I think presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump may have just won. When you have a leftist Supreme Court justice speaking out against the Republican candidate, what could be better to unite conservatives?
If there was anything that should convince conservatives and moderates that Trump is the best candidate, it is that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg thinks Trump is so bad that if he is elected she may move to New Zealand.
I know a lot of conservatives who would love to buy that ticket for her, and even send her first class, as long as it was a one-way ticket.
There is not a liberal cause that Ginsburg doesn’t support and not a conservative position that she doesn’t find appalling.
The fact that she would feel so strongly about Trump that she would break the Code of Conduct for federal judges and publicly come out against him is evidence of just how dangerous the left considers him.
Do you think that Ginsburg would have ever spoken out against Jeb Bush?
She didn’t feel the need to speak out against Mitt Romney, Sen. John McCain or George W. Bush. Of course, not a single one of them is conservative or ran a campaign based on changing the direction of this country from its constant swing to the left.
Which brings up a bizarre wrinkle in the Republican Party. Some conservative members of the Republican Party who supported all three Republican presidential candidates listed above are refusing to support Trump because he isn’t a true conservative. But none of those three were true conservatives.
McCain wanted Sen. Joe Lieberman as his running mate, the same man that Al Gore chose.
Romney as governor of Massachusetts supported a healthcare plan very much like Obamacare. It was one of the factors that made him such a poor candidate to oppose the reelection of President Barack Hussein Obama. Republicans across the nation who ran against Obamacare won. Romney had to put so many conditions on his opposition to Obamacare that it didn’t sound like opposition at all.
Neither President Bush was a conservative. They were more conservative than their Democratic opponents, but that’s about it.
But some conservatives are still claiming that they can’t support Trump because he isn’t a true conservative.
They should listen to Speaker Paul Ryan, who told a student that if he’s not supporting Trump then he’s supporting Hillary Clinton. It appears that Ryan has finally made that realization himself.
Ryan also requested that Hillary Clinton not be given the security briefings customarily given to presidential candidates because she has proven that she can’t be trusted to keep classified information properly.
The request was turned down by the National Security Administration. With Obama in the White House, Hillary Clinton could post the security briefings on her Facebook page and would still receive security briefings.
Of course, Hillary Clinton would claim that the information was protected because only her “Facebook friends” could see the posts, and all her friends were fine, upstanding people.
The move by Ryan was purely political. Nobody expected anything but rejection. However, the very fact that he is willing to make purely political moves for Trump is a sign that he realizes what is at stake in this election.
In the past, government employees who violated the laws concerning classified information have been vigorously prosecuted by the Obama administration.
Now with Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Jim Comey outlining in detail the crimes committed by Hillary Clinton and then inexplicably saying that she would not be prosecuted – inexplicable unless you consider politics, that is – all those who are charged with similar violations of the espionage laws have a defense.
It’s a heyday for those awaiting trial. All they have to prove is that their crimes were not more serious than the crimes of the former secretary of state and they should not be prosecuted either.
Gen. David Petraeus should ask for a retrial.
The non-indictment of Hillary Clinton probably won’t affect her support among Democrats. They know that Hillary Clinton is a liar who believes she is above the law.
They also know that when in positions of power Hillary Clinton has chosen not to do anything substantial. Even her strongest supporters can’t point to a major accomplishment during her four years as secretary of state.
And they know that she is exceedingly careless. In her big ploy to reset relations with Russia, Hillary Clinton didn’t even bother to find out what the word for “reset” was in Russian. And even without the wrong word, it was a rinky-dink presentation. It reminded me of a middle school skit, but it wasn’t some middle schooler who had dreamed up the presentation the night before. It was supposed to be the crowning moment of the US secretary of state’s tenure in office. It is embarrassing to watch and this is Hillary Clinton’s idea of high-level diplomacy.
But Hillary Clinton’s supporters know all of that about her and support her anyway because they believe the ends justify the means, and if Hillary Clinton is elected she will be able to appoint justices to the Supreme Court that are so liberal it will make the current eight-member court appear conservative.
She won’t have to worry about Congress because the Supreme Court is the body that will make new laws for the country.
Congress can be overruled by the Supreme Court, but nobody currently has the authority to overrule the Supreme Court. The system of checks and balances set up by our founding fathers in the Constitution has gone awry because they never anticipated nine men and women appointed for life making laws and running the country; but it is what we will have if Hillary Clinton gets elected.
Unless the people elect Donald Trump, and appointees to the Supreme Court are men and women who believe in the Constitution, the republic founded 240 years ago will be dead. The country will no longer be ruled by elected officials. It will be no different than countries that are ruled by a military oligarchy, except this will be an oligarchy of judges not generals. But the judges are appointed for life and answerable to no one.
Which brings us back to the non-indictment of Hillary Clinton, though all the evidence is that she should have been indicted for committing numerous felonies. This should serve as a wakeup call to Republicans who are on the fence about Trump. There are only two choices in the election: Trump or Hillary Clinton. One of them will be the next president.
As Ryan said, if you are not for Trump then you are for Hillary Clinton. Republicans don’t have to vote for Hillary Clinton to help her get elected, all they have to do is not vote for Trump.
Obama was reelected in 2012 in part because Mitt Romney ran a horrible campaign and refused to even stand up for himself when faced with the coalition of Obama and CNN during a debate.
Romney failed to make the case to conservatives that they needed to hold their noses and vote for him. As a result, enough conservative voters – including many Christian conservatives – stayed home on Election Day and ensured that Obama would be reelected.
The non-indictment of Hillary Clinton sends a powerful message for what the next 20 years is going to be like if Hillary Clinton is elected. The Democratic elite will have an ever-increasing amount of power and immunity from the laws that govern the country.
The very fact that facing indictment by the Justice Department, Hillary Clinton publicly stated that she might keep Attorney General Loretta Lynch in office after she was elected sends a powerful message of corruption.
Perhaps that’s what Lynch and Bill Clinton talked about in their private meeting – Lynch’s future prospects if Hillary Clinton is elected and how much more difficult that election would be if she were indicted for the crimes the FBI says that she committed. Or perhaps Bill Clinton leaned on her much harder. He didn’t get to be president by being a patsy.
I’m disappointed in Jeb Bush. He was raised better than that.
Nobody likes to lose, and losing a race that people said you had won before it started must be particularly difficult. But Bush should put on his big boy pants and do what he expected Trump to do if Bush had won – support the Republican candidate.
If he can’t do that he should either not say anything about the man who whipped him like a rented mule or he should think of something nice to say. The two are on the same team, whether he likes it or not.
Bush says there is never going to be a wall between the US and Mexico. Perhaps that’s because Bush is going to do everything in his power to help Hillary Clinton win. Of course, everything in his power isn’t much because one thing we know for certain is that voters don’t pay a bit of attention to him.
But who is Jeb Bush to criticize someone for not keeping a campaign promise that they haven’t even had a chance to try and keep? Jeb’s father, George H.W. Bush, ran all over the country when he was running for president saying, “Read my lips. No new taxes.” Then Bush the elder got in office and raised taxes.
It makes you wonder if Jeb Bush thinks his father should not have been president because he didn’t keep his campaign promise.
Find a candidate who kept all their campaign promises and you’ll find a candidate who ran unopposed.
Personally I don’t care whether Trump builds a wall, a fence, a moat or an electronic force field. Something has to be done about illegal immigration.
Certainly the US needs workers from Mexico. Our economy has depended on labor from Mexico for decades. However, we used to have a program where people could enter the country legally, work and go back home.
Now we claim to have a border, but really we don’t because we don’t send people back when they cross illegally; instead, we give them a bus or plane ticket to anywhere they want to go and sign them up for welfare. It’s difficult to see how our country benefits from having people come here to not work but to live off the largess of the taxpayers.
Something needs to be done, and neither Congress nor the president has any interest in doing anything constructive. If they did, it would have been done.
Jeb Bush did make an interesting comment when he wasn’t whining about losing. He said expects Trump to win.
Bush could have said he had no idea who would win, or that the Republican Party was so divided that he didn’t see how Trump could win, but he didn’t. So maybe there is a chance he’ll get over his self-pity and come around.
But you have to take his statement for what it is worth, because Jeb Bush also thought he would win the Republican primary and he dropped out in February after spending over $100 million and not winning anything.
Jeb Bush, like all the other Republican presidential candidates, pledged to support the eventual nominee. This was done because the Republicans were worried that Trump, who no one other than Trump thought would be the Republican nominee, would launch a third-party bid. Trump eventually agreed, like every other candidate, to support the Republican nominee.
If Bush, Gov. John Kasich and others do not endorse Trump when he is the nominee, then they are even bigger liars than most politicians. They will move into the Hillary and Bill Clinton class of liars who come out in public, make statements and then go back on those statements as if they never had any validity.
The fact that folks like Jeb Bush and Kasich are not attending the Republican Convention just emphasizes again what poor losers they are. They shouldn’t blame Trump because the Republican voters chose to vote for him. They should blame themselves, their campaigns and the Republican establishment.
Trump was very beatable early in the primary season. The problem the other candidates had was, with so many splitting the vote, the 25 percent or so who supported Trump gave Trump wins when 75 percent were voting for somebody else.
Primaries are largely about momentum. Trump was receiving far less than a majority of the votes cast, but he was chalking up victories because he was running against 16 other candidates.
If there had been some Republican establishment unity back then, and the number of candidates had been reduced to three, the outcome would likely have been very different. But the Republicans didn’t do that and Trump took advantage of the disunity and lack of trust among mainstream Republicans to launch a populist campaign that caught fire.
Jeb Bush and the other candidates also allowed the debates to be all about responding to Trump. Of course, Trump won every debate. Every debate was about Trump and Trump is better on stage in front of cameras than anyone he faced.
When there is violence at a Trump rally, Trump gets blamed – even when the violence is from those who are protesting against Trump. We are told it’s his language that incites violence.
When police officers are killed at a Black Lives Matter rally – a group that sometimes chants things like, “Fry like bacon, pigs in a blanket” and other phrases that mean kill cops – according to the media and Obama it’s not the fault of Black Lives Matter.
Perhaps the Black Lives Matter protestors don’t really mean that people should kill white cops when they say it, but some people think they do.
Are we supposed to believe that it is a mere coincidence that the police in Dallas were killed at a Black Lives Matter protest and not any other event that brings out scores of police officers in a concentrated area? It doesn’t seem like a coincidence that you have a group advocating the killing of white police and then you have a shooter who chooses to shoot white police at their rally.
The black police chief of El Paso said that black lives matter was a “racist hate group.” Black Lives Matter is definitely only concerned about black lives, and in its literature it rejects the idea that all lives matter. Its literature is also heavily about the overthrow of the current “hetero-patriarchal society.”
There is also a lot of talk about our “white supremacist” society.
Black Lives Matter is a radical hate group that seeks to overthrow the current government and society. It is opposed to the nuclear family. It’s incredibly radical to be opposed to families
According to its website, the people who are oppressing them are whites, heterosexuals and men. So if you are a white heterosexual man they have no use at all for you at all.
Much of the information on the website is not about the issue that has brought them to public prominence – the killing of black men by police – but about the oppression by whites, heterosexuals and men of black women, particularly those of the LGBT community. It is an organization looking for the overthrow of the government, and using the outrage over black men being shot by police is simply a tool to enrage the black community against the government.
If the people involved in the Black Lives Matter movement really are concerned about cops being killed, then they need to rethink their protest.
It’s a movement that doesn’t make any sense. According to the Black Lives Matter movement, the only black lives that matter are the black men killed by white police officers. If the Black Lives Matter movement really wanted to save black lives it would work on stopping the slaughter of young black me by other young black men in cities all over the country.
The killings in Detroit and Baton Rouge are tragedies. The one in Detroit is particularly troubling since the man had his wife and child in his car and, at least according to what his wife said on the video, he was reaching for his wallet, not a gun. We don’t know yet what led up to the shooting or what happened before his wife started shooting the video.
In Baton Rouge we have seen the shooting, but again we don’t know the whole story. We do know that Alton Sterling, who was killed, was a large man who had a gun and was fighting with police.
Resisting arrest is not a capital crime and police shouldn’t shoot people for fighting with them, but it also is a bad idea to fight with police. If someone is fighting with the police and they are injured or killed, it can’t be blamed entirely on the police who are involved in the fight.
The police don’t have the luxury of watching a video of what is happening 20 times to see exactly where the suspects hands are in relation to his gun. The police have to react instantly to the threat or perceived threat. Sometimes they make mistakes. In this case Sterling had a gun in his pocket and was resisting arrest; that’s a dangerous combination.
But why are those the only black lives that matter? What about the 14 men who were killed in Chicago over the Fourth of July weekend? That’s one holiday weekend in one city.
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said that by reducing the crime rate in New York when he was mayor, he saved more lives than Black Lives Matter. He’s right. But Black Lives Matter is not about saving lives, it is about creating chaos, and it is doing a good job of that.
Obama has sent another 560 soldiers to Iraq after he pulled all US troops out in 2011, thereby allowing ISIS to come in and take control of large swaths of the country, including Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city.
Officially the US now has 4,647 troops in Iraq. What would be interesting to know is how many troops who aren’t officially assigned to Iraq are operating in the country and how many “consultants” – or whatever they call men who have been hired to behave like soldiers but who aren’t in the US military – are there.
Blackwater was the most famous of these companies that during the Iraq war provided thousands of “soldiers” and was paid billions of dollars because the US wanted to keep its troop numbers down.
As one might expect, having thousands of men operating as soldiers who were not answerable to the command structure led to huge problems.
The new troops are supposed to help retake Mosul, which will no doubt be a long and bloody fight. Although Obama insists that US troops are not in combat roles, he has had to admit that some have been killed in combat.
Considering how the Obama administration handles classified information, Russian President Vladimir Putin probably knows exactly how many US soldiers are in combat roles in Iraq, but the American people don’t.
In many ways it looks like Vietnam all over again, where the American people were told Americans were only acting as advisors to the South Vietnamese army, until so many were killed it was obvious that they were far more than just advisors.
The Iraqi army is doing far better than it did when the soldiers simply fled from the battlefield when ISIS soldiers appeared, but the idea that the Iraqi army is prepared to retake a city of over a million without significant help seems ambitious at best.
An international tribunal in the Hague has declared that China’s activities in the South China Sea – turning reefs into islands and islands into military installations complete with airstrips – is illegal.
The international tribunal declared the actions violations of international law, but there is in reality no international law because the tribunal has no enforcement powers. China is a signatory on the treaties but refused to participate in the hearings.
There is only one country in the world that could keep China from continuing to build military bases in international waters, and that is the US. But under our current leadership, we have done nothing to halt China’s actions.
China doesn’t want to go to war with the US over a couple of reefs in the South China Sea any more than the US wants to go to war with China. Neither does China, whose economy depends on selling a vast amount of goods to the US, want to get in a trade war.
What kind of international diplomacy is the Obama administration practicing? In Europe, Obama allowed Russia to take Crimea away from Ukraine. Obama sat at home and watched NBA games or NFL games on television, or whatever he does after dinner instead of taking action. Russia then invaded Ukraine and that battle is ongoing.
We don’t hear much about it in the US, but I asked some Ukrainian editors a few months ago how often people were being shot and killed in that battle for Eastern Ukraine, and they said every day.
The US does nothing about Russia taking territory in Europe and nothing about China taking territory in Asia, and Hillary Clinton wants to continue these policies.