[Breitbart] Eighty-eight percent of likely Republican voters polled in late February saw President Donald Trump as the likely Republican nominee in 2020.
One thousand likely Republican voters were polled from February 25-26 in the Rasmussen survey. Of those polled, 88 percent saw president Trump as the likely 2020 Republican nominee. Among those surveyed, 70 percent saw Trump’s nomination as "very likely."
Respondents were asked two questions in the poll conducted by Pulse Opinion Research for Rasmussen. The first question was, "How likely is it that President Trump will be the Republican presidential nominee in 2020?" The second question was, "During his first two years in office, has President Trump done a good job representing Republican values? Or has he lost touch with Republican voters throughout the nation?"
[Hot Air] To cleanse the palate, lotta emotions running high today.
I don’t know what this is really about but it’s not about the Cohen hearing. Williams rambles on a bit too long while panelist Morgan Ortagus is waiting to cut in, then he says something about a bunker, and ‐ hoo boy.
This is the closest the Fox News set has come to actual violence since the time Hannity pulled a gun on Juan. How has this guy survived this long?
Two clips here from "The Five" plus one of Cohen’s closing statement today, which contained its own intimation of violence: "Given my experience working for Mr. Trump, I fear that if he loses the election in 2020, that there will never be a peaceful transition of power." He’s overstating that; it’s not like Trump will deploy the military if he loses. But there’s literally no scenario in which he’ll graciously accept defeat, even if he loses by 10 million votes. Some sort of fraud and chicanery will be alleged to explain it. "That’s what they did to me with the Russia probe," he’ll say of Democrats’ reaction to his victory over Hillary in 2016. Where things go from there, God only knows. Hopefully they won’t get too hairy.
#1
Gutfeld went off on Juan for continuing to refer to him (Gutfeld and others) as being "in the bunker" for Trump. According to Gutfeld, a veiled reference to Hitler's Berlin bunker.
#6
Remember when Juan said something that freaked out the left and conservatives defended him and his freedom of speech and all that. Typical Liberal, no class.
[American Thinker] When most Americans think of lynching, they summon images of the horrific murders of American blacks, particularly in the years of the Jim Crow South. To describe such murders as "bias-motivated acts of terror," as Cory Booker has, would certainly be accurate. "This bill," Booker says, "will not undo the damage," but it "will acknowledge the wrongs in our history. It will honor the memories of those brutally killed."
So, when Senate Democrats offered their proposed new law, the Justice for Victims of Lynching Act of 2018, I had assumed that it would be a symbolic congressional action to recognize these injustices that took place and to honor the victims. Considering that the act passed the Senate unanimously, that's likely what most senators also believed.
But that's not what the act is, and that's certainly not its intent. The real purpose of the act appears to be the legal redefining of the word "lynching" to include a include a much broader scope of lesser crimes, and to grow the federal government's power to prosecute these lesser crimes that it includes in its new definition.
Lynching is not a problem in the United States anymore, and the language of the act affirms that fact unequivocally. The act cites that at least "4,742 people, predominantly black African-Americans, were reported lynched in the United States between 1882 and 1968."
Jeebus H Christ on a shingle. I've been hearing about this for 60 years. It's not been hidden at all and I am sick and tired of every one of these race-baiters trying to get some reflected virtue points from the horrors of the past!
Can I get some comps for what the Romans did to my ancestors?
[REASON] In his 2018 confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was asked by Sen. Mike Lee (R‐Utah) whether or not he considered himself to be an originalist. "Originalism refers to basically textualism applied in the constitutional sphere, with an eye toward identifying the original public meaning of the constitutional text at issue," Lee observed. So, "for our purposes today," Lee asked the nominee, "you're an originalist?" "That's correct," Kavanaugh promptly replied.
Many fans of originalism were no doubt heartened by that answer. Unfortunately for them, Kavanaugh just flunked his first big test as an originalist on the Supreme Court.
The test came last week in the case of Timbs v. Indiana. The matter arose in 2013 when a man named Tyson Timbs was arrested on drug charges and sentenced to one year on home detention and five years on probation. A few months after his arrest, the state of Indiana also moved to seize Timbs' brand new Land Rover LR2, a vehicle worth around $40,000. But a state trial court rejected that civil asset forfeiture on the grounds that it would be "grossly disproportionate to the gravity of [Timbs'] offense" and therefore in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which forbids the imposition of "excessive fines."
The Indiana Supreme Court later reversed that judgment. "We conclude the Excessive Fines Clause does not bar the State from forfeiting Defendant's vehicle because the United States Supreme Court has not held that the Clause applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment," the state's high court said.
The issue before the U.S. Supreme Court in Timbs v. Indiana, therefore, was whether or not the Excessive Fines Clause should bind the states just as it binds the federal government. Since the late 19th century, the Supreme Court has been applying‐or incorporating‐the various provisions contained in the Bill of Rights against the states via the 14th Amendment, which says, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The issue in Timbs, in other words, boiled down to this: if the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment applies against the states (it does), then the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment deserves the same treatment.
#1
It says right on the note that the fiat money belongs to the Federal Reserve, not to you. Wanna hold on to your assets? Good luck...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
02/28/2019 5:30 Comments ||
Top||
#2
So how did Kavanaugh fail?
He applied the Due Process part of the constitution from the 14th amendment,
I don't see a failure there - he produced a right ruling with a valid constitutional basis.
I agree that Justice Thomas use of the "Privileges and Immunities" clause is possibly more fundamental, but this doesnt mean Kavanugh "flunked" on this ruling.
Didn't matter to the case, per Gorsuch.
Getting your panties in a wad over originalist virtue signaling is just the kind of self righteous moral preening nitwittery I expect out of Reason.
[Babylon Bee] People are always uncertain what kind of world they would be bringing any potential children into, and as we look at the current era, with its boundless prosperity and opportunity unlike mankind has ever seen, people are just not certain that now is a good time to have kids.
Smartphones. The internet. Netflix. These are things kids would distract us from. In previous times, like during the ice age or the black plague, people didn’t have anything better to do than have kids, but now with all the luxuries and technology we have, kids would get in the way of things like responding to people on Twitter. Do we really want to bring children into a world where I’m constantly distracted trying to check for updates on my phone? That’s not fair to them. Or to the people I interact with online.
Also, with all that climate change and whatnot, people are predicting the world might not last another ten years. People have predicted that for decades, so one of these times it might come true. And if you think the world is going to end, the best thing you can do is stop having children. That’s telling the world: "You can’t fire us... we quit!"
And while we have in this world wealth and abundance like no time in history, there is one thing we have less of: responsibility. Apparently, kids require that, and it sounds awful.
[The Federalist] So I was going to have a little fun at the expense of CNN this morning, contrasting the news site’s headline for the Democrats’ gun restriction bill‐"House to vote on guns background check bill with bipartisan support"‐which has garnered exactly four Republican co-sponsors, with its headline for the Sen. Ben Sasse’s anti-infanticide bill, which I was certain would be solely about the "GOP" despite having four Democrat Senators voting to move the bill forward. Turns out, it was even better.
There was nothing to contrast because, as far as I can tell, CNN doesn’t feature a single story on their website regarding the Democratic Party blocking of Sasse’s Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would have saved newborn babies who survive abortion attempts from negligent homicide.
CNN didn’t even bother producing one of those predictably prejudiced pieces, like the ones we saw in Politico or the Washington Post yesterday, mischaracterizing Sasse’s bill as "anti-abortion." They didn’t bother with the "conservatives pounce!" stories like the Daily Beast or Vox. They didn’t bother, like so many others, to distract from the number of viable babies being aborted by stressing only 1.5 percent of the procedures are in post-20 weeks, rather than pointing out there are somewhere around 15,000 to 18,000 aborted every year. They just ignored it.
CNN features a long string of stories about Donald Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen on the site‐surely, legitimate news‐but not one about a highly unpopular policy position that is supported by every Democratic Party presidential hopeful in the Senate. This issue that dominated the political discussions of around half the country yesterday was not worth a single piece from this unbiased, undeterred, truth seeking, information-gathering operation. I wonder why that is?
As far as we can tell as of this writing, in the 4 a.m. and 5 a.m. hours, CNN anchor Dave Briggs reported, not on the debate over the infanticide bill or the vote, but on a Trump tweet about the debate (the heroin of mainstream journalism):
#1
If we can kill newborn baby lives. Why can’t we let drug addicts die when they overdose. Why not declare the drug cartel and MS13 members terroists and put them in Guantanamo Bay.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Hot Air] To cleanse the palate, lotta emotions running high today.
[American Thinker] When most Americans think of lynching, they summon images of the horrific murders of American blacks, particularly in the years of the Jim Crow South. To describe such murders as "bias-motivated acts of terror," as Cory Booker has, would certainly be accurate. "This bill," Booker says, "will not undo the damage," but it "will acknowledge the wrongs in our history. It will honor the memories of those brutally killed."
[REASON] In his 2018 confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was asked by Sen. Mike Lee (R‐Utah) whether or not he considered himself to be an originalist. "Originalism refers to basically textualism applied in the constitutional sphere, with an eye toward identifying the original public meaning of the constitutional text at issue," Lee observed. So, "for our purposes today," Lee asked the nominee, "you're an originalist?" "That's correct," Kavanaugh promptly replied.
[The Federalist] So I was going to have a little fun at the expense of CNN this morning, contrasting the news site’s headline for the Democrats’ gun restriction bill‐"House to vote on guns background check bill with bipartisan support"‐which has garnered exactly four Republican co-sponsors, with its headline for the Sen. Ben Sasse’s anti-infanticide bill, which I was certain would be solely about the "GOP" despite having four Democrat Senators voting to move the bill forward. Turns out, it was even better.
