The Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Under attack
The hearings today, both for the Judiciary Committee on Judge Kavanaugh, and the Intel Committee hearing on Social Media are why most people shrug and turn away when one discusses politics.
The Intel Committee is treating the Social Media CEOs like they are Big Tobacco. And the CEOs are doing their best, too late, to try to keep the government out of their business. Their problem is that they live in a bubble where few conservatives exist, and as such had no issue with what they were doing, as to ads and blocking. Of course, they know, and have learned that there are other opinions. First let me make a statement.
As private entities, they have the right to police their platforms as they see fit, or not at all. This goes for Facebook, Twitter, and the others. Google could be stacking their searches, but more likely, there is so much anti-Trump reporting and junk out there, that the numbers only, (some 96% negative in the MSM) would indicate that those items would top the search engines. President Trump is probably wrong on this. But.
When you run the platforms that are now considered news feeds, it is better in the long run to try to not tip the scale. This is why In-N-Out burger donated money to the CA GOP. Guess what, they, like most businesses of their size have to pay "protection" to both gangs, I mean, parties, to keep their windows from being broken, or politically speaking, to keep the government from putting its thumb on the regulatory scale.
When a Senator states that the wild west days of the internet are over, we should all weep. The freedom platform will never be the same, and will forever be tilted by whoever is in power.
Now to Judiciary
If the progressives are successful in defeating Kavanaugh, which seems very unlikely at this point, they may have to replace the term "BORKED" (the successful defeat of Judge Bork through demagoguery) with kavanaughed, though borked rolls a lot easier off the tongue. The histrionics by the Democrats in the Judiciary hearing would be laughable, were it not for the tragedy that they represent. Why?
For years, the progressives, unable to advance their cause legislatively, have relied on the courts to enact their policy for them. So many make believe "rights" have been created by the courts in twisting that would make Chubby Checker dizzy. Don't know the reference?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHGXwQeUk7M
Right of Privacy? Separation of Church and State? Abortion? Banning of prayer in school? Busing? Eminent Domain? I could go on.
Jefferson was worried about Judicial Tyranny, and now here we are. Nine Justices, not elected by any body, only confirmed by the Senate, with life appointments, have the ability to effect our country in a way that no legislator or president ever could. Mark Levin in his Liberty Amendments proposed amendments both to, eliminate the lifetime appointment of Judges, as well as a procedure to override a ruling that invalidates a law.
The left is terrified of a judge that would actually rule on a law according to the constitution, and not some touchy feely interpretation of a right. Thus the joke of a hearing yesterday, with more to come. Since they probably can't stop the confirmation, they are trying to tarnish the reputation of Kavanaugh. This, of a candidate deemed "well qualified" (the highest rating) from one of the Democrat's largest donors, the American Bar Association. As bad as this hearing is, if one of the progressive justices is to be replaced during Trump's term in office, these will look like very civil proceedings.
The straw man of confirmation during a mid term election is bogus. The straw man of confirmation because the President is under investigation is also bogus. The best they can come up with is that the GOP didn't hold hearings on Garland in 2016. Weak, as they were simply rolling the dice politically. Had the GOP lost the Senate, which was anticipated, Garland would have been withdrawn. Had Hillary won, Obama would have withdrawn Garland, and either picked someone more aligned politically, or could have left it vacant, and maybe let Hillary select him. That was where my money would have been. Obama would never have nominated Garland, if there was a chance the GOP would confirm him.
When we have devolved to hearings like we are seeing, it is no wonder that people tune out. And that is the tragedy. We, as a people, are already tuned out to the process, and thus we have the government that we have now. Because people don't care enough to get involved.
The Intel Committee is treating the Social Media CEOs like they are Big Tobacco. And the CEOs are doing their best, too late, to try to keep the government out of their business. Their problem is that they live in a bubble where few conservatives exist, and as such had no issue with what they were doing, as to ads and blocking. Of course, they know, and have learned that there are other opinions. First let me make a statement.
As private entities, they have the right to police their platforms as they see fit, or not at all. This goes for Facebook, Twitter, and the others. Google could be stacking their searches, but more likely, there is so much anti-Trump reporting and junk out there, that the numbers only, (some 96% negative in the MSM) would indicate that those items would top the search engines. President Trump is probably wrong on this. But.
When you run the platforms that are now considered news feeds, it is better in the long run to try to not tip the scale. This is why In-N-Out burger donated money to the CA GOP. Guess what, they, like most businesses of their size have to pay "protection" to both gangs, I mean, parties, to keep their windows from being broken, or politically speaking, to keep the government from putting its thumb on the regulatory scale.
When a Senator states that the wild west days of the internet are over, we should all weep. The freedom platform will never be the same, and will forever be tilted by whoever is in power.
Now to Judiciary
If the progressives are successful in defeating Kavanaugh, which seems very unlikely at this point, they may have to replace the term "BORKED" (the successful defeat of Judge Bork through demagoguery) with kavanaughed, though borked rolls a lot easier off the tongue. The histrionics by the Democrats in the Judiciary hearing would be laughable, were it not for the tragedy that they represent. Why?
For years, the progressives, unable to advance their cause legislatively, have relied on the courts to enact their policy for them. So many make believe "rights" have been created by the courts in twisting that would make Chubby Checker dizzy. Don't know the reference?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHGXwQeUk7M
Right of Privacy? Separation of Church and State? Abortion? Banning of prayer in school? Busing? Eminent Domain? I could go on.
Jefferson was worried about Judicial Tyranny, and now here we are. Nine Justices, not elected by any body, only confirmed by the Senate, with life appointments, have the ability to effect our country in a way that no legislator or president ever could. Mark Levin in his Liberty Amendments proposed amendments both to, eliminate the lifetime appointment of Judges, as well as a procedure to override a ruling that invalidates a law.
The left is terrified of a judge that would actually rule on a law according to the constitution, and not some touchy feely interpretation of a right. Thus the joke of a hearing yesterday, with more to come. Since they probably can't stop the confirmation, they are trying to tarnish the reputation of Kavanaugh. This, of a candidate deemed "well qualified" (the highest rating) from one of the Democrat's largest donors, the American Bar Association. As bad as this hearing is, if one of the progressive justices is to be replaced during Trump's term in office, these will look like very civil proceedings.
The straw man of confirmation during a mid term election is bogus. The straw man of confirmation because the President is under investigation is also bogus. The best they can come up with is that the GOP didn't hold hearings on Garland in 2016. Weak, as they were simply rolling the dice politically. Had the GOP lost the Senate, which was anticipated, Garland would have been withdrawn. Had Hillary won, Obama would have withdrawn Garland, and either picked someone more aligned politically, or could have left it vacant, and maybe let Hillary select him. That was where my money would have been. Obama would never have nominated Garland, if there was a chance the GOP would confirm him.
When we have devolved to hearings like we are seeing, it is no wonder that people tune out. And that is the tragedy. We, as a people, are already tuned out to the process, and thus we have the government that we have now. Because people don't care enough to get involved.
Comments
Post a Comment