Friends, DJT is exulting in his big win at the Supreme Court, which ruled unanimously that Colorado cannot unilaterally invoke the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause to strike him from the ballot. The three liberal Justices were a bit peevish in their concurrence, but basically they agreed that it would be sheer chaos if every state, and every judge, in the country can craft its, or his, or her, own rationale for who's an "insurrectionist" and who isn't. No doubt today a lot of Dems and lefties are looking like deer caught in the oncoming headlights of a tractor trailer. Well, don't say we didn't warn you! Now, will this end attempts to win the 2024 election by alternative means? No way. All the court cases against Trump are still alive, as far as I know, and we can't rule out other maneuvers, like canceling the election, declaring martial law, assassinating Trump, the intimidation or bribery of Trump electors, passing laws at the state level designed to prevent the election of "felons" (which Trump will soon be), etc. I would still be (pleasantly) surprised if Trump were allowed to win the election and become president again, but at least the Supreme Court is on record that the American people ought to have some say in the matter. And, BTW, I'm genuinely SHOCKED that the three liberal Justices concurred in the opinion. That took real courage. They are going to get some cold stares at the next D.C. cocktail party.
https://www.npr.org/2024/03/04/1230453714/supreme-court-trump-colorado-ballot
In other news, SCOTUS will also be taking up Texas' new law designed to criminalize, at the state level, illegal immigration. That will be interesting. Previously, the high court has always held that immigration policy is a federal prerogative. Will anything change now that we have bedlam at the border...and a 6-3 conservative majority on the court? Maybe. Maybe not.
Michelle Obama has been the GREAT BLACK HOPE to which many a lefty has clung as Sleepy Joe descends into obsolescence. She is now making her position clear: she will not be running for president, and supports Biden and Kam-Kam. Oh, the humanity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's just a small state, but it gives Trump extra momentum as he heads into Super Tuesday. I'm referring to Trump's massive win in the North Dakota caucuses. One wonders whether, after today, Nikki Haley will finally see the writing on the wall? Relatedly, will she pivot to a different kind of presidential run? Maybe a prolonged flirtation with the No Labels folks, at the very least?
Finally, Taylor Swift broke Joe Biden's heart yesterday. No, she didn't refuse to go on a date with him. She omitted any mention of Biden, or the Democrats, or indeed any political controversy, as she urged her legions of Swifties to vote. Swift's (potential) endorsement won't amount to a hill of beans in '24, if you ask me, but you can see why our octogenarian president sorely wants it. Is Swift smart enough to demure, and to keep her brand squeaky clean rather than sullying it with old man stink? We shall see. (That's no offense to all the old men reading this blog, which I think is about 95% of my audience. YOU have a delightful Trumpy musk to you, whereas Old Man Joe smells like socialism, which is, so I'm told, a mixture of the aromas of boiled cabbage and cigarette smoke.)
Dr. Waddy from Jack: I think the three lawless justices simply beat a sullen retreat; they knew what was coming, its just what they would have done had they been in a Hillary appointed tribunal; "too bad, elections have consequences". They fronted skillfully during the hearings. (Slick Willy taught far leftists how to survive by "preemption" :"wah shore, ah've alluz bin a small govmint man!" For incipient totalitarians, their's is a lonely perch these days. Marxists are capable of a kind of courage; history shows it but they are bereft of the moral courage and generosity to admit that they are inspired by the worst political doctrine ever forced on humanity.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: I disagree with the byline in the USA today referring to the "blind hatred "of the left for DJT. I think their intense hostility, their increasingly desperate resolve to deny him executive power, is very clear headed. They know he is their Nemesis (the ancient Greek semideity who, when directed by the gods, took to absolutely inexorable harrying, unto complete destruction, of those unfortunates so condemned). They know he knows them; they know he is not intimidated by them and that their personal onslaught on him and the America he champions has fostered in him a grim determination to stop them from punishing and forcefully "fundamentally transforming " an America which does not need their presumptuous salvation , thank you! They know he is a canny street fighter perfectly willing to get as down and dirty, as openly contemptuous of the opposition, as they have long since resolved to be in order to impose their ways. Today he referred to the Kalifornia governor as "Newscum". "Oh how crude, we are shocked . . . shocked!" So lament those who celebrated the tenure of the most insouciantly obscene person ever to pollute our Oval Office ,from '92 - 2000. I do not gainsay those decent people who wish DJT would be more temperate in his pithy characterization of his opponents but politics is hard, hard sport. The antiamerican left came to this realization 60 years ago.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Socialism as forced on humanity in the 20th century also reeked of the (as Churchill said)"cold light of the execution yard" and its attendant corporal stench.
ReplyDeleteFROM Ray
ReplyDeleteWasn't there actually a Corporal Etienne Stench who commanded a firing squad during the French Army Mutiny in 1917? Oops sorry, you mean the stench of dead bodies. Would large amounts of febreze have helped to prevent the early decay of dead bodies after an execution?
Jack, it seems to me that the three leftist SCOTUS Justices could have found a handy pretext, if they'd wanted to: they could have said that the Colorado Supreme Court acted rightly, because Trump is objectively an insurrectionist. Ergo, they could have found that, in effect, any court that HADN'T thrown Trump off the ballot was in breach of the Constitution, rather than Colorado. They could have asserted all this -- nonsense, I grant you -- and been applauded for it by the Left. So why didn't they? That I can't quite figure out. A sense of fairness, you say? When did a liberal judge ever have one of those?
ReplyDeleteHmm. Is the Left's visceral hatred of Trump rational? You're right that he embodies much of what they despise, but most of their mortification stems from symbolism rather than substance, if you ask me. Trump offends them, yeah, but does he effectively advance the cause of the GOP and conservatism? At the Supreme Court, sure, but in any other sense? Seems to me that the political, cultural, and economic Left have all THRIVED ever since 2016... Seems to me that wokeness infects the American psyche, and our major institutions, now more than ever. Seems to me that the Left did a fine job of tying DJT in knots for four years when he was president -- and actually profiting from his predicament. So why assume that a second term for Trump would be the progressive END OF DAYS??? I don't get it. It's understandable, sure, but I'm not convinced it's truly rational.
Ray, for once, I am in a position to resolve your query definitively: YES, Febreze CAN hide the stench of a rotting corpse. Plan your next trip to the grocery store accordingly.
https://nypost.com/2021/01/31/chelsea-actor-may-have-used-febreeze-on-moms-corpse-before-he-died/
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Well, the deluge has engulfed the Haley campaign.Now what? She's young and there will be opportunity yet for her if she gets with the program and endorses DJT. If she makes a sincere and generous case of it she could bring on board some inveterate DJT opponents in the GOP and rake in some IOUs for future use. The VP choice must have this one all important reason; that is winning in November and derailing the antiamerican left's totalitarian train. (Gads who knows how things may be in 2028?). Would choosing her serve this end? In the past I have thought this VP choice may be the standard bearer in 2028. Might be but the future is now. My thought is: pick an unassailable candidate like Tim Scott or Greg Abbot. It's too bad that Haley puts in mind thoughts of futile accomodation with the dems. I understand she was one of the founders of the Tea Party which, I think, played a major role in keeping hatefully vindictive Hillary in Westchester Co.doing chardonnay and avoiding her unctuous "husband".
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: This would be a very much more experienced and chastened DJT. He has experienced the full effect of the totalitarian onslaught all of us would suffer if the antiamerican left takes over.But if only as the popular vehicle for the disenfranchisement of a radical faction which exercises truly appalling executive sway now, he must be returned. The lawless Scotus triumvirate is relatively young and unless they resign of hopelessness can be the core of a revanchist antiamerican left rubber stamp tribunal. A restored Pres. Trump would have a good chance to assure the longevity of the present 6-3 majority of lawful Justices. To me, those factors justify supporting this , yes flawed but courageous and patriotic American. If Biden wins, the final radical push will commence with vindictive fury.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: To the reflexive antiamerican left soldiers the lawless Scotus trio are, "fairness" is for "losers". Had they a whiff of accomodationist pollution they would not have survived vetting by the radical cadre empowered by Obama and Biden.I think we must always bear in mind the radical credo " by any means necessary (period!)" I think their votes were purely tactical.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: America can hash out its differences and achieve a modicum of shared purpose but first it MUST send antiamerica packing! If we fail to gain this now very reachable goal, by resolving to back DJT despite some understandable misgivings . . . then abject shame will be the least of our consequent degradations.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: It is reasonable of you to observe that I think that a DJT win would spell the end for the "progressives". I do wax hyperbolic at times. But realistically, I think a DJT win, especially if he brings the Senate with him, could be the beginning of an end for them. Relentless followup would be VITAL; our side would be constrained for its very life to decisively work this perhaps one time advantage. After four years of a much more effective and motivated DJT they might be reeling on the ropes,discredited by their own hubris and ready for political and cultural coup de grace. Too, perhaps, their apparently all consuming hate for DJT just might push them over a self destructive and characteristic emotional edge should they fluff in November. They are a vicious and amoral enemy to America, with only the worst of intentions and to free America from their curse we must beat them into the political gutter. That would take time, unflagging resolution, a willingness to hit them when they are down and above all, unshakeable faith that we have long since been proven right by the antiamerican left's relentless, appalling and all unlooked for onslaught on our civilization since the '60s. If we lose in November, I think we stand to lose all. The neomarxists have made catastrophic inroads in fundamental institutions of our economy, polity, legality , military and culture.The radicals, relieved of their excruciating anxiety over the actual prospect of rejection, inspired and energized by apparent deliverance from their most debilitating fear ever and determined to prevent any recurrence of it, would put their all into an overwhelming drive for final totalitarian triumph.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: The present Scotus majority respects the rule of law . My understanding is that heretofore this Scotus has held immigration law to be the exclusive province of the Federal government. But the Constitution does authorize states to defend themselves against invasion. The legislative intent of this was probably to enable a state, in a time when communication and transportation were much slower, to take unavoidably necessary action. Can a lawful Scotus find in existing law license for a state to act on an issue particularly vital to that state when the Federal government is willfully derelict in its duty in the same? If not, can Scotus lawfully establish such an empowerment? Something has GOT TO GIVE! This stuff smacks of the 1850's, when momentous conflicts were forced into direct confrontation. States like NY and CA may have resigned their statehoods to being ruled by dictators. Not so Texas; Texans will defend their state. The present Federal administration has, with full and obvious purpose, opened the southern border to unlimited ingress.That it has done this out of antiamerican leftist intent to help destroy the integrity of America in preparation for forced "fundamental transformation" is a plausible and thus appalling possibility.It is directly inimical to the security and lawfulness of the southern border states already and the anarchic effects have spread beyond those states. This is a Constitutional crisis I think and Scotus's deliberation and decision will be high but regrettable drama in this remarkable year.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: I understand it to be a fundamental tenet of marxism, derived in part from Hegelian dialectics (thesis vs antithesis - resulting in synthesis) that history is a progression of societal, "contradictions" caused by inevitable conflicts. Lenin advanced the nifty notion of causing such dysfunction, rather than waiting, since, after all, science proves it inevitable. Neo marxism-leninism is a terribly major factor in American civilization, even despite its catastrophic discreditation in the 20th Century. In daring to impose this centrifugal mayhem, this, yes, INVASION, the antiamerican left has taken a huge and revealing step toward fomenting the chaos from which it expects to emerge the totalitarian "savior".
ReplyDeleteJack, as you say, Haley is somewhat hard to read. She's got a long and complicated history in GOP and conservative politics, and her ideological vantage point in '24 wasn't any easier to discern. I think it boils down to style. Trump's boisterous populism grates on people like Haley, and they desperately want him to go away. Would putting her on the ticket help the ticket? Yes, but only if Haley swallows her pride and truly supports and backs up DJT. I'm not sure she can do that. Her untimely exit as UN Ambassador suggests as much.
ReplyDeleteOh, I totally agree: one doesn't have to love Trump to support him in '24, or to wish him well. The alternative is bad enough that one hardly forgive conservatives and patriots from clinging to any life preserver they can find. Whatever Trump's faults may be, he's amply capable of slowing down the Left's march to totalitarian dominion. Whether he's capable of reversing it I rather doubt.
Hmm. Some vote trading may indeed be in play with the decision of the three liberal Justices to aid in reinstating Trump's ballot access. Maybe the conservatives on the court will return the favor by quashing Trump's claims to immunity from prosecution?
Could a Trump win be the beginning of the end for the Left? I'll believe it when I see it. For one thing, deliverance won't be at hand until we win back at least one of our key institutions: the media, the bureaucracy, the education establishment, Hollywood, social media, corporate America, etc. Just one would be nice!!!
Personally, I find talk of an "invasion" hyperbolic and, in any case, legally hollow. A flow of migration that is, say, twice what it was at its height when Trump was president isn't suddenly an "invasion". It's an intensification of a political problem that's been around for decades -- and which both Republican and Democratic presidents have failed to tame. That doesn't mean that Texas is powerless, mind you. It just means that any claim that an invasion is ongoing is unlikely to help matters. In fact, the more the country faces an "emergency", the more presidential/federal power is likely to be enhanced, not diminished.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: After, I think, El Alamein ,Churchill said"ehh, this not the end , it is not even the beginning of the end but it may be the end of the beginning". An appreciation of this remark must include knowledge of Churchill's almost unbroken belief that Britain would win. We must embrace a similar confidence in order to muster the resolve needed to defeat the incipient "american "totalitarians. They have made appalling "progress" , yes; they have begun the cold civil war with harrowing inroads on America's fundamentals but they have not been able to close the deal. Let's look to the task at hand, which is to win in November . That done, as it SURELY can be, let America face the assured consequent onslaught of the viciously vindictive anarchists. Taking it one step at a time, let's hold our own for the first two years, stop the runaway train of neomarxist destruction and work the true end of the beginning by putting them on the defensive. From there, the beginning of the end may be drawn within sight. How terrible to think that our very country has fostered such a traitorous faction but it must be faced squarely,as was the threat of the monstrous 20th century dictatorships. To relent is to ensure defeat. We must believe that America can be saved and is worth saving!
ReplyDeleteThat's a good point, Jack. Moping never saved anyone or anything. A lot of conservatives -- me included -- spend way too much time feeling sorry for themselves, and for America. We can, in fact, turn this thing around. It may not be easy, and it may not be likely, but it is possible.
ReplyDelete