by Andrew C. McCarthy April 26, 2017 National Review Online
A federal judge suspended Trump’s unenforced ban on funding for sanctuary cities. A showboating federal judge in San Francisco has issued an injunction against President Trump’s executive order cutting off federal funds from so-called sanctuary cities. The ruling distorts the E.O. beyond recognition, accusing the president of usurping legislative authority despite the order’s express adherence to “existing law.”
Moreover, undeterred by the inconvenience that the order has not been enforced, the activist court — better to say, the fantasist court — dreams up harms that might befall San Francisco and Santa Clara, the sanctuary jurisdictions behind the suit, if it were enforced. The court thus flouts the standing doctrine, which limits judicial authority to actual controversies involving concrete, non-speculative harms.
Although he vents for 49 pages, Judge William H. Orrick III gives away the game early, on page 4. There, the Obama appointee explains that his ruling is about . . . nothing. That is, Orrick acknowledges that he is adopting the construction of the E.O. urged by the Trump Justice Department, which maintains that the order does nothing more than call for the enforcement of already existing law.
Although that construction is completely consistent with the E.O. as written, Judge Orrick implausibly describes it as “implausible.” Since Orrick ultimately agrees with the Trump Justice Department, and since no enforcement action has been taken based on the E.O., why not just dismiss the case? Why the judicial theatrics?
READ it HERE
Kate Walsh O'Beirne, 1949-2017
Remembering Kate O’Beirne - An intelligent and cheerful soul
by John O'Sullivan April 24, 2017 National Review
When the late Robert Bork was received into the Catholic Church only a few years ago, his two godparents were Kate O’Beirne and me. He was amused enough by this to say to Kate that he felt that he was becoming an Irish Catholic rather than a Roman Catholic.
“Beware the sin of pride, Bob,” responded Kate. Almost everyone who knew Kate from National Review, the Heritage Foundation, the Washington media world she all-too-briefly dazzled, or in her earlier life as an Army wife and lawyer, can tell some such story of her quick spontaneous wit and engaging laugh. If she had wished, she could have been a stand-up comedian — a kind of very cleaned-up conservative anti-feminist Amy or Samantha — but with substance, an intent to amuse and instruct rather than to wound and defeat, and enough talent to start a very different stand-up trend.
Kate’s wit and sharpness were an important part of her appeal to conservatives. We get so used to seeing our champions floored by non-sequiturs and platitudes that it’s an enormous relief when one comes along who can more than hold her own with the best of enemies. I never felt nervous on Kate’s behalf when she was on a platform or a television talk show defending some difficult point of conservative theory or Republican folly. I had seen her win too many arguments on NR cruise panels (against me on too many occasions) to doubt her ability to kill a fallacy with an epigram and to leave her defeated opponent laughing. I would sometimes watch her husband, Jim O’Beirne, when she was speaking to see how he was reacting. He always looked supremely relaxed.
Much of this ability was down to the fact that Kate was both highly intelligent and well-prepared. She had a deep hinterland of legal, historical, political, and religious knowledge. She thought hard about the topics of the day before appearing on TV to discuss them. And she never let her side down. But many people do as much and still flounder. Kate had that X-factor ability to make a complicated truth understandable and a stern test appealing. I think that’s God-given. And Kate didn’t let the gift go to waste.
Kate was a serious and devout Catholic, but she was also the kind of believer who shocks the puritan souls of non-believers by being able to joke about the faith and the faithful. I remember once that she mentioned that some NR cruisers in Rome were making a side-trip to see Padre Pio.
“He’s rumored to be able to see directly into your soul,” she said. “Are you going, John?” Kate’s wit and sharpness were an important part of her appeal to conservatives. “Er, well, I’ve got a very crowded program, Kate, and er . . . ” “No, I’m not going either,” she said very firmly, before bursting out laughing. READ HERE
May 01, 2017 | By Christopher Caldwell, The Weekly Standard
If Britain winds up leaving the European Union, it will be the doing of a woman who was not even publicly identified with the cause when voters approved the referendum for “Brexit" 10 months ago. This week Conservative prime minister Theresa May called a general election for June 8. It will determine whether she can pull off the exit.
One of the wiser observations about politics in this populist age was made by Trump adviser Steve Bannon in February. "If you think they're going to give you your country back without a fight," he said, "you are sadly mistaken." The identity of "they" may vary from country to country but the fight is the same: Brexit=Trump. The British citizens who thought they had won the right to leave the European Union were not quite correct. They had won the right to fight over the matter with their almost unanimously pro-EU elites.
Brexit could easily have unraveled. The "Leave" side had the democratic elation, but the "Remain" side held better political cards. There was a very serious difficulty in translating a referendum—which has no legitimacy under Britain's system of parliamentary supremacy—into a law. There was a generously bankrolled public-relations agitation to bully Parliament into calling a second referendum. It was suddenly discovered that regional assemblies and the House of Lords had previously unasserted veto powers. And there was a divided Conservative party, most of whose members were unsympathetic to the democracy movement that had just triumphed. READ HERE
Paul Joseph Watson (3rd HOUR Commercial Free) Wednesday 4/19/17: Interviews GAB Founder Andrew Torba -- discusses his new social media platform for free speech.
By Kyle Olson, American Mirror, April 19, 2017
Are Fox News execs about to hand over the scalp of their ratings king to the smear group Media Matters? (UPDATE: Yes.)
On Wednesday, talk radio host Glenn Beck tweeted an email from the Bonner Group, a leftist fundraising firm that works for Media Matters.
The April 13 email is an invitation to join a briefing call on Media Matters’ campaign against the network’s biggest star.
“Thanks to Media Matters, O’Reilly and Fox News are being held accountable,” the email reads.
“We are currently at a critical juncture in this campaign I hope you can join Media Matters President Angelo Carusone to hear about the success of the campaign so far, and our plans moving forward,” Mary Pat Bonner writes.
She then offers a way for readers to sign up for an “update” call.The email may be the “irrefutable” evidence O’Reilly’s attorney said proves the whole this is a set up.
“Bill O’Reilly has been subjected to a brutal campaign of character assassination that is unprecedented in post-McCarthyist America. This law firm has uncovered evidence that the smear campaign is being orchestrated by far-left organization bent on destroying O’Reilly for political and financial reasons,” Marc Kasowitz said in a statement, according to Mediaite.
While Republicans continue to enact bold reforms that have Wisconsin moving forward, Democrats are in disarray – offering only obstruction and the same, tired policies from yesterday that have resulted in this historic low point for Democrats. Visitors to the site will learn the truth about Democrats in Wisconsin:
- Historic electoral losses going back to 2010
- Senator Tammy Baldwin's scandal at Tomah
- A field of potential gubernatorial candidates dropping out left and right
- Democrats playing games instead of doing their job
Learn more at http://www.democratsindisarray.com/
Daniel Greenfield, Frontpage.com March 27, 2017
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
A civil war has begun.
This civil war is very different than the last one. There are no cannons or cavalry charges. The left doesn’t want to secede. It wants to rule. Political conflicts become civil wars when one side refuses to accept the existing authority. The left has rejected all forms of authority that it doesn’t control.
The left has rejected the outcome of the last two presidential elections won by Republicans. It has rejected the judicial authority of the Supreme Court when it decisions don’t accord with its agenda. It rejects the legislative authority of Congress when it is not dominated by the left.
It rejected the Constitution so long ago that it hardly bears mentioning.
It was for total unilateral executive authority under Obama. And now it’s for states unilaterally deciding what laws they will follow. (As long as that involves defying immigration laws under Trump, not following them under Obama.) It was for the sacrosanct authority of the Senate when it held the majority. Then it decried the Senate as an outmoded institution when the Republicans took it over.
It was for Obama defying the orders of Federal judges, no matter how well grounded in existing law, and it is for Federal judges overriding any order by Trump on any grounds whatsoever. It was for Obama penalizing whistleblowers, but now undermining the government from within has become “patriotic”.
There is no form of legal authority that the left accepts as a permanent institution. It only utilizes forms of authority selectively when it controls them. But when government officials refuse the orders of the duly elected government because their allegiance is to an ideology whose agenda is in conflict with the President and Congress, that’s not activism, protest, politics or civil disobedience; it’s treason. READ the REST
by George Neumayr April 4, 2017 American Spectator.org
Once the story starts hurting, the media drops it.
The media’s biased coverage of Obamagate continues to shift. First, reporters feigned outrage that Trump would dare to say that the saintly Barack Obama had spied on him. Never mind that Trump’s assertion sparked off their own reporting — reports clearly based on criminal leaks from Obama aides spying on Trump. But now reporters are pursuing a new line of attack against Trump, which can be translated as: Yes, Obama spied on you — and good for him. Take a look at this headline from a column at Slate magazine hastily run after the revelation that top Obama aide Susan Rice had snooped on Trump and his associates: “I Hope Susan Rice Was Keeping Tabs on Trump’s Russia Ties.”
Look how far the progressive champions of “civil liberties” have fallen. These are the same liberals who call Nixon a monster for having justified political espionage on specious national security grounds. Could anyone imagine Slate running a column lauding Richard Nixon for spying on Daniel Ellsberg?
How did we find out about Susan Rice’s role in Obamagate? Not from the mainstream media at first, but from a pro-Trump blogger named Mike Cernovich, who says he found out about the Rice story from a disgruntled staffer at a publication unwilling to publish it. In other words, he pulled a Matt Drudge. On Sunday night, Cernovich wrote that he had “been informed that Maggie Haberman has had this story about Susan Rice for at least 48 hours, and has chosen to sit on it in an effort to protect the reputation of former President Barack Obama.”
Haberman works at the New York Times. Now that the story is out, what is Haberman tweeting and re-tweeting? One links to a Max Boot tweet, which says, “Are Trump aides breaking the law by rooting around in intel database for political purposes?” Another links to a “meaty explainer” saying that Rice’s spying on Trump was justified. READ it HERE
W is for Who, What Where When & Why -- for the KIDS!
This Tuesday, April 4, residents of Wisconsin have the opportunity to change the direction of education in our state. Never in the history of the state have we had a conservative Superintendent of the Department of Public instruction. Under the leadership of the current Superintendent, Wisconsin has fallen to the WORST in achievement and graduation gaps. That’s right #50 out of 50! We have failed a generation of students in this state.
Here is some information to inform your vote: CLICK HERE
Debate took place at Marquette University Law School, March 30, 2017