The irrational left
Yesterday, the radical left's newest candidate Kamala Harris said she wanted to end the Senate filibuster in order to codify the unconstitutional "Roe v Wade" decision. If she were to succeed it would end more than a century of the US Senates 60 vote rule, which demanded a reasonable consensus in enacting certain legislation. Two Senate Democrats turned independents, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, criticized that position. Manchin said he won't endorse her.
Kamala's argument is that by codifying the high court’s wrongly decided 1973 decision, "every woman would be able make decisions about their own body and not have their government tell them what to do.” It would, of course, allow a simple partisan majority to enact a federal law on abortion, rather than the people of each state voting for the kind of abortion laws, with or without restrictions, that they want.
This marks another flip flop for Harris who once sent a letter to then Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell in 2017 begging McConnell to preserve the filibuster. Back then when we had a competent President, and a Republican Senate Kamala said: “We are united in our determination to preserve the ability of Members to engage in extended debate when bills are on the Senate floor.”
She has received a lot more help in the past few weeks & days. The Fed cut interest rates just before an election, Taylor Swift endorsed Harris in a cunningly timed move, a few Teamster locals were convinced to break with leader O'Brien and endorsed Harris and Volodymyr Zelensky came to visit in what appears to be an attempt to boost Harris. Imagine a foreign leader getting involved in an American election?
House Republicans are demanding an investigation into Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s visit to the United States this week, raising questions about whether it was intended to boost Vice President Kamala Harris ahead of the November election.
A group of nine House Republicans led by Rep. Lance Gooden (R-TX) is requesting information from the Justice and Defense departments to determine whether a visit from Zelensky to Pennsylvania earlier this week was “politically motivated” and paid for by U.S. taxpayer dollars in violation of federal law.
The request specifically cites comments from Zelensky in which he suggested a Trump-Vance administration could lead to “global conflict,” prompting criticism from GOP lawmakers who called it a “stump speech” for Harris.
“These actions have raised serious concerns among observers that the visit may have been politically motivated, potentially violating U.S. laws such as the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from engaging in political activities while on duty or using government resources for such activities,” the lawmakers wrote in the letter.
The letter also cites concerns that Zelensky was flown into Pennsylvania on a U.S. military aircraft and was provided Secret Service protection while visiting an ammunition plant in Scranton, Pennsylvania, both of which would involve the use of taxpayer funds and must only be used for national security purposes.
If true, the lawmakers argue, those resources were used for purposes unrelated to national security but rather “to support a politically significant visit ahead of a major U.S. election.” In that case, Republicans say it would be a violation of federal law or ethical guidelines, thus prompting a “full accounting of those expenditures” to Congress.
House Republicans demand investigation on whether Zelensky visit was ‘politically motivated’ to boost Harris - Washington Examiner
Something tells me this will be a very rewarding trip for Zelensky.
In the news:
The Israeli military said it intercepted a Hezbollah missile fired at Tel Aviv. It is the first time Hezbollah has targeted Israel's economic center. The Israeli military is calling up two reserve brigades to the northern border for "operational activities." The U.N. Security Council is expected to meet tonight as global leaders fear a broader regional war. Secretary of State Antony Blinken urged the two sides to reach a diplomatic agreement in an interview on NBC's "TODAY" show this morning.
China said it had launched a ballistic missile with a dummy warhead into the Pacific Ocean, a projection of power in Asia.
Iran hacked into the Trump campaign not once but twice.
Speaker Mike Johnson plans to bypass House Republican hard-liners by relying on Democratic votes to pass a spending bill today. He will avoid a shutdown and at the same time the point on democrats being against a federal law preventing illegal alien voting has been made.
A House committee recommended holding Antony Blinken, the secretary of state, in contempt of congress for refusing to testify about the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.
A federal grand jury charged the gunman who lurked near Donald Trump’s golf course with attempting to assassinate a Presidential candidate. He faces life imprisonment. The case will be handled by the states most prestigious Judge: Judge Aileen Cannon. U.S. intelligence officials have now briefed Trump about specific threats from Iran to assassinate him. Iran fears another Trump Presidency.
United States District Court Judge Richard L. Young (A Clinton appointee) made an illogical ruling that the state’s ban on gender-affirming surgery likely violates the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The ruling mandates that the IDOC arrange for a prisoner will be able to receive the surgery at taxpayer expense immediately.
Tags
Who is online
414 visitors
Good morning
The Rabbit Hole on X: "Democrats dominate academia https://t.co/AzWSmun7eB" / X
AKA: America's problem.
Defunding universities would help.
And you believe a bar graph posted on that bastion of misinformation called 'X' because?
It is an indication of how far left our universities have become.
Case in point: Our presidential candidate, Kamala Harris, who told us she had a middle-class background, is actually the daughter of two tenured professors.
Donald Harris, 85, is an emeritus professor at Stanford University whose research interests include economic history, macroeconomics, economics of technology, and development economics, according to his Stanford profile. He joined the faculty in 1972 and retired in 1998, according to a description of his professional career. Harris also served as an economic consultant to Jamaica’s government, according to the description. He was a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley, where he met his future wife and Harris’ mother, Shyamala Gopalan.
Shyamala Gopalan was a scientist whose work was described as sparking “many advances” in “the role of progesterone and its cellular receptor in breast biology and cancer,” activist organization Breast Cancer Action published in 2009 .
Who are Kamala Harris' parents? Father was a Stanford professor, mom a scientist (yahoo.com)
According to Snopes: (the fact checker) Kamala Harris' father was a Marxist economist.
Fact Check: Kamala Harris' Father Was a 'Marxist Economist'? (msn.com)
That's nice ... now who is responsible for producing the chart?
As to Kamilla's father was a marxist, so what, mine was a mechanic and an Anglican, none of his sons became either. Friedrich Trump ran brothels ... is he responsible for how Donald runs his life? Enough with the 'guilt' by association nonsense.
As to tenured professors, they are upper class? In the 1990s either would have been lucky to pull in 60,000$ a year.
The link is there.
As to Kamilla's father was a marxist, so what
He taught economics at Stanford University. That's what!
Langbert, Mitchell (June 2018). "Homogeneous: The Political Affiliations of Elite Liberal Arts College Faculty" . Academic Questions . 32 (2): 186–197. doi : 10.1007/s12129-018-9700-x (inactive 2024-02-27). S2CID 149559397 . Retrieved June 13, 2018 .
Very well done!
Equivalent to $148K in 1990
Oh my, my 'X taught' economics at Wake Forest, her 'Y' at Case Western and they didn't share a Marxist bone twixt them. It's time you realized that the 'modern' Marxist is just a scary dustbunny that publications such as The Standard SC toss at receptive paranoia.
I believe the former 'president' convicted felon rapist traitor called her a socialist marxist fascist.
What's that?
One of those emasculating multi-ethnic females that appears to scare the shyte out of supposedly grownup maga-macho men.
Neat, you toss up a link to 'think tank' funded top to bottom by members of the far right. Try harder.
Political science is yet another liberal art. Even when it is conservative.
So, what we have is the far left complaining about the far right complaining about the far left.
Yeah, I can see why Kamala Harris would be popular with the liberal arts crowd.
Sounds like you attended a confessional this morning.
They are called liberal arts for a reason. Did you know that mathematics and economics are liberal arts?
The opposite of liberal arts would be technical and vocational disciplines. Those in the liberal arts only think about working. It's the vocational disciplines who must actually do the work.
I like it!
Very good Nerm.
You do realize that we lead the world in science. That would be a really bad move.
It also doesn't make any sense.
We can lead the world in science without having the social sciences being taught from a Marxist perspective,
Take away funding and they'll get rid of the lefties.
We can also lead the world without labeling everything we disagree with as Marxist.
I only call it where it exists. It dominates the left.
Where one side finds Marxists the other finds Nazis. Good luck with your continued crusade to divide the country. I don't think it will lead where you want it to.
Can you name a Nazi professor teaching at an American university?
So the bar graph shows that Republicans aren't as smart as Democrats or they chose to be grifters instead of producing citizens?
It shows that what many academics like Thomas Sowell complained about decades ago is true.
The universities forced out teachers and Professors who weren't hard left.
How did they force them out? If they are tenured that statement is BS.
If they were tenured, they were replaced after retirement by a leftist.
Are you denying that the left now controls most of our institutions?
MAGA Anti-Intellectualism is so Germany 1939...
In a way, you stumbled onto something.
All was quiet on the Marxist front until 1923 when the cultural terrorist turned up for a “Marxist study week” in Frankfurt, Germany. There, Lukács met a young, wealthy Marxist named Felix Weil.
Until Lukács showed up, classical Marxist theory was based solely on the economic changes needed to overthrow class conflict. Weil was enthused by Lukács’ cultural angle on Marxism.
Weil’s interest led him to fund a new Marxist think tank—the Institute for Social Research. It would later come to be known as simply The Frankfurt School.
In 1930, the school changed course under new director Max Horkheimer. The team began mixing the ideas of Sigmund Freud with those of Marx, and cultural Marxism was born.
In classical Marxism, the workers of the world were oppressed by the ruling classes. The new theory was that everyone in society was psychologically oppressed by the institutions of Western culture. The school concluded that this new focus would need new vanguards to spur the change. The workers were not able to rise up on their own.
As fate would have it, the National Socialists came to power in Germany in 1933. It was a bad time and place to be a Jewish Marxist, as most of the school’s faculty was. So, the school moved to New York City, the bastion of Western culture at the time.
The Birth Of Cultural Marxism: How The “Frankfurt School” Changed America | The Standard SC
That was the bad seed which began it all.
Only for racist xenophobes like the Nazis in 1933 were.
That makes zero sense.
[deleted][✘]
Ja. Makes perfect sense.
Good. Please explain it to us.
As soon as you supply a fact or the truth.
I'll take that as YOU CAN'T.
[deleted]
It needs no explanation.
So I was correct then.
Ja!
Ja! You know how the cons/the former 'president' convicted felon rapist conman traitor feel about the uneducated. Loves them!
I'm laying bets that Judge Aileen Cannon will do the exact opposite she did for Trump, will rush this case through so fast it will be arrested for speeding.
It may have been a tough case in DC, or NYC, or Fulton County Georgia.
I think she'll do well.
I think she will go down in history as a Goneril.
Aha!!! A man who knows his Shakespeare. But Cannon is so obviously loyal to Trump.
No, I think justice is striking back. This out of New York:
NEW YORK — Some judges in a New York appeals court appeared receptive Thursday to possibly reversing or reducing a civil fraud judgment that stands to cost Donald Trump nearly $500 million . One judge called the former president’s penalty “troubling” and wondered if the state’s policing of private business transactions amounted to “deterrence” or “mission creep.”
Appeals court seems open to altering Trump civil fraud penalty (nydailynews.com)
"A major strike is on the horizon for thousands of maritime workers, posing a threat to East Coast ports responsible for billions of dollars of goods.
The International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA), the largest union of maritime workers in North America, has vocalized plans to go on strike at all of its Atlantic and Gulf Coast ports Oct. 1 if a new contract agreement can’t be reached with the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX). The union is arguing for better wages and continued protections against automation and new technology in its terminals.
“A sleeping giant is ready to roar on Tuesday, October 1, 2024, if a new Master Contract Agreement is not in place,” ILA President Harold J. Daggett said in a statement Monday. “My members have been preparing for over a year for that possibility of a strike.”
Major maritime strike could threaten ports across the East Coast (nbcnews.com)
What a great move by the Longshoreman's Union. They scheduled their strike, which could have a major impact on the economy for October 1st.
Question of the day: How much pressure will Joe Biden place on employers so that this strike ends quickly?
Answer of the day:
None of your business.
It is our business. This is not the Soviet Union.
Harris and the dozens of democratic senators flip flopping on the filibuster depending on who the president is sums up their whole mentality. They are children who want immediate gratification and who think tomorrow never comes.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) seemingly approved a deal that would "fast-track" left-wing billionaire George Soros’ acquisition of more than 200 Audacy radio stations across America, irking a Republican commissioner who "objected."
The New York Post first reported that the FCC last week "adopted an order to approve Soros’ purchase of more than 200 radio stations in 40 markets just weeks before the presidential election," potentially allowing the far-left kingmaker to reach more than 165 million Americans at a critical time.
"The FCC decision came after a partisan vote with the commission’s three Democrats voting for the move while the two Republicans voted against it, sources added," Post reporter Lydia Moynihan wrote.
George Soros closer to controlling 200 radio stations despite objection from Trump-nominated FCC commissioner | Fox News
Why would the FCC allow it?
I was starting to miss George, nice to see he maintains his boogieman status. Thanks Orbán!
Sounds like they don't want to allow Soros his 1st Amendment rights.
Why should they deny it? Is there any evidence that this would break an existing law or that it would eliminate all rightwing voices in those markets?
"Speaker Mike Johnson plans to bypass House Republican hard-liners by relying on Democratic votes to pass a spending bill today. He will avoid a shutdown and at the same time the point on democrats being against a federal law preventing illegal alien voting has been made."
No need to pass a law for something that doesn't happen. He's proven nothing, as usual. Do nothing republicons.
As I said in an article here yesterday, which all the conservatives but one were too chicken to come on, Trump is running a straight up racist campaign.
If Haitians are here legally, he has no right whatsofuckingever to disparage them. NONE. He does it because they are black. If you dont like the truth stick it where the sun dont shiine.
The pot is ready to boil over in this election.
There is an old Aesop's fable known as "The boy who cried wolf."
Have you ever heard of it?
The Biden administration is restarting an immigration program that allows migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to come to the United States, and it is including “additional vetting” of their U.S.-based financial sponsors following fraud concerns.
The Department of Homeland Security had suspended the program earlier this month to investigate the concerns but indicated that an internal review found no widespread fraud among sponsors.
“Together with our existing rigorous vetting of potential beneficiaries seeking to travel to the United States, these new procedures for supporters have strengthened the integrity of these processes and will help protect against exploitation of beneficiaries,” the agency said.
The program launched in January 2023 and is a major piece of the Biden administration’s immigration policies that create or expand pathways for legal entry while restricting asylum for those who cross the border illegally.
Biden restarts immigration program for 4 countries with more vetting for sponsors | AP News
Republicans have repeatedly criticized the program as an end-run around immigration laws.
The Haitians are here legally. Trump has no right to disparage them. He is appealing to straight up racists, which makes him scum. He said the other day that he is going to visit Springfield Ohio but he doesnt know if anyone will ever see him again. Dog whistling to his moron crowd that the black Haitian cannibals might eat him.
We are in the home stretch now and Trump's deranged mind is going to boil over.
Yes, when is the former 'president' convicted felon rapist traitor going to stop crying wolf?
When will the next attempt be I wonder since the traitor is really flailing more so than ever?
They are here legally because Joe Biden restarted a program that goes around immigration law. Springfield Ohio does have employers with a need for cheap labor. The effect of all those immigrants on the community is another matter. Your endless racism comments are disgraceful.
We are in the home stretch now
You bet and you are about to discover that most of America has had enough.
Sounds like something Joe Biden actually said.
Most MAGA are stupid fucks. When your presidential candidate says that if he goes to Springfield you might never see him again , he is making a racial dogwhistle , implying the savage black Haitians might eat him.
Everyone is not as dumb and gullible as MAGA morons.
That is your opinion, John. I can just as easily say that most PROGRESSIVES are hate filled Marxists. Where does it get us?
When your presidential candidate says that if he goes to Springfield you might never see him again , he is making a racial dogwhistle
No John, it means that people are trying to kill him (the Iranians are among them.)
Everyone is not as dumb and gullible as MAGA morons.
Everyone is not as hate filled as the INDOCTRINATED PROGRESSIVE MORONS.
You should have just stopped there. If Trump or you dont like that fact then try to change the law. You dont relentlessly lie and rant and racialize people who are here legally, period. Why are these people any different than refugees who came here after world war two such as eastern Europeans? To MAGA and Trump there is one reason they are different - because they are not white.
we see trump do it every day...
I cant answer that ridiculous comment because of the moderation here.
No, John, you should have stopped. Biden found a way to make it legal and it was supposed to be based on those people being vetted. Where those Venezuelans vetted???
then try to change the law.
The law required VETTING!
Why are these people any different than refugees who came here after world war two such as eastern Europeans?
Because democrats want everyone in.
To MAGA and Trump there is one reason they are different - because they are not white.
THAT IS A LIE.
Your words are all empty.
That's too bad.
That is the fucking truth.
The moral is this:
WHEN YOU CAN EVERYONE RACIST ALL THE TIME, THE WORD LOSES ITS MEANING.
I'm going to be right here slugging away at Kamala Harris right up until election day.
WHEN YOU CAN EVERYONE RACIST ALL THE TIME, THE WORD LOSES ITS MEANING.
Vic, I can fucking demonstrate it. If these legally allowed people in Springfield Ohio were from Germany or Norway you wouldnt be hearing a god damn word about them. Everyone knows that.
No, we don't know that. So, you haven't demonstrated it.
Perhaps if there was a great migration from the First world you might have a chance, but then again, I do remember when we had great migrations from Europe and history shows that the Germans, the Russian Jews, the Irish and the Italians all faced discrimination based on their coming in waves.
So, I guess you are wrong.
If the legally allowed people migrating to Ohio were white, we wouldnt be hearing a damn thing about them. David Duke could see that.
You do that daily ... oh look, daily ends in a y ... @!@
Has the former 'president' ever heard of it? He does it daily.
You bet and you are also about to discover that most of America has had enough
Much like Trump's skull.
Brit Hume: "What has emerged recently is a new type of journalist who wants less, rather than more, information about the most important story of the moment."
Kamala Harris doesn't seem to understand that the Senate filibuster may be the only thing protecting Democrat unity. Congressional Democrats can vote for any stupid idea knowing that the filibuster protects them from themselves. If Congressional Democrats have to put their own heads on the chopping block then party unity will dissipate. What happened to Biden's 'Build Back Better' legislation? Didn't that die in the Senate without the filibuster? Didn't that episode highlight Democrat disunity in Congress?
Doesn't Kamala Harris understand that, as President, she would be nominating justices for the courts? That's Harris' campaign whine about Trump nominating the justices that overturned Roe. Doesn't Kamala Harris understand that a President dictating how Congress conducts the country's business would be unconstitutional?
And, besides, SCOTUS could still rule that the filibusterless legislation would be unconstitutional. Then we'll be treated to Harris whining about stacking the court, again.
Obama, Biden, and now Harris kinda prove that Senators won't make good Presidents. Senators are not decision makers. Senators only know how to kick cans down the road while dodging accountability. Senators run for office on their power to legislate; President's run for office on their power to nominate. Is Harris running for President or for a Senate seat? And what does that portend for the future of the country?
Every time she speaks on her own it happens.
It is a strange campaign, isn't it?
Keep in mind that Kamala Harris only served four years of a six year term as Senator. And a little more than 3 years as Vice President. That is the sum total of Kamala Harris' governing experience. Harris spent her time in government service as an autocrat whose duties involved gaming the system. Harris doesn't know how to negotiate, compromise, or govern; she only knows how to intimidate, cajole, dictate, and game the system.
I thought 'weird' was supposed to be the party approved adjective. So, 'strange' seems a little odd.
(Kamala Harris approved this message.)
Eliminating the filibuster should be a conservative goal. Where is there a 60-vote requirement to pass something in the Constitution? It’s not there. This madness was developed in the 20th century, and it has been used for atrocious ends, like blocking civil rights legislation.
But too many of today’s conservatives want to use the filibuster to wield power over the majority. What power specifically? The power to control people they don’t like. The power to restrict - and even reverse - rights and liberties enjoyed by the people and supported by the majority. It’s anti-democratic.
If Conservative meant the opposite of what it does, yes.
The idea that any conservative would want to destroy the very purpose of the Senate and turn into a smaller version of the house is preposterous.
... like the last 44 years?
Conservative has always meant conservative.
Conservative: adjective - averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values.
Slavery and racial discrimination were "traditional values" in America for centuries. Conservatives have long fought to 'conserve' those values regardless of what political party they belonged to. They continue to fight to 'conserve' legal discrimination against lgbtq Americans as well as trying to 'conserve' the many ways they have injected their religion into our schools, courts and laws.
It's 'Republican' that began to mean the opposite about half a century ago. Lincoln Republicans were progressives who fought to free the slaves and fought to change the 'traditional values'. The new Republican party post the civil rights act passage is the complete opposite as they embraced conservative values and saw an opportunity to grow by catering to the disaffected Southern Democrat conservatives who were angered at their party for embracing the civil rights act and voting rights act.
"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are." - Republican strategist Kevin Phillips in 1970 interview with the NY Times.
Conservatives have always claimed they hold the Constitution and the intent of its framers to be sacred. If something isn’t in the Constitution, we shouldn’t be practicing it. That’s what they claim.
Well, the filibuster is not in the Constitution. More specifically, there is a clear intent that each of house Congress - but in this case, specifically, the Senate - decide matters on a simple majority basis, with only something as significant as amendments being the exception. Even if we allow the Senate to establish its own rules for debate, the filibuster is routinely used without debate. And if anyone does physically filibuster by actually, speaking this rarely on the topic of the bill. Even worse, it only takes one Senator to gum up the works.
The filibuster we know is anti-democratic and goes against the express goals of the Founders and the words in the Constitution. How do I know what the Founders intended? Alexander Hamilton discussed this issue in Federalist Paper #22 :
Lol.. Start with understanding why the Senate even exists. Read the Federalist Papers touching upon the Senate. The last thing they wanted was a smaller version of the House. The framers were very concerned with the dangers of a majority ruled by popular passions, which they recognized as a danger in the House, envisioned the Senate as providing the brake on the House and it's popular passions.
Even if we allow the Senate to establish its own rules for debate
Why in the world would be not? That's literally in the Constitution.
You get it now, right? The Constitution didn't address the filibuster because it specifically delegated that power to each House.
filibuster we know is anti-democratic and goes against the express goals of the Founders
The founders set up the Senate with the principle of unlimited debate. Any restriction on that would "anti-conservative" of your own definition of what you think conservatives are. It's been in practice since the very first session of the Senate when Senator William Maclay wrote “design of the Virginians . . . was to talk away the time, so that we could not get the bill passed."
FFS I just posted an excerpt from - and a link to - that very thing. If you’re not going to read the comments you reply to, please don’t bother replying at all.
FFS try one of the essays that actually deal with the Senate.
Why are you even bothering with this? The Constitution delegates to each House the power to set its own rules and from the First session of Congress in 1789, the Senate was set up to allow unlimited debate. It's simply an insult to logic and reason to claim that people who in, your words, |hold the"Constitution and the intent of its framers to be sacred." would support completely destroying the filibuster.
In addition to not reading, you then come at me with this straw man. Kindly go piss up a flagpole.