Saturday, September 26, 2020

AMY CONEY BARRETT HEADS FOR THE SUPREME COURT

 


for fb.jpg

                                                 BY WILLIAM JUNEAU

                                                 Shortly after the death of Ruth Bader Ginsberg on September 18,  ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos hosted his "news" show and had as his principle guest, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and together they discussed the evil President Trump. A political team,  they shared thoughts as to what action the Democrats might take so as to block, stall and ultimately defeat the appointment by President Trump of a new justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.                                        Stephanopoulos laid aside his "journalistic" cap and was his old Democrat self, a student who found his way at the feet of Bill and Hillary Clinton.  So, one-on-one with Pelosi, the  octogenarian Trump-hater,  he promptly raised the possibility of another impeachment of the President, or maybe even of his Atty. General William Barr.  How about, he inquired, the always controversial  funding of America's budget-- hinting at a possible "shut down" of the country. He saw it as a clever  maneuver which might kick Trump and delay action on a new candidate to fill the Ginsburg vacancy.                                                                                                                 The aged Pelosi said that she had many options for what might be done -- "arrows in her quiver," as she put it,  but that she would not discuss them. On creating a budget battle, Pelosi noted that  many on the far left felt that that was the "way to go."  Pelosi said that she did not foresee a shut down which would cause too many problems to hardworking Americans.  But she agreed with the obsequious Stephanopoulos that nothing was "off the table."                                          In the days following that TV debacle, "This week with George Stephanopoulos," Pelosi did what she could to attack and bad mouth President Trump, using what she called  "arrows" in her "quiver."  But it was all for nix.  It left Pelosi with just an empty "quiver," relying solely on the hypocritical Democrat leader in the senate, Chuck Schumer to fire up Democrats in the Senate to go after the Trump nominee with the same gutter axe that they used last year on Brett Kavanaugh--now Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh.                                                                                                                 On Saturday, six days after the Stephanopoulos news show with Pelosi,  President Trump introduced his candidate to fill the vacancy---Amy Coney Barrett, a judge on the 7th Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals, and an admired  professor at the University of Notre Dame Law school. The 7th Circuit, one of 13 in the nation, exercises jurisdiction over legal controversies  in Illinois, Indiana and a portion of Wisconsin.  Judge Barrett is the author of hundreds of opinions.                                                                                                                      Judge Barrett, who at one time served as a clerk to the late Justice Antonin Scalia, spoke briefly in the Rose Garden ceremony promising that she will decide cases in accord with the constitution and will not be making laws.  She spoke with humility and told of her love for America and then introduced her husband, Jesse, and her seven children, which includes two adopted youngsters from Haiti.                                                                                                  Justice Barrett, 48, well respected for her scholarly opinions, had been approved as a Appellate Court justice three years ago by the Senate with all Republicans and even some Democrats voting for her. Attacks on her because of her Catholic religion made her detractors appear obtuse and unprofessional.                                                  The late Justice Ginsburg, 87, an associate justice for 27 years, was a warrior her entire career on behalf of women's rights.  Her opinions and her liberal views were well known and she brought to the bench a reputation for coming down on the side of women.  She first demonstrated her push on behalf of women's rights while serving for 10 years as general counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).                                                                            Justice Barrett is seen by Democrats as a conservative jurist who would favor the rewriting and overruling of the 1973 Roe v Wade decision which has allowed women to have abortions, as desired. Justice Ginsburg supported Roe v Wade though she acknowledged that it was poorly reasoned.                                                       The Roe decision is based upon a woman's right of privacy which is not spelled out in the Constitution, but believed to exist  in the penumbra of the Bill of Rights. According to Roe, that right of privacy endows women with the right to choose and control their own bodies. It is that right to choose which enables women to have abortions.                                                                                                      Conservative critics of the Roe decision argue  that a fetus has rights also and that its life began at conception.  The Supreme Court has never ruled as to when life begins, only that a fetus becomes a person deserving of constitutional protection at the moment of birth. As it stands presently, a fetus is not protected and can be aborted at any time, even in those seconds before the baby takes its first breath.                                                                                                            With the President's formal introduction of his nominee to the court,  preparations were underway by the Senate's Judiciary Committee to hold hearings and to allow senators to question the nominee on her judicial philosophies.                                                             In 2017, the Senate confirmed Judge Barrett for her position on the Court of Appeals. At the hearings, Sen. Feinstein of California sought to impugn Barrett's independence, alleging that  speeches Barrett had given revealed her allegiance to her Catholic religion and that its "dogma" dominated her thinking. The upshot of Feinstein's outrageous comments served only to reveal the senator's dim and biased political thinking, and the Senate promptly endorsed Barrett as a justice by a 55 to 43 vote.                                                                                Sen. Lindsey Graham, chairman of the Judiciary Committee said that he will move the confirmation hearings forward expeditiously. Mitch McConnell, president of the 100 member Senate, said that the hearings will be completed with a  vote by senators in October, prior to the November 3 election.                                                         Ratification and consent for the nominee requires a  simple majority of the sitting senators.  The Senate has 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats and 51 of the senators have said that they will be voting yes for Mrs. Barrett, McConnell has said.

                                                   xxx

Friday, September 18, 2020

KAMALA'S BACKGROUND

 



for fb.jpg
                          
                                               BY FLORIDA BILL 

                              Democrats are always raving and ranting about their dedication to the rule of law, but if you raise that principle at the wrong time, well, you are racist and a bigot and a xenophobe.
                              That's what happened a while back when Dr. John  Eastman, a scholarly lawyer and former dean of the Chapman University Fowler school of law in southern California, opined in an article published in Newsweek that Kamala Harris could have a problem if her eligibility to be a Vice President was challenged. 
                               Democrat loyalists promptly called Eastman a racist, harboring ill feelings for Harris who was elected as attorney general in California in 2010 and that Eastman had been an unsuccessful candidate in the race. His detractors claimed that he had turned his vengeful gun on this "woman of color" selected by Joe Biden as his running mate in next November's election.
                              Nothing personal, said Eastman, only the law, and it is what it is  Newsweek publishers and editors hastened to defend its racial integrity explaining that Dr. Eastman was simply presenting a "minority legal argument," on a very old legal controversy. There was no intention on the part of Eastman or the editors to rekindle "birther" allegations which for many years had haunted President Obama, magazine editors explained.
                               Eastman, a Republican, said that "it is ironic that he has received so much criticism for publishing the article on a subject I've been writing about for  20 years." 
                                  Ten years ago, Eastman was a candidate in the Republican primary in California for attorney general and he lost, and another lawyer became the Republican candidate.  The Democratic candidate was Kamala Harris and she went on to win the election, serving in that office until she became a U.S. Senator in 2017. He said that he had no ill will for Harris, and quipped that if he would be angry at anyone,  it would be the attorney who bested him in the Republican primary.
                               So what about Eastman's essay and the Obama birther controversy? 
                               After the biracial Barack Obama became a candidate for President, critics complained that he had been born in Kenya, in Eastern Africa  and was not an American citizen, and consequently, lacked the constitutional right to hold the office of President. Pew researchers reported that  20 per cent of the country's 336 million residents believed that Obama was born in Kenya.  Donald Trump, then a real estate billionaire, was a strong voice fueling opposition to Obama.
                            The controversy went on for several years, but in 2011 Obama, at long last,  produced his birth certificate attesting to the fact that he had been born in Hawaii.  His mother was a teen age American citizen and his father was an economist from Kenya. The dispute was finally put to rest with Trump's public declaration in 2016 that "President Obama was born in the United States....Period."
                            Eastman's article in Newsweek raised a different point.  Harris' birthright citizenship was in accord with the 14th amendment, but might conflict with the mandate in Article II  which sets forth that only a "natural born citizen" can serve as President or Vice President.  
                            Harris was born in Oakland, California in October, 1964.  Her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, a native of India, was a doctoral student attending the University of Berkeley.  Her father, Donald J. Harris, a Jamaican, was also a graduate student at the university.  Shyamala and Donald were wed but later divorced and Kamala was raised by her single mother. who died in 2009.  Kamala's dad was a Stanford university professor of economics for many years, and is now retired. 
                                 The 14th Amendment which allows for birthright citizenship is as follows:                           
                               "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."  
                                 Neither of Kamala's parents were American citizens. Most likely, said Eastman, Shymala Gopalan and Donald Harris were in United States via a green card allowing  them to attend the university.  Both were citizens of other countries.
                                Birth on American soil gave citizenship to Kamala Harris,  but the legal controversy arose, said Dr. Eastman, as to whether she met the requirements of being a "natural born citizen" as is the mandate in Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution.  
                                Kamala's parents were undocumented visitors to America which allowed them to attend Berkeley university. Had the parents been non-citizens, but permanent residents, they would have been "subject to the jurisdiction thereof,"  and that would have make Kamala a "natural born citizen." and her eligibility to serve as vice president would be consistent with requirements for holding the high offices as set forth in the Constitution.   
                                 Harris' questionable eligibility to fill the office of Vice President is a theory supported by a minority of opinions.  
                                Eastman's opinion piece is just that and others in the majority, will argue that the 14th amendment grants citizenship to anyone and everyone born on American soil, and the right to be President or Vice President comes with that citizenship.  
                                 At a news conference, Trump was asked about the Newsweek article by Dr. Eastman, and he said that he knew nothing about it, but that the author was a highly regarded attorney. 
                                   As a candidate in 2016, President Trump was critical of the interpretation of the 14th Amendment which allows for so-called "anchor" babies.  Sen. Lindsey Graham has said also that the USA is a magnet for pregnant women to get onto American soil and have a baby, whereby the infant immediately becomes an American citizen entitled to all of the largess and benefits afforded citizens.  Most often with "anchor babies" such as Kamala Harris, the mother and father, or  the single mother,  remain in the USA with their citizen child,  and the family receives significant health and living benefits.    
                                  A study in 2018 found that 297,000 babies were born that year to undocumented mothers. Costs for the infants and extended families amounted to billions of dollars. As a candidate in 2016, Trump said that he would review birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment in an effort to make such births subject to reasonable conditions.                                     

                                             xxx









  

Wednesday, September 16, 2020

BIDEN ASKS-- AM I A RADICAL SOCIALIST?


for fb.jpg               
                                     BY BILL JUNEAU 

                                Joe Biden stood in front of cameras recently and said, "Ask yourself, do I look like a radical socialist with a soft spot for rioters? 
                                Looking at him in his ironed suit and neat tie, and with his freshly grown hair plastered down, standing amid a   backdrop of American flags, I have to say he does not look like a radical who likes to see a good riot.  But then "looks can be  deceiving ."   
                               An even more interesting twist on that question might be to ask ourselves whether his vice presidential running mate looks like a radical socialist with a soft spot for rioters. The answer there might be quite different, especially if you look at her record.
                              But back to the actual candidate.  A "radical socialist?"  He's been in government for almost 50 years as a Senator and then as a Vice President. 
                              In recent times, the slow witted Biden has  attached himself to the hip of "Democrat-Socialist" Bernie Sanders, and Bernie's alter ego, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a former New York bartender who is predicting an end of the world in 12 years. For her and Bernie, and now Biden,  unless the "Green New Deal" is implemented, society as we know it is down the drain.  Joe Biden says he's the man to apply the fix. 
                             One of the main elements of  the Green New Deal is that  fossil fuels need to be replaced--somehow.  Airplanes will be out and maybe, a road to Hawaii can be created.  Millions of structures will need to be rebuilt. None of this seems to bother Biden, in fact, he says he is all in.
                             Biden has said that he will be the most progressive president since FDR and pacifist Sanders nods in agreement.  Costs for this enormous legislative package will be in the many trillions of dollars, but who's counting.  Tax increases on the wealthy one percent, with corporations made to pay their "fair share," will provide the funds, Biden has said. 
                            But that is only part of the Biden and Sanders "manifesto." Borders will be opened for all to the USA--a new home of the free. No such entity as an illegal alien. Top medical and health care will be provided at no charge for all residents, including the once called "illegals." School tuition will be eliminated entirely and existing school debt will be canceled. The 400 miles of the controversial Trump Wall will come down, and second amendment rights will be shaved. Jailed felons will be permitted to vote in elections, bail posting will be unnecessary and prisons and holding cells will become  history. Funds for the police will be "redirected" wherever appropriate. Is this Utopia, or what?
                           Together with the "Green New Deal," this is the Biden/Sanders/AOC vision. Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Chuck Schumer and other Democrats say they are on board. Beto O'Rourke will reportedly supervise all gun matters.  
                          So, ask yourself are the Biden plans "radical," and is Biden a socialist?  As I see it, their vision is insane nonsense, and Biden, seeing this as his last chance at the White House,  has eagerly hopped on board. So the answer to his question  is: "Yes, that's Joe Biden's calling card." And yes, Slow Joe Biden is a socialist. 
                          But does Biden actually have a "soft spot" for rioting? Good question for the former vice president. 
                          For four months, the 77-year-old Biden, whose mental capacity is clearly an issue, sat relaxed in the solitude of his basement lair in his Delaware home. On those rare occasions he appeared in public, he sported a black mask, often dangling from one ear, and stammered incoherently.       
                              Was he too secluded within his self imposed quarantine to notice that the nation's major urban centers were the scenes of rioting, looting, fires and deaths?  Television screens and newspapers were filled with nothing else for weeks, but the candidate remained silent.
                            Nor was this a topic of discussion at the  Democratic convention, which was held from Aug. 17 to Aug.  20 in Milwaukee. Scores of speakers praised Biden and his running mate and predicted that with them in charge of the government, there would be quick fixes to problems confronting the nation.                            But not a word was spoken about the disorders anrampaging on American streets, all in cities and states controlled by Democratic mayors and governors who had asked their police to "stand down," and allow "peaceful" protesting to continue. Not a word from the standard bearer or from the former California Attorney General Harris. Not a mention about the millions, even billions, of dollars in damages to good decent merchants.  No reference to the looting of stores on Chicago's magnificent mile where BLM spokespersons have said that the expensive merchandise taken was equivalent to Blacks receiving long deserved "reparations." 
                              But then around the end of August, Biden stepped forward and said that he condemned the violence and anarchy and that looters and arsonists and killers should be prosecuted. Yes, Joe Biden emerged as a "law and order" guy. There never was any explanation as to why the subject of the disorders was never mentioned at the four-day convention, only that now it was being condemned.
                               Pundits surmise that the Democrats had to act, since Republicans and the incumbent President were being praised for their stand against violence.  Biden's managers gave him a new script to read.   Close allies like Bernie and AOC very likely did not like his endorsement of  "law and order," since it was offensive to the far left base; but Democrats in charge saw it as time for the slow thinking, but malleable Biden, to speak out on the need for peace on our streets.
                              Biden and the Democrats ignored the disorders and endorsed the call for racial justice so long as it appeared to be beneficial to their campaign. When it was not, the change was made. 
                              So much for the answer to Biden's question. He endorses radical ideas and is a  true-blue socialist, and has a "soft spot" for disorders when they are helpful. And that's the way Slow Joe Biden of 2020 and the Democrat bosses who pull Biden's strings play the game of politics.   
                                                
                                                 XXX  











                             













                              
                               
                         

Sunday, September 6, 2020

THE JESSICA KRUG STORY



for fb.jpg

                                     BY BILL JUNEAU

                           A few days ago, a respected black professor at George Washington University, in Washington, D.C., Jessica A. Krug,  posted on social media that she had been living a lie and that she was not Black, but White. 
                          Her students at the university, faculty members and associates were dumbfounded at her admission.  Members of the faculty were "shocked and appalled" and called upon her to resign from her position as an associate professor. Failing that, the department will recommend rescinding her tenure, according to a statement released by the university.  
                         Dr. Krug's confession that she was living a 20-year long charade, brought back memories of five years ago of Rachel Dolezal who was riding high as a NAACP leader in Seattle when her parents appeared and said that Rachel was their all-white daughter and that she was living a fantasy. 
                         Professor Krug, 38, with a doctorate in history from the University of Wisconsin, was an author and a respected scholar of black history. Around campus, she was revered as a successful WOC (woman of color), and mothers sought to steer their daughters to the paths taken by Dr. Krug. 
                         But there was another side to Dr. Krug, and in that role she used the name of Jess LaBombalera. That Krug was an activist and was said to have spoken out against police brutality at a New York rally in June.  "If this city is for us, the New York Police department can't stay," she shouted.  As recorded on YouTube, her speech was laced with use of the "F" word.
                         But whether it was Prof. Krug or Ms. LaBombalera,  she was admired and had her fans.  At the university she taught various courses in Black history.
                          Krug had been born of two white parents who were Jewish.  She was reared with her brother in their home in Kansas City, Mo.  After high school, she earned her bachelor's degree at the University of Kansas and then went on for her doctorate in history from the University of Wisconsin at Madison.
                          She may well have continued to live her arranged life as a Black woman, but her deceit apparently haunted her.  Her sister-in-law however challenged that explanation believing that Jessica's lie had been discovered by others. 
                         "I have eschewed my life experience as a white Jewish child in suburban Kansas City under various assumed identities within a Blackness that I had no right to claim," she wrote. " For the better part of my adult life, every move I’ve made, every relationship I’ve formed, has been rooted in ....lies."  
                          Krug said also in her post that that she’s been battling “unaddressed mental health demons” for most of her life and began assuming a false identity as a child. 
                          Rachel Dolezal was 39 when her parents announced that Rachel was their white daughter, part Swedish, part Czech and part German. She earned a bachelors degree and later a master of fine arts from Howard University, a predominantly Black school where she assumed the persona of a Black woman.
                         Ms. Dolezal is the author of the book, "In Full Color: Finding My Place in a Black and White World." In CNN and other interviews, she said that she believes that she has been  misunderstood. Yes, she is a civil rights leader, she argues, but never identified herself as African American.  "I've identified as Black....  and Black is a culture, a philosophy, a political and social view," she asserted. 
                          It remains to be seen what the future holds for Dr. Krug.  Dolezal actually changed her name to Nkechi Amare Diallo, which is said to have the meaning of "Gift of God" in west Africa territory.  The new name was designed to recapture her standing in the Black community, but there were reports that she was having difficulty finding a job.
                          Many white persons and black persons are probably shaking their heads over the peculiar conduct of these well educated women, who aspire to recreate themselves  as racially Black. Too many of both races, I fear, look upon them as a pair of  kooks.  


                                              XXX



Friday, September 4, 2020

THE INFALLIBLE FBI



for fb.jpg
                                  
                                                            BY BILL JUNEAU
                         
                        In the past four years, the FBI's reputation for excellence has gotten a bit tarnished.  In 2018, it was the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, which revealed that the world's most efficient police department was not above committing egregious acts of negligence that triggered disastrous results. 
                       On top of the Parkland debacle, the a-Political FBI which ideally always follows the evidence, and prides itself in never favoring one side over the other, did the unimaginable. It abandoned its cloak of neutrality and climbed into bed with Democrats and participated in an effort to take down and destroy the nation's duly elected 45th President, Donald Trump....and it got caught.
                        But this is a new day, and the FBI says that the past is the past. The 112-year old Bureau is said to be up and running again  under Director Christopher Wray, appointed by President Trump in  July 2017;  and Wray has promised that reforms are being implemented. 
                        The Parkland, Florida, school shooting happened on a balmy February 14th, 2018,  Valentine's Day, when 19-year-old Nicholas Cruz turned his assault rifle on  teenagers on the second floor of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High school.  His gunfire killed sixteen students and an assistant football coach and security guard.  
                         Cruz scampered from the school following the slaughter, went to a nearby fast food restaurant, had a hamburger and was arrested a few hours later, offering no resistance. 
                         Parents were broken with grief and news of the school massacre swept the nation and the world.  How did this happen?  Could it have been prevented?  Wasn't Cruz a known troublemaker and a disturbed youth? The sad story of  how the FBI functioned more like the Keystone cops than as the foremost police department on the planet rolled out for all to see.
                         On September 25, five months prior  to the shooting, the FBI received an email tip in the form of a posting on You Tube in which the user identified himself as "Nickolas Cruz" and said that,  "I'm going to be a professional school shooter."  Agents opened a file, but apparently that's all they did.    
                                 As the explanatory story was later told, the  agents  concluded that the "Nickolas Cruz" that had posted on U Tube could not be located.  That alibi seemed ridiculous, since inquiries around south Florida very likely would have produced  "Nicholas Cruz," a troublemaker with a very thick file in the hands of the Broward County Sheriff's office and who had been expelled from Stoneman Douglas school for disciplinary reasons. 
                                On January 5, a mere six weeks before Cruz implemented his plans to be a "professional school shooter,"the FBI received a telephone message from a caller who said he was a person "close to Nicholas Cruz" and that Cruz  had a "desire to kill people" and the caller said that he was worried about the "potential of him conducting a school shooting."                                   .
                                  The caller identified himself to the FBI, according to allegations contained in lawsuits, and said that "Cruz stockpiled weapons and hurt animals."  The informant even provided the address and telephone number of where Cruz was living in Parkland. With that information, it was alleged in court  documents, an FBI agent consulted with a supervisor and the matter was then  "closed" without any further action.
                                  After the shootings and the incredible negligence  of the FBI was exposed, apologies came from then Attorney General Jeff Sessions and FBI Director Christopher Wray.  Former Florida Gov. Rick Scott, now U.S. Senator Scott, demanded that Director Wray resign. 
                                 Deputy FBI Director David Bodich provided the following response to the Parkland debacle:  
                         "Under established protocols, the information provided by the callers should have been assessed as a potential threat to life...and the tip should have been forwarded to the Miami 
field office.  We clearly should have done more." 
                                  In the Parkland case, the FBI's sin was one of gross negligence, but that was not the case in a national controversy generated by the campaign and election of Donald Trump in 2016. That was all politics.  FBI Director James Comey and his deputy, Andrew McCabe, were rooting for Hillary Clinton to become President, and they did what they could to make it happen.  
                                 Pushed and arranged by Comey, Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller was appointed by Congress to investigate the President's make believe "collusion" with Russia.  Twenty two months later, at a cost of $33 million, Mueller reported there was no "collusion" and he exonerated Trump of all wrongdoing. 
                                 An Inspector General investigation revealed that Comey approved phony petitions which were filed under oath with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court (FISA), and that warrants were obtained for spying on a a member of the Trump team.  Subsequently, FBI  lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith was arrested and confessed to altering documents relied upon by that court. 
                                Agent Peter Strzok, a lead investigator for Comey, illegally tapped into a phone conversation between General Michael Flynn, Trump's NSA chief, and a Russian ambassador. The conversation was labeled "legit," and professional, but Strzok interviewed Flynn and had him arrested for "lying" to to the FBI.                                    Earlier this year, Attorney General William Barr canceled the prosecution saying that Gen. Flynn, a retired three star general, had been "set up." Barr's decision to non-suit the prosecution was objected to by the judge hearing the case, and appellate review of the matter is currently underway.  
                            Comey, McCabe, Peter Strzok and Strzok's in house girl friend, Lisa Page have been fired, and others answering to Comey have resigned and grabbed their pensions.  McCabe also has been accused of lying to investigators, but so far has avoided prosecution.  One FBI lawyer has been convicted of altering documents, and awaits sentencing.  
                           Investigations into the Democrat controlled attack upon President Trump are continuing by U.S. Attorney John Durham and by the U.S. Senate Judiciary committee.  
                          South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham,  committee chairman, said recently in an interview that he would be very "surprised, if there are not more arrests coming from the Durham investigation."    
                                                 XXX