[K_Dubb]

I would suggest what is tiresome is you pretending this process is not valid, is not a provision in Article V, and is really an attempt to draft a new Constitution.

Why do you think the Framers put a provision for the states to bypass the federal government in there, if not to be used as an escape hatch when DC is off the rails and incapable of fixing itself?  Which is where we are right now.


I'm surprised to now learn your point is ''the desire to tinker with the Constitution is by no means restricted to the Left''.  I thought your point was this is really an invalid ''Constitutional Convention''.  I'm curious to hear what it is you think the Conservatives are specifically trying to do to ''tinker'' with the Constitution.

Because the Congress, the bureaucracy (with their flood of regulations), and the Courts have been ''tinkering'' with it every single day.  Obama did plenty of ''tinkering''.  Convention of States advocates are proposing the Constitution be restored by using the tools it contains to do so.  Obviously that's going to take stronger language than what was originally included - we have the advantage of 200 years to draw from in identifying where weaknesses are and what can be strengthened.

I think "tinker" is a fair, only slightly pejorative, description of any change to the document.  And, if you will read carefully, the only objection I raised to the changes you proposed was that they were escapist fantasy.  I did not touch on the validity of your Convention of States at all; it is, of course, perfectly valid, however unlikely.

[PB the Deplorable]

"Thing," or "issues" folks should be worrying about:
www.federalregister.gov
Open borders
And almost two decades of war (s) and sucide rates (and 'family annihilation' crmes) at record pace
Islam
technological job displacement

National debt
Healthcare
Education
Dishonest corrupt journalism
Russia, China, North Korea, Iran
Our cities, infrastructure, the overall condition of the underclass
Continuing growth of government and it's intrusion into our lives

[PB the Deplorable]

... escapist fantasy...

There's certainly plenty of that going around.  There are people who's lives for the last six months revolved around reading about and looking forward to Trump's removal for ''colluding with the Russians''.

[Meister_000]

See the linked (new and shocking) NRA propaganda vid.
These are "sweet lil innocent victim peace-loving Conservatives" -- as PB (et al) would like us to believe --  spreading hate, fear, and lies (about the left, "bullying and terrorizing the law abiding") unrest, and essentially a call-to-arms/inciting violence,  to "fight for (fake) Truth". i.e. Prepare (prep), buy a gun today, be ready to kill (those who oppose "our" truth and our "thruth-telling" President-leader) -- "fight this violence of lies". The NRA is your "Safe space". Sweet girl! Sweet Right-Wingers/Conservatives/Republicans/Trumpkins. She/they (NRA) were all over the most recent CPAC convention btw. Once upon a time they were supposedly the voice of "responsible gun ownership" -- the mask is off now!

https://twitter.com/JeffSharlet/status/880210733065261060

[GravitySucks]

See the linked (new and shocking) NRA propaganda vid.
These are "sweet lil innocent victim peace-loving Conservatives" -- as PB (et al) would like us to believe --  spreading hate, fear, and lies (about the left, "bullying and terrorizing the law abiding") unrest, and essentially a call-to-arms/inciting violence,  to "fight for (fake) Truth". i.e. Prepare (prep), buy a gun today, be ready to kill (those who oppose "our" truth and our "thruth-telling" President-leader) -- "fight this violence of lies". The NRA is your "Safe space". Sweet girl! Sweet Right-Wingers/Conservatives/Republicans/Trumpkins. She/they (NRA) were all over the most recent CPAC convention btw. Once upon a time they were supposedly the voice of " responsible gun ownership" -- the mask is off now!

https://twitter.com/JeffSharlet/status/880210733065261060

Did you even watch the video?  Which part of "closed fist of truth" is troubling for the snowflakes? None of the other things you claim about the video are true. The only violence shown is from your progressive compatriots.

[CozyRozie]

let's call it spade a spade
ANTIFA is their name
violence is their game