In trying to get Trump people on his side to vote for him in Missouri’s U.S Senate election, Austin Peterson decided to go all in on the Trump kool-aid and attack conservatives who were apart of the Never Trump Movement by calling them, “Neo Cons” and “Trotskyites”. He also accused them of supporting Hillary.
This caused many reactions from those who were part of the Never Trump movement and I have to say, it doesn’t end well for Peterson:
I am not sure why Peterson thought this was a good idea. Attacking Never Trump folks will only make it harder to win the senate seat.
Most importantly, it’s sad to see people like Peterson throw their principles just for the votes.
Today the Supreme Court abdicated it duty and refused to hear a 2nd Amendment case out in California which leaves a San Diego County law in place that requires people to show a special need in order to get a concealed carry license.
The Court did not say why they refused but Justice Thomas dissented and was joined by the newest addition to the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch, which blasted the Court for abdicating and for treating “the Second Amendment like a disfavored right.”
Thomas wrote, “The Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it.”
Thomas also explained why the Court should of taken up the case. He points out that the Federal circuits have been divided and have come to different conclusion on the issue which is why the Court ought to hear the case.
Despite the sharply worded dissent it seems that the Court decided to not hear the case.
This is just another example of judicial abdication which the Court routinely does in matters that are controversial instead of doing it’s job which is to protect the individual’s natural rights.
Representative Mark Sanford (R-SC) went on CNN’s State of the Union program and confirmed earlier reports of President Trump’s threat to primary representatives if they did not vote for Trump’s replacement to the Affordable Care Act:
“He [Trump] sent as his emissary Mick Mulvaney, who I’ve known for a long time – he’s from our state, and he’s now the OMB director – he said: ‘The president hopes you vote against this because he wants to run somebody against you if you do…”
Representative Sanford went on and explained to the host, Dana Bash, why he wasn’t afraid of Trump’s threat to primary him:
“Well no, it’s not that. It doesn’t make anybody’s day when the President of the United States says: ‘I wanna take you out.’ But what I would say is I don’t work for him, I work for about 750,000 people here in the first congressional district.
I’ve had eight town hall meetings – I finished my eighth one just this week – over the last couple of months, and what I’ve heard from people at a level that I’ve never before heard in the world of politics is that people care deeply about this issue, it impacts them directly and very personally, and we better get it right. And the idea of checking the box saying: ‘We dealt with healthcare,’ but not taking into account both considerations to the left and the right on this one, I think, ultimately – not my job.
My job is to watch out for the folks that I’m hearing from here at home, and to induce conservative ideals that I ran on, and I’m trying to do just that.”
Mark Sanford is right. The job of a Representative is to do the job that the people elected him to do; not to be the President’s yes man.
This new report should come as no surprise because of who Trump is but it does raise some questions about Trump because in the end, ACHA was defeated. Is Trump really a good negotiator? Does he still have some power left to keep Republicans from outright defying him? And lastly and more importantly, will Trump follow through on his threat to primary those that did defied him?
There was no violent mob this time around when Charles Murray spoke at NYU last Friday. Security was beefed up and the student group affiliated with the AEI (American Enterprise Institute) also restricted access to the event in which Charles Murray was to speak. That said, a small crowd showed up to protest Charles Murray’s talk and to shame those that attended as well as the university for hosting Murray.
The protesters numbered in the 20s and were outside the venue with signs such as, “No Eugenics on Campus — Fight Fascism,” and “No Free Speech for Racists.” The protestors also chanted about Murray, calling him a racist and a classist, and had some words for NYU for allowing Murray to visit.
Those that protested, sharply condemned Murray for his supposed view that the poor are where they are because they somehow deserve it. From one protester: “Charles Murray is the latest in a long line of people that have been pushing this sort of eugenics-based poverty myth, where there’s a correlation between intelligence and poverty.” The Faculty of Color Caucus summarized Charles Murray’s book, Coming Apart, as “[blaming] poor whites for their own poverty.” However those that attended his speech say that in Murray’s talk, he reproved the elite for abandoning the white working class and the poor to their fate. In fact, in his writings, Murray has said that those who attend the best colleges and associate exclusively with their own kind, are shutting themselves off from their countrymen; something they were unable to do until now. He told the NYU crowd that they could do what the elites are doing but that they would be “short changing themselves.” It’s obvious that Murray is not someone that hates those that are of a different class than he is and it’s also obvious that he’s not a white supremacist.
Students, however, protesting Murray outside the venue seemed to be quite ignorant about Murray’s views, and didn’t want to have an open dialogue – despite the fact that college campuses are supposed to be all about freedom of speech and the exchange of ideas. One student protester wanted to restrict Murray’s speech because Nazis rose to power due to freedom of speech. Another protestor, however, did not like that some of the protesters were using language against freedom of speech saying that this kind of talk that could be used against the left.
After protesting, the students peaceably left.
It’s really disappointing to see what our college campuses have become. No longer are they a place where students discuss the issues. I believe instead of protesting and acting like third graders, it would do a lot of good for those students to hear what Murray has to say. Murray’s ideas on how to combat what is going on with the white underclass and how the elite need to not shut themselves off would really benefit the students at NYU.
Cosmopolitan magazine, which is known for its articles on fashion and relationships, got into an online controversy yesterday when they published an article attacking the legal philosophy of Originalism.
The article was published during the Gorsuch hearing and was titled, “9 Reasons Constitutional Originalism is BullSh*t.”
The article claimed that Originalists – those that adhere to the original meaning of the Constitution – are hypocrites, racists, and wrong because, the author claimed, “not even the founders were originalists.”
“Originalism” is a farce, something no judge in American history has adhered to — including the theory’s biggest proponents. Instead, it’s a rational-sounding cover for a more insidious set of right-wing beliefs, a way to allow rampant discrimination against actual people while protecting the interests of corporate “persons” and promoting the extreme ideologies of lobby groups. It’s a philosophy that deserves no place on today’s court.”
The whole article is completely undermined, though, when the author declares, “Of course the Constitution should be interpreted as it is written.”
This caused conservatives on twitter to have at it.
The article was also attacked for falsely claiming that at the time the Constitution was written, handguns didn’t exist.
Cosmo Magazine later updated its article to say that semi-automatic handguns did not exist in the 18th century. However, the damage was done and this certainly backfired on Cosmo.
On Monday, Judge Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing will start in front of the Senate Judiciary committee. His opponents have found “little to latch on to” according to Politico. However that has not stopped Shumer and his allies from accusing Gorsuch of being a corporate stooge.
This accusation stems from a New York Times article with the headline “Neil Gorsuch Has Web of Ties to Secretive Colorado Billionaire.” The billionaire’s name is Philip Anschutz and he is well known in the state of Colorado contrary to what the New York Times reports. In fact, one of the largest medical facilities bears his name! I don’t see how his past relationship with the billionaire disqualifies Gorsuch given that other Coloradans like Senator Bennett also has a relationship with Anschutes.
Playing off of the article, Shumer and allies are attacking Gorsuch saying he favors the rich over the American worker. Shumer cites different cases to prove this. One such case was in Michigan where Gorsuch ruled against a truck driver, in Shumer’s words, because “he left his vehicle when freezing.”
The case is more complicated than Gorsuch finding an opportunity to favor the rich. TransAm Trucking fired their truck driver because of his insubordination. The driver was told to stay put because help was on its way after his truck broke. Instead, the driver unhooked the trailer and drove to a gas station. Gorsuch reasoned that the truck driver was told to stay where he was, so as to not leave the trailer, but disobeyed anyway.
Gorsuch, in his dissent, wrote that it’s not up to judges to ask whether or not TransAm made a prudent decision. The job of the judge is to “apply the law Congress did pass, not to imagine and enforce one it might have but didn’t.” And this is what bothers Shumer and his allies. The fact that Judge Gorsuch upheld the rule of law over an American worker. The Left believes that the law should be subordinate to the goal of social justice.
The New York State Board of Regents is doing away with the Academic Literacy Test which was designed to purge unqualified teachers according to the Associated Press.
The test is being thrown out because 64 percent of White test takers pass the test while minorities, such as Blacks and Latinos, have a 46 percent and 41 percent success rate with this test.
Professor Leslie Soodak of Pace University, who was a part of the task force that examines the state’s teacher certificate tests, says that, “Having a white workforce really doesn’t match our student body anymore.”
According to the AP, the test has multiple choice answers which should be easily passed by a 12th grade student.
Opponents of eliminating the test say that if they do away with the it, the result will be teachers with a weak ability to teach. It’s a shame that political correctness may win out over giving the best education possible to students of all ethnicities.