Trump Cancels Pelosi’s Travel Boondoggle While the Government is Shut Down

Comments by Jim Campbell

January 17, 2019

Are the talking head at CNN so completely ignorant that the discussion on the State of the Union Speech has already settled. 

It’s on for January 29th, 2019.


Image: Trump Just told Pelosi to hitch hike, no plane for her. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)


They did note that it was unusual for anyone to announce well in advance that they will be flying to a war zone.

So it seems Pelosi is still playing the roll of idiot which the media chooses to ignore.

Her trip to Belgium, likely a Pelosi lark.

It would truly be an embarrassment to have to tell your friends and family members that you worked for this purveyor of leftist hog wash.

Is is the president within his right to cancel Pelosi’s and other Democrats trips who plan to go with her?


The president is trying to cut unnecessary items  from the budget and cutting said travel is just another excellent place to start.



Selfie with the president and his beautiful wife Melania: Priceless.


A selfie with Nancy Pelosi  would show only one figure, herself, who would be caught dead in a picture with this bitch.



Pelosi selfie, Democrats who refuse to be seen with her are behind her kissing her ass.


Should I call her a bitch? Why not?

I was just trying to be civil starting the New Year.

To illustrate further how completely out of touch with reality Pelosi is she recently whined that Trump went to visit the troops in Iraq while the government was shut down as if her junket and the President’s trip to be with the troops could possibly be equated.



It’s time for California to arrange for her ticket and then drop her out of the back of a C-147 without a parachute.


O.K. Well not really LOL

Why give her a parachute?


She’s not smart enough to pull the rip chord!

THE END Continue reading

Posted in Trump Cancels Pelosi's Travel Boondoggle While the Government is Shut Down | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Cohen Hired IT Firm to Rig Early CNBC, Drudge Polls to Favor Trump

Comments by Jim Campbell

January 17th, 2019

In the video below, ” Me thinks Trump protests too much.”

Why would he have ever hired Cohen if as he said he is a weak person.



Sounds like double talk to me.

Considering the source is the Wall Street Journal, Trump may be in serious trouble.

On the other hand, would an unbiased judge render an honest verdict since Michael Cohen is a known perjurer?

This is a story that even Las Vegas odds makers would figure it difficult to set the odds.

Behind the scenes, Michael Cohen hired then allegedly stiffed it—and his boss.

Michael Cohen, President Trump's former lawyer, arriving for his sentencing at the federal court house in Manhattan last month.

Michael Cohen, President Trump’s former lawyer, arriving for his sentencing at the federal court-house in Manhattan last month. Photo: jeenah moon/Reuters


In early 2015, a man who runs a small technology company showed up at Trump Tower to collect $50,000 for having helped Michael Cohen, then Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, try to rig online polls in his boss’s favor before the presidential campaign.

In his Trump Organization office, Mr. Cohen surprised the man, John Gauger, by giving him both a blue Walmart bag containing between $12,000 and $13,000 in cash and, randomly, a boxing glove that Mr. Cohen said had been worn by a Brazilian mixed-martial arts fighter, Mr. Gauger said.

Mr. Cohen disputed that he handed over a bag of cash. “All monies paid to Mr. Gauger were by check,” he said, offering no further comment on his ties to the consultant.

Mr. Gauger owns RedFinch Solutions LLC and is chief information officer at Liberty University in Virginia, where Jerry Falwell Jr., an evangelical leader and fervent Trump supporter, is president.

Mr. Gauger said he never got the rest of what he claimed he was owed. But Mr. Cohen in early 2017 still asked for—and received—a $50,000 reimbursement from Mr. Trump and his company for the work by RedFinch, according to a government document and a person familiar with the matter.

Trying to rig online polls?

That’s a big deal?

Trying to rig polls has been going on since Hector was a pup.

It goes without saying that the MSM, especially CNN and MSNBC put their thumb on the scales of any polling data.

This is a nothing-burger !


Please see the entire article below.


Continue reading

Posted in Drudge Polls to Favor Trump | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Report: Trump Green Lighted Israeli Mission Smuggling Nuclear Files Out of Iran

Comments by Jim Campbell

January 17th, 2019

We will only hear negative comments on Trump’s decision from the far left members of congress and the water carriers who make up out “Trusted media.”

Sane minds will back the president on his decision with Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

Israel's Netanyahu hails Trump for Iran sanctions


The entire Iran nuke situation led by Obama’s Secretary of State John Kerry has been a complete farce since the day the so-called agreement was signed.

Iran Deal Vote Tally: Full List of U.S. Senators and how they voted (Source)


Israeli Mossad ready for undercover mission to Tehran

No doubt the Democrats who now have become turn coats care more about their constituents and how they will be voting when the see their members out for future political gain.

By Matthew Boyle


TEL AVIV – Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu received approval from President Donald Trump before a massive intelligence mission last year in which some 100,000 documents on Iran’s nuclear program were smuggled out of a warehouse near Tehran by Mossad agents, Israeli television reported Tuesday.

In April, the Israeli premier gave a dramatic presentation of the stolen trove which he said proved that Iran had lied about its nuclear program.

The operation, which took place over a single night in January, was one of the Israeli intelligence community’s “greatest achievements,” stated Netanyahu.


According to Hadashot news, Netanyahu had revealed his intentions to infiltrate Iran to Trump when the two met on the sidelines of the Davos World Economic Forum last January.

The Israeli leader was said to have sought support from his American counterpart in case the operation went wrong and would need a rescue team to extract the agents, the report said.

The TV report also stated that the return of the agents that night was far more complex than originally reported, but it did not go into any details.

In April, the New York Times reported that the Mossad had been monitoring the warehouse since February 2016. (A typical leftist venture)

Iran “was on the cusp of mastering key bomb making technologies when the research was ordered halted” in 2003, the Times said.

Other reports at the time released details on the Mossad‘s effort to seize the archive within six and a half hours, with one official comparing it to the heist from Ocean’s 11.

Netanyahu said the trove was discovered in what looked like a “dilapidated warehouse” in the Shorabad District in southern Tehran.

“This is where they kept the atomic archives.

Right here.

Few Iranians knew where it was, very few, and also a few Israelis,” Netanyahu stated.

“Now, from the outside, this was an innocent looking compound. It looks like a dilapidated warehouse. But from the inside, it contained Iran’s secret atomic archives locked in massive files,” he said.

Netanyahu stated that “half a ton of the material” on papers and CDs comprising “incriminating documents, incriminating charts, incriminating presentations, incriminating blueprints, incriminating photos, incriminating videos and more” had been brought back to Israel.

“We’ve shared this material with the United States, and the United States can vouch for its authenticity,” he said.



Continue reading

Posted in Report: Trump Green Lighted Israeli Mission Smuggling Nuclear Files Out of Iran | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

This song that could have never been recorded today

Comment by Jim Campbell

January 17th, 2019

After much hysteria after it’s release in 1977 with radio stations refusing to play his song, he finally wrote a new ending.

He and is management were also concerned that the feigned outrage from the readers of the NY Times would hinder his ability to get his upcoming songs played.



We have to hand it to him at age 75 with quite a number of hits under his belt he is still pushing the petal to the medal at an age that many would be enjoying retirement. (Source)

My sense, he enjoys entertaining people with his music.

His songs also note that political correctness has been with us longer than most have thought.

The only reason to combat this is to tell those who want to lay it upon us, the F’ off and keep doing so until it ends.

This of course is unlikely to happen as most Americans today have become infected with it like a malignant disease.



Short people got no reason
Short people got no reason
Short people got no reason to live

They got little hands
Little eyes
They walk around tellin’ great big lies
They got little noses
And tiny little teeth
They wear platform shoes on their nasty little feet

Well I don’t want no short people
Don’t want no short people
Don’t want no short people ’round here

(Short people are just the same as you and I)
A fool such as I
(All men are brothers until the day they die)
It’s a wonderful world

Short people got nobody
Short people got nobody
Short people got nobody to love



Continue reading

Posted in This song that could have never been recorded today | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

What Happens if Ruth Bader Ginsburg Remains Too Sick to Work?

Comment by Jim Campbell

January 17th, 2019

History is full of Supreme Court justices who were incapacitated—or worse.

That’s the price of life tenure, and it’s worth paying.

While We the People tend to focus upon age and tenure, historically there have been absolute raving lunatics including those with dementia who have served on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Let’s discuss the pros and cons of term limits on Supreme Court Justices in the United States of America.


Listed and sourced directly below.

In the past two months, Ruth Bader Ginsburg has fractured three ribs and had two cancerous nodules removed from her left lung.

She was absent from oral argument last week and will miss this week’s arguments as well. Doctors say they expect her to be back on the bench in February, and until then she will review transcripts from her home and participate in the court’s decision-making remotely.

But her return to work has not quieted critics who say that Ginsburg should have retired long ago and that her health issues are the latest evidence that justices should not be allowed to serve for life.



Ginsburg, who is 85, suggested this summer that she intends to serve “at least five more years” on the court.

She is far from the first justice to linger on the bench into advanced age.

John Paul Stevens retired at 90 in 2010, making him the oldest serving justice since Oliver Wendell Holmes stepped down from the bench two months shy of his 91st birthday in 1932.

Stevens’ extended tenure produced significantly less hand-wringing than Ginsburg’s—a contrast partly attributable to Stevens’ hale health but also possibly driven by the gender bias that Ginsburg has battled throughout her career.

Yet while the focus on Ginsburg may be out of proportion, the concerns generated by a graying judiciary cannot be blithely dismissed. Fears of judicial gerontocracy have flared at several earlier points in American history, including long before the court had any female members.

The late Antonin Scalia waved off the idea of limiting the terms of justices as “a solution in search of a problem,” but the problem is not an imaginary one: Some justices really have clung to their positions long after their mental faculties have left them.

Justice Henry Baldwin remained on the court for nearly a dozen years after his 1832 hospitalization for “incurable lunacy.”

One of Justice Nathan Clifford’s colleagues described him as a “babbling idiot” in the final years before his death in 1881.

Justice Stephen Field in the mid-1890s and Justice Joseph McKenna in the early to mid-1920s each reportedly spent the end of their tenures in a haze.

“Mental decrepitude” on the Supreme Court has continued into the modern era, as historian David Garrow has documented.

Frank Murphy, who served in the 1940s, was likely addicted to illegal drugs by the end of his tenure, and his biographer wrote that “on at least one occasion,” with Murphy in absentia, his law clerk and two fellow justices “jointly decided what Murphy’s votes should be.”

Justice Charles Whittaker teetered on the brink of nervous breakdown for much of his five-year stint on the court in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

Hugo Black stayed on for more than two years after his wife concluded in 1969 that “his mentality has been impaired.”

Nor was Black the last justice whose mind slipped while he was still on the bench. In 1975, his last year on the court, William O. Douglas was so severely disabled by a stroke that his fellow justices agreed to delay any decision in which Douglas’ vote could swing the outcome.

Justice William Rehnquist developed a dependence on a sedative that caused him to experience hallucinations during withdrawal; at one point in late 1981, he tried to escape from George Washington University Hospital in his pajamas.

Rehnquist recovered, but two of his colleagues—Lewis Powell and Thurgood Marshall—faced doubts about their own  mental capacities at the tail end of their careers.

The history of cognitive decline on the high court teaches two lessons.

First, there is a real risk of a substantial time lag between the onset of mental deterioration and a justice’s retirement.

But second, and as important, this is a risk that can be contained. No justice—no matter how deranged—can do serious doctrinal damage without the acquiescence of at least half his colleagues.

And when a justice is so utterly incapacitated that he is unable to break 4-4 ties, the court can continue to function with an even number of active members.

Originally, the court had only six justices; during the Civil War, it had 10; and it has functioned fine with eight members during prolonged vacancies.

Indeed, there are notable virtues to having an even number of justices—one of them being that it then takes more than a knife’s-edge majority to overturn a lower court decision or strike down a law nationwide.

The proposed solutions to “mental decrepitude” on the Supreme Court each come with flaws of their own.

A common proposal is to fix the lengths of justices’ terms, with 18 years being the number most often suggested.

Yet 18-year terms would not lay to rest the problem of mental decline.

Murphy had been on the court for only eight years when his apparent drug dependence reached its height.

Whittaker finally suffered a nervous breakdown less than five years into his term.

And the Rehnquist pajama incident occurred just nine years into his 33-year tenure.

Granted, the risk of mental disability increases with advanced age, and 18-year term limits might on balance lead to a younger bench.

Or they might not.

Presidents might be inclined to select older nominees if justices could serve for only 18 years rather than for life.

Other ostensible benefits of 18-year terms are also likely to prove illusory. Advocates argue that a fixed term length will lower the stakes of confirmation battles.

Perhaps, but fights over open court seats will be fierce whether the appointee wields influence over abortion and the death penalty for 18 years or for longer.

What fixed term lengths will do, without a doubt, is to ensure that these fights occur more frequently.

If the goal is to defuse some of the tension surrounding Supreme Court confirmations, then creating more vacancies is a curious choice.

Assuming that terms are staggered, then the 18-year proposal would also ensure that a seat on the court opens at least every two years.

This is sometimes cited as an advantage, as it would narrow the inequity across presidents who have disparate opportunities to influence the court based on the number of vacancies that arise during their terms.

For example, William Howard Taft, a one-term president, appointed six justices, while fellow one-term Jimmy Carter named none.

But it would also mean that every two-term president would choose four—or in the event of early retirements or deaths, even more—members of the court.

That possibility is disconcerting given that justices are, empirically, much more likely to vote with the administration when the president who appointed them is still in office.

This “loyalty effect,” which my colleagues Lee Epstein and Eric Posner have documented, limits the court’s efficacy as a check on presidential overreach.

Staggered 18-year terms would likely lead to a larger number of “loyal”—pliant—justices on the court at any given moment.

Fixed term lengths would also raise the question of what term-limited justices will do after their 18 years expire.

Some might try to monetize their experience by going into private practice. Others might seek elected office.

Consciously or unconsciously, a justice might adjust her decisions with a view toward pleasing potential employers or future voters.

Please see the entire article below.


Continue reading

Posted in What Happens if Ruth Bader Ginsburg Remains Too Sick to Work? | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Earl T. Ermy the Gunny in Full Metal Jacket will be laid to rest in Arlington National Cemetery

Comment by Jim Campbell

January 17, 2019

Few candidates could be so honored.

Imagine the caliber of Marine or any member of the service drill instructors have on preventing needless deaths and injuries and deaths.

The number is obviously incalculable..

As the story goes, Ermey was asked by Stanley Kubrick to be the technical advisor for the film, knowing all along that Earl would be his man.

This move is so wild and crazy it would seem the Gunny went off script and into full drill sergeant mode for the filming.



The Sunnyside Sun

By Julia Hart

January 16, 2019

Credit: Jack Ermey photo

R. Lee Ermey, left, with his brother Jack Ermey pose at one of his brother’s AT&T conferences where the late actor was a guest speaker. R. Lee Ermey will be buried Jan. 18, 2019 in Arlington National Cemetery.


R. Lee “Gunny” Ermey, 74, will take his place a long side other American soldiers in the National Cemetery in Arlington, Va., at 10 a.m. Jan.18, 2019.

Out takes below:

Ermey, best known for his role in such movies as “Full Metal Jacket,” and “Apocalypse Now,” died April 15, 2018, at his home in Santa Monica, Calif.

Sound Track from the movie:



His family learned this week that he will be awarded full military honors for his service in the U.S. Marine Corps during the Vietnam War, said his brother Jack Ermey of San Clemente, Calif.

Jack said his brother’s friend, Retired Sgt. Gene Overstreet was responsible for ‘Gunny’s’ Arlington cemetery service.

“My brother was a big supporter of non-profit groups that helped veterans, including military organizations like Young Marines, where he served as a board member,” Jack said.

He was also on the board of the NRA.

He joined the U.S. Marine Corps when he was 17.

A self-avowed troublemaker, R. Lee was given a choice by a local judge to go to juvey or join the military, Jack said.

“He chose the Marines and the rest is history.”

“We grew up near Pumpkin Center just north of Granger and Gunny attended school. The rest of us attended Zillah schools,” Jack said.

The six sons of Betty and John Ermey served in the military during the Vietnam area, three in the Marines, two in the Air Force and one in the Army.

“Ronald (Lee) was the famous one,” said Jack.

He starred in more than 70 films, and lead and directed several television programs on the History Channel.

“Last month his street was named after him in Palmdale, Calif,” Jack said.

He is survived by his wife, Nila, six children and 12 grandchildren.


Continue reading

Posted in Earl T. Ermy the Gunny in Full Metal Jacket will be laid to rest in Arlington National Cemetery | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Rudy Giuliani: ‘I never said there was no collusion’ between Trump campaign, Russia

Comment by Jim Campbell

January 17th, 2019

It’s interesting how in the video section below both, “Both America’s Favorite Mayor,” and Brian Williams, a known prevaricator miss the real story.


Getty images

In the end, President Trump will likely issue Manafort a specific pardon, covering all charges against him.

What sense does it make to sentence a 69-year-old person to jail for eighty years?



If this is considered Justice in America, our Republic is in Peril.


Brian Williams: “I was there.”

A federal judge revoked Paul Manafort’s bail Friday and ordered him to remain locked up until his trial later this year, punishing him for allegations that he tried to tamper with witnesses.



Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama-appointee, said Mr. Manafort had taken a cavalier approach to the court proceedings against him, and she said she was putting an end to it.

“I cannot turn a blind eye to these allegations,” she said. W.T.F.?



The legal reason he’s there is listed as a vague “federal statute” offense, according to the jail’s online list of inmates. Manafort is technically there for witness tampering; he awaits his two trials in July and September after a federal judge revoked his bail for allegedly committing a crime since his arrest.

He will still be tried for the offense.

He has maintained his innocence in the face of 25 criminal charges that range from obstruction of justice and conspiracy, to foreign lobbying registration violations and bank fraud.



Northern Neck Regional Jail in Warsaw, Virginia, has him now—his name’s listed among upwards of 500 people they’re holding. (Source)

Mr. Manafort,  was a top official in President Trump’s campaign, has been accused of money laundering and working as a foreign agent without reporting it to U.S. authorities. (Source)

Last time I read my pocket constitution it was clear that an individual isn’t put in jail on the basis of the “Feelings,” of a leftist female judge.



Our system of jurisprudence prevents it unless there is a runaway judge deciding to make law from the bench.

Nice touch by Williams inviting two leftists on his sinking show to discuss the case, a normal tactic of left-wing bias.


Please see the entire article below.

Continue reading

Posted in Rudy Giuliani: 'I never said there was no collusion' between Trump campaign | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Pelosi Moves to Cancel Trump’s State of the Union Speech

Comment by Jim Campbell

January 16, 2019

Once again the vapid speaker of the house shows that she has no clue about her power and responsibilities.

Trump is likely laughing his ass off right now.


Oh well.

The event will be held as scheduled on January 29th.

It would be a nice touch if the likes of Pelosi and the rest of her ilk would take the time to study the Constitution.

In fact a pocket Constitution is absolutely free for the asking. (Source)



The park police will be there to make sure it happens and quell any violence should it erupt.

President Trump appropriately gave this back to Pelosi.


WASHINGTON (AP) — The partial government shutdown threw a prime Washington ritual into question Wednesday as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi asked President Donald Trump to forgo his Jan. 29 State of the Union speech, expressing doubts that the hobbled government can provide adequate security.

Republicans saw her move as a ploy to deny Trump the stage.


A portion of a letter sent to President Donald Trump from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Wednesday, Jan. 16, 2019 in Washington. (AP Photo/Wayne Partlow)

In a letter to Trump, Pelosi said that with both the Secret Service and the Homeland Security Department entangled in the shutdown, the president should speak to Congress another time or he should deliver the address in writing.



Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen denied anyone’s safety is compromised, saying both agencies “are fully prepared to support and secure the State of the Union.”


The shutdown may force the government to cancel the State of the Union.


Reason Magazine


Ron Sachs/SIPA/Newscom On Wednesday, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) asked President Trump to delay his State of the Union address due to security concerns stemming from the government shutdown.

Alternatively, Trump could simply submit a written statement in lieu of an in-person speech, noted Pelosi.

If Trump opted for the latter, this would be by far the best thing to come out of the shutdown.

The elaborate spectacle of the modern State of the Union speech—a yearly production—is wholly unnecessary.

The country would be well rid of it.

As Pelosi noted in her letter, for the first half of the country’s history, virtually all State of the Union speeches—formerly known as the President’s Annual Message to Congress—were delivered to the House of Representatives and read by a clerk.

This became standard practice in 1801 with President Thomas Jefferson, who thought an in-person speech would be too reminiscent of a royal proclamation.

Jefferson’s tradition endured until President Woodrow Wilson took office in 1913. Wilson saw the event as an opportunity rally support for his expansive domestic agenda, and subsequent presidents have typically approached it the same way.

One hundred or so State of the Unions later, the executive branch is less constrained than ever before in U.S. history.

Wilson’s tradition is not the sole or the predominant cause, but it does contribute to a vision of the president as the central and most important figure in the government, rather than one office amidst three co-equal branches.

As Steve Chapman wrote for Reason in 2015, “The State of the Union address has grown in step with presidential presumption.

It’s a conspicuous symptom of a dangerous malady: We expect too much of our presidents and limit them too little.”

Trump has not yet responded to Pelosi’s letter, and it’s hard to imagine him passing on a chance to hoard the spotlight.

But if the shutdown somehow ends up forcing the government to cancel the State of the Union, I say good riddance.



Continue reading

Posted in Pelosi Moves to Cancel Trump’s State of the Union Speech | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Notorious Impact on America

Comment by Jim Campbell

January, 16, 2010

This site will never suggest ill or harm to anyone with the possible exception of Hillary Clinton who is long overdue for her trip down the long green mile.

Justice Ginsburg could be dead already, will the media tell us immediately?



Of course they would like to keep it a secret but like they are, a bunch of sharks circling  fresh chum in the ocean, they will step all over each other to be first with the story.



Justice Amy Coney Barrett will be among the President’s likely nominations.currently sits on the 7th Circuit Court of appeals.

We wish ill upon no one at this site, with the possible exception of Hillary Clinton.

Of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is still alive she won’t be for very long.

For fans of the U.S. Constitution, her passing will be a relief.

For the functionally brain dead progressive/liberals in Congress her passing will certainly give her the Hershey squirts.

And rightly so, as her replacement, will likely make Trumps other choices seem like moderates.

President Trump has yet to name his choice to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, but already the vultures are circling. 

Proponents of judicial activism — those who see the High Court as just another political branch of government, rather than a neutral arbiter of the law, are particularly focused on smearing Judge Amy Coney Barrett, whom President Trump reportedly interviewed this week.

Opponents of Judge Barrett have unfairly attempted to paint her as controversial.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Barrett graduated with highest honors from the University of Notre Dame Law School (where she was a member of the law review), clerked for judges on the D.C. Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court, practiced law with an elite law-firm, and was a highly respected professor at Notre Dame Law School before joining the bench.

The Washington Post summarizes the case for Barrett this way:

“She’s young (46), good on her feet, telegenic, unmistakably conservative and, with seven children, has the kind of family you want sitting behind you during tense confirmation hearings.”

With this kind of record, you would expect feminists to rally behind Judge Barrett. After all, this is a woman who seems, literally, to have found a way to have it all — an incredibly successful career and a large and thriving family.

And yet, the National Women’s Law Center opposed Barrett’s nomination to the Seventh Circuit, calling her a threat to “civil, constitutional and reproductive rights.”

Of course they would.



They are made up of a bunch of leftist’s who are still upset that Obama’s illegal nomination of Justice Merrick Garland  didn’t get the nod.

On July 2, NWLC  one of its members said,“Someone like Amy Coney Barrett has no place on the bench of our country’s highest court.” 

Apparently, the organization, which boasts the motto, “expanding the possibilities for women and girls since 1972,” only wants to expand opportunities for certain kinds of women and girls. Women “like Amy Coney Barrett” not included.  

So, what is it about Judge Barrett that has much of the sisterhood in a tizzy? Her religion: Judge Barrett is a devout Catholic.

At the time of Barrett’s nomination to the Seventh Circuit, Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) declared that she had a “very uncomfortable feeling” about Barrett’s faith and inappropriately questioned Barrett’s ability to serve impartially.  “The dogma lives loudly within you,” Feinstein famously quipped.

“And that is of concern.”

Feinstein is uncomfortable about a lot of things, particularly guns.

She has failed miserably in her capacity to uphold the U.S. Constitution on the Second Amendment.

She is a major proponent of disarming all law-abiding citizen’s never questioning how Congress would get illegal gun owners to “Turn them all in.”

While many on the left attempt to minimize Feinstein’s remarks as simply “inelegantly” put,  they nevertheless find her concerns “just.”

But it is hard to see why Barrett’s Catholicism warrants special concern.

After all, progressives have long said that “empathy” is one of the most important qualities in a judge.

Does empathy that flows from religious conviction not count? And do those “concerned” about Barrett’s religion actually believe that a president should never consider a person of faith for the federal judiciary?

Barrett has been clear that her personal views (whatever they may be) will not impact her judicial decisions.

Long before she was nominated to the bench, then-Professor Barrett wrote that litigants and the public are entitled to “impartial justice” — irrespective of a judge’s moral or religious views.

Barrett is also firmly committed to originalism and textualism — twin tenets of interpretation that constrain the ability of judges to impose their own moral values.

In truth, much of the hysteria from the left boils down to one case: Roe v. Wade.

 Progressives are concerned that Barrett might provide the fifth vote to overrule the controversial decision that created a constitutional right to abortion on demand.

But Barrett’s views on stare decisis — the idea that sometimes it is better that the law be settled than it be right — are well within the mainstream.

Barrett has expressed the widely-held view that constitutional decisions are entitled to a weaker form of stare decisis because, unlike statutory decisions, Congress cannot change a constitutional ruling.

Legal scholars of all political stripes acknowledge that a constitutional precedent is not absolute.

If it were, the Plessy v. Ferguson and Korematsu decisions would still be law of the land.

Of course, demanding guarantees from judicial nominees that they will vote a certain way on cases that may come before them violates the principle of impartiality that is the cornerstone of an independent judiciary.

But the attacks on Barrett also reveal as utterly disingenuous the feminists’ purported goal of breaking the “glass ceiling” in order to allow more women to succeed at the very highest levels of government.

We don’t know who President Trump will select to replace Justice Kennedy. But he should not let a well-organized, well-funded and bigoted attack on a potential nominee influence his decision.

Jennifer C. Braceras is a senior fellow with Independent Women’s Forum. Since graduating from Harvard Law School in 1994, Braceras has served as a law clerk to two federal judges, practiced employment law at a major Boston law firm, and taught and conducted research on education law and federal anti-discrimination law.

Erin Hawley is a legal fellow with Independent Women’s Forum, an associate professor of law at the University of Missouri, and a former law clerk to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

A quarter century of radicalism on the bench.

Front Page Magazine

Joseph Hippolito

The recently released film biography of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 

On The Basis of Sex, provides the latest example of pop culture’s infatuation with the leader of the court’s liberal contingent, who will turn 86 in March.

That infatuation began with the independent biopic, RBG. Ginsburg played along with her newfound hip status by distributing “Notorious RBG” T-shirts.

When Ginsburg was hospitalized after breaking three ribs during a fall in November, various celebrities took to Twitter to offer their ribs and other vital organs.

On his late-night show, Jimmy Kimmel even humorously offered to provide Ginsburg with a large plastic bubble — after proclaiming that “for obvious reasons,” she “must be protected at any cost.”

What are those “obvious reasons?”

Why, the election of President Donald Trump, of course.

But why would celebrities be so concerned with the health of an elderly, chronically ill justice whom they never met?


Those celebrities share Ginsburg’s radical political values, which define the Left’s obsession with “social justice” and “equality” — and which she expressed more than 40 years ago in a seminal legal analysis.

As a law professor at Columbia in 1977, Ginsburg teamed with fellow feminist lawyer Brenda Feigen-Fasteau to compose Sex Bias in U.S. Code for the United States Commission on Civil Rights.

The basis for that report was a similar work the two feminists produced in 1974, The Legal Status of Women under Federal Law.

Both reports recommended changes to the federal code to eliminate possible discrimination against women.

But many recommendations had nothing to do with increasing opportunities for women.

Rather, Ginsburg and Feigen-Fasteau sought to dictate social conditions that would obliterate legitimate distinctions between the sexes.

The result would be a utopian egalitarianism justified by what Ginsburg and Feigen-Fasteau called “the equal rights principle.”

“The equal rights principle looks toward a world in which men and women function as full and equal partners, with artificial barriers removed and opportunity unaffected by a person’s gender,” their report stated.

“Preparation for such a world requires elimination of sex separation in all public institutions where education and training occur.

While the personal privacy principle permits maintenance of separate sleeping and bathing facilities, no other facilities, e.g., work, school, or cafeteria, should be maintained for one sex only.”

The key to implementing that principle involved rewriting federal code to displa

ce all gender-specific language, including pronouns, with neutered terms. Ginsburg and Feigen-Fasteau recommended replacing such terms as “manpower” with “human resources,” “chairman” with “chairperson” and “fraternity and sorority chapters” with “social societies,” and advocated using “he/she,” “hers/his” and “her/him” for third-person singular pronouns — even to the point of using “plural constructions” to avoid such pronouns.

“Although no substantive differential may be generated by 1 U.S.C. §1r the current drafting scheme suggests a society in which men are (and ought to be) the dominant participants,” the report said while referring to the section dealing with terminology.

“Revision of 1 U.S.C. §1 is recommended to reflect in form as well as substance the equal status of women and men before the law.

A new subsection also is proposed, 1 U.S.C. §106(c), instructing drafters to use sex-neutral terminology in all Federal legislative texts.” (parenthesis in original)

As a result, rewritten federal law could be used to abolish single-sex institutions — ranging from prisons to such youth groups as the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts.

Regarding prisons and penal facilities for juveniles, Ginsburg and Feigen-Fasteau wrote that inmates of both sexes should be housed in the same facility.

“Sex-segregated adult or juvenile institutions are obviously separate, and in a variety of ways, unequal,” their report stated.

“Differences in training programs, distance from cities and relatives, work-release programs, educational opportunities, security, and other conditions redound to the benefit of men in some instances and women in others.

If the grand design of such institutions is to prepare inmates for return to the community as persons equipped to benefit from and contribute to civil society, then perpetuation of single-sex institutions should be rejected.”

Such rejection extends to sexually segregated groups that “furnish educational, financial, social and other assistance to their young members,” stated the report, which specified the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Future Farmers of America, Boys’ Clubs of America, Big Brothers of America and the Naval Sea Cadet Corps.

“The Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, while ostensibly providing ‘separate but equal’ benefits to both sexes, perpetuate stereotyped sex roles to the extent that they carry out congressionally-mandated purposes,” the report stated. “36 U.S.C. §23 defines the purpose of the Boy Scouts as the promotion of ‘…the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues….’

“The purpose of the Girl Scouts, on the other hand, is ‘…to promote the qualities of truth, loyalty, helpfulness, friendliness, courtesy, purity, kindness, obedience, cheerfulness, thriftiness, and kindred virtues among girls, as a preparation for their responsibilities in the home and for service to the community….’ “

The report advocated integrating the other four groups mentioned because they had no counterparts for girls and they “provide valuable training and social activity not readily obtainable elsewhere to female children and adolescents,” the report stated.

Ginsburg and Feigen-Fasteau’s agenda also meant fundamentally redefining roles within the family.

“Congress and the President should direct their attention to the concept that pervades the Code: that the adult world is (and should be) divided into two classes — independent men, whose primary responsibility is to win bread for a family and dependent women, whose primary responsibility is to care for children and household,” the report stated. 

“This concept must be eliminated from the Code if it is to reflect the equality principle.” (parentheses in original, emphasis added)

Increasing numbers of women joining the work force also “should impel development of a comprehensive program of government-supported child care,” the report stated.

Redefining family roles and providing government-supported child care reflect Marxist ideas that Leon Trotsky reiterated in his book, The Revolution Betrayed, which criticized Stalin’s policies.

“The place of the family as a shut-in petty enterprise was to be occupied, according to the plans, by a finished system of social care and accommodation: maternity houses, crèches, kindergartens, schools, social dining rooms, social laundries, first-aid stations, hospitals, sanatoria, athletic organizations, moving-picture theaters, etc.,” Trotsky wrote.

“The complete absorption of the housekeeping functions of the family by institutions of the socialist society, uniting all generations in solidarity and mutual aid, was to bring to woman, and thereby to the loving couple, a real liberation from the thousand-year-old fetters.”

The kind of adult liberation Ginsburg and Feigen-Fasteau envisioned would increase risks for young women.

The two feminists viewed the language of the Mann Act, passed in 1910 to prohibit commercially transporting “any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose,” as insulting to women while reinforcing stereotypical views.

“The Mann Act also is offensive because of the image of women it perpetuates,” the report stated.

“It was meant to protect from ‘the villainous interstate and international traffic in women and girls,’ ‘those women and girls who, if given a fair chance, would, in all human probability, have been good wives and mothers and useful citizens.’ “

The 1977 report also stated that “prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions.”

That assessment provided a stark contrast with this statement from Ginsburg’s and Feigen-Fasteau’s 1974 work:

“To eradicate sex-based discrimination in the catalogue of crimes, prostitution should be de-criminalized … laws classifying or referring to prostitution or solicitation by or on behalf of a prostitute should be repealed….”

Three years before preparing Sex Bias in U.S. Code, Ginsburg implied in a speech to Phi Beta Kappa that reverse discrimination would be necessary to open professional opportunities for women in male-dominated fields.

“First, does affirmative action required by anti-discrimination laws imply reverse discrimination?” Ginsburg rhetorically asked in 1974.

“As to affirmative action, discrimination in the job market has been the traditional pattern discrimination in favor of white males, and sometimes a narrower subspecies of that broad class.

That pattern, of course, must be terminated.”

Ginsburg used what she called a “not so hypothetical” example: Female police officers who seek to become sergeants could not take the necessary examination because women have been barred from patrol duty, a necessary prerequisite.

“But when an employer traditionally has acted on the basis of a gender characteristic, by hiring only males, gender must be taken into account in order to undo what has been done,” Ginsburg said. “Otherwise, the effects of past discrimination will be perpetuated long into the future.”

President Bill Clinton appointed Ginsburg to the Supreme Court in 1993 and the Senate confirmed her, 96-3.

During her quarter century on the bench, Ginsburg made a profound impact. Most of today’s controversies concerning diversity, gender confusion and human trafficking result directly from the radical egalitarianism she espouses — and which pop culture’s elites unquestioningly embrace.



Continue reading

Posted in Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Notorious Impact on America | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Another reminder why it is so great to be an American

By Jim Campbell

January 16, 2019

This is a song I recall hearing and singing when I was in grade school.

I wonder if children hear and sing it today?

In the event they don’t miss it, play it for your children and grandchildren.

Thanks to Lee Greenwood for the beautifully sung rendition.

My thanks to all of the members of the United States Military who have made the ultimate sacrifice so that all of us can still sing the song today.




My country ’tis of thee,
Sweet land of liberty…

Although we know that Reverend Samuel Francis Smith wrote the words to “My Country ‘Tis of Thee” (also known as “America”), the origin of the song’s melody remains a mystery. And the history of its verses is even more complex.

The son of Henry Carey, a British singer-composer, claimed his father was the first to compose both the words and the music of this tune as “God Save Great George the King” in London in 1740.

However, Carey’s son had financial reasons for making such a claim, and music historians argued it was more likely any such tune would have been based on a pre-existing melody.

Such an earlier melody, if it did exist, has been attributed to various seventeenth-century sources including the English composer John Bull, the French court composer Jean-Baptiste Lully, and even a military hymn from Switzerland.

Although the tune’s exact origin is not confirmed, it was printed in England in 1744 in the tune book Thesaurus Musicus.

The performance that led to an explosion in the popularity of “God Save the King” took place in London in September 1745.

Dr. Thomas Arne arranged the tune for a September 28, 1745, performance at the Drury Lane Theater.

It was also performed concurrently at the Covent Garden Theater for several nights running.

The song was intended to show support for the Hanoverian King George II, following the defeat of his General John Cope at Prestonpans, a battle that was the opening salvo in the war against “Bonnie Prince Charlie,” his Stuart rival for the throne.

Why not let any country that desires so claim this beautiful piece as their own anthem?


My Country ‘Tis of Thee. ca 1861. Music Division, Library of Congress

Before the music of “My Country ‘Tis of Thee” made its way to the United States it was played in many countries.

By the 1790s the melody had become that of the Danish national anthem “A Song to be Sung by the Danish Subjects at the Fete of their King, to the Melody of the English Hymn.”

Eventually it also became the national anthem of at least six other places, including Prussia (“Heil dir im Siegerkranz” or “Hail to Thee in the Victor’s Wreath”), Britain (“God Save the Queen”) and Liechtenstein.

The first documented version of this melody printed in the American British colonies dates from 1761.

The tune of “God Save the King” was used, in a slightly modified form, as the melody for the hymn known as “Whitefield’s Tune,” published in Urania, a collection of sacred songs compiled by James Lyon and printed by William Bradford.

After the colonies became independent from England the words were further adapted for use in the United States.

For example, George Washington was greeted as he arrived in New York City for his first inauguration in April 1789, with the following homegrown words sung to the familiar air of “God Save the King.”



Continue reading

Posted in Another reminder why it is so great to be an American | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments