A must-watch movie

It’s called “The Social Dilemma”, and is available on Netflix (it is in fact a Netflix production).

According to its description, this documentary-drama hybrid (their words, not mine):

“…explores the dangerous human impact of social networking…”

Very scary. It also explains the growing divide between Americans. And it’s all driven by social media conglomerates that want to attract and maintain your attention in the name of ad revenue. What better way than by continually reinforcing your existing beliefs and fears?

The potential impact is staggering. Please watch!

Supreme Court nominees

Hey, President Trump! How about appointing a Supreme Court justice that supports both the second amendment as well as a woman’s right to choose?

You’d pick up gun owners AND women. And you wouldn’t lose any conservatives; I mean – who else would they vote for? A liberal?!?

That’s what I call “common-sense campaigning”. Too bad it’s an oxymoron.

When will this stop?

Democratic Representative Jerry Nadler is advocating for an expansion of the Supreme Court – allowing a Democrat administration to pack the Supreme court and push it to the left – if the current administration goes forward with appointing a replacement for the late Justice Ginsburg.

Democrats can complain all they want about the Republicans pushing through another Supreme Court appointment, but the rules are the rules. It is well within the administration’s legal right to nominate and confirm a new justice to fill an open seat. Do you really think that the Democrats would leave such a seat open?

I’m not worried about another Trump appointment to the Supreme Court; the tides periodically change, and I expect them to come full circle eventually. But what’s worrisome to me is the escalating actions taken by our politicians in their fervor to maintain control for “their” side. It started when Senator Harry Reid (D, NV) exercised the “nuclear option” – twice – to change Senate rules. The second and arguably the more famous of the two occurred in 2013 when Reid eliminated the 60-vote requirement to advance judicial nominations (except for the Supreme Court), essentially ending the filibuster for such appointments and silencing the senate minority. This was quickly used by the Obama administration to pack the federal court system, pushing it further left. But, as one GOP staffer pointed out, such rule changes are doomed to escalate: “Just wait until they get into the minority!”

And escalate it did. When the GOP gained controlled of the Senate in 2016 they used Reid’s rule change to do their own packing of the federal court system. In addition, Republican Mitch McConnell exercised his own “nuclear option” to expand Reid’s change to include Supreme Court nominations. The fact that Democrats are crying about being on the losing end of a fight they started should not be lost in the rhetoric: none of this would have been possible (since a consensus of at least 60 senators would have been required to advance any judicial nominee) if it weren’t for Harry Reid.

But now the Democrats want to do it once again, as if the results won’t be exactly the same: they’ll change the number of Supreme Court justices so that a Democrat president can appoint a few liberals and shift the court left. But what about when the Republicans once again hold power? What’s to prevent them from doing the same thing and shifting the court right? When will it end, and just how many Supreme Court justices will we have? It’s time to stop the madness. We must move now to restore the previous senate rules and require a reasonable 60-vote consensus for judicial nominations.

This is now in our hands, the hands of the American voter. Let’s replace those senators and representatives who see infinite escalation as a viable tactic.  It’s not.

If only wishing made it true…

A story from NPR makes the following claim:

Just days before her death, as her strength waned, Ginsburg dictated this statement to her granddaughter Clara Spera: “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”

Frankly, given the animosity shown by Justice Ginsburg towards the current administration, I consider this statement just one last orchestrated jab at Trump. Why else would she dictate such a statement to anyone? Wouldn’t she have more important things to say, to people of greater significance to her personally, than this politically-charged statement that she knew would carry no legal weight? Was her intent to contribute to the violence and turmoil our cities are now experiencing?

Unfortunately for the liberal wing of the Democratic party, wishes have no weight in our judicial system. And even if they did, would it mean that a Trump win in the upcoming election would require that Justice Ginsburg’s seat be held open for four more years? Yeah, fat chance.

The fact is that this is an unfortunate development for the liberals, but we should remember that they did their best to stack the federal court system during Obama’s reign. In addition, given the same set of circumstances I have no doubt that the Democrats would appoint someone, too. It’s how the game is played; sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. But claiming that the appointment is “illegitimate”, or threatening violence if the appointment proceeds, is just the sign of a poor sport.

Is that really who you want running the county? A pack of poor sports? Me neither…

 

 

Of course he did…

…because, as we all know, it’s the guns and not the criminals that are responsible for gun crimes:

Biden pushes gun control less than 24 hours after attempted assassination on deputies

From the article:

“We need to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.”

The surveillance footage indicates that an assault weapon was not used, and there is no evidence yet of a high capacity magazine. Still, Biden’s willing to ban them anyway.

Do you really think, Joe, that a murderer is going to change the gun he uses because you’ve outlawed it? Which is the greater crime of concern: murder, or an illegal weapons charge? If the murder charge won’t dissuade the criminal, what makes you think the lesser weapons charge will?

Nothing like punishing law-abiding citizens and restricting their means of self defense for the actions of criminals for whom your laws mean nothing.

Nice job, Joe.