It’s Wednesday, August 15th, 2018…but before we begin, here’s further proof the denial of what’s patently plain from irrefutable evidence is a trait shared by Progressives across the pond and around the world:
“Even a summer respite from Washington at his Bedminster golf club in New Jersey couldn’t keep Donald Trump off Twitter .
Over the weekend the president went on a tear, here tweeting that Attorney General Jeff Sessions is “scared stiff and Missing in Action,” there demanding to know why the Federal Bureau of Investigation is refusing to hand over Andrew McCabe’s text messages, here again complaining about the “Media coverup of the biggest story of our time”—by which he means the FBI and Justice Department’s “program to keep Donald Trump from becoming President.” On Monday, after the FBI finally gave agent Peter Strzok the heave-ho, a triumphant Mr. Trump tweeted “No Collusion, No Obstruction—I just fight back!”
But does he?
Mr. Trump gripes about coverups that have kept the American people in the dark about the bad behavior of FBI agents and Justice Department officials during the 2016 election. The question is: Why should anyone lift a finger to help him when he refuses to help himself by taking the one step—declassifying documents sought by Congress—that would clear up whether our most powerful intelligence and law-enforcement agencies were in fact working to deny him the presidency?
Mr. Trump has legitimate beefs here. His attorney general is weak because of a crippling recusal. The FBI and Justice do continue to slow-walk documents under subpoena from Congress. And what we have learned about the fishy behavior of high-ranking actors—from the FBI’s Mr. Strzok to the Justice Department’s Bruce Ohr —does suggest the investigators ought themselves to be investigated.
…So why hasn’t the president yet directed his administration to declassify and let the American people see for themselves? The best guess is that his legal team opposes it on the grounds it might rile special counsel Robert Mueller. Or because such an order might not be obeyed and lead to a wave of resignations. (Either way, who cares?!?)
These are factors that must be weighed in any calculation. But the president should consider another factor: There is a concerted effort to delegitimize his presidency, an effort that appears to have included some in the highest reaches of the government.Whatever the ripple effects of an order to declassify, transparency is a good hill for a president to be defending. If he waits, he risks a post-midterm Democratic House putting an end to committee investigations of Justice and the bureau. If that were to happen, he will surely regret not having declassified when Republicans on the Hill were in position to follow up.
Mr. President, it’s all well and good to snipe at your attorney general for not doing more to get this story out, to dump on the FBI, and to tease everyone with a tweet saying “you may have to get involved” in a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. But thus far it’s been all talk. If you are unwilling to take the heat by using your authority to resolve the big unanswered questions and protect your presidency, how can you expect others to do it for you?“
Inquiring minds remain incredulous…and more than a little concerned…Trump hasn’t done so.
Next, we turn from the inexplicable to the unsurprising, as, writing at NRO, David French records how the…
“Well, we all knew it wouldn’t last. Weeks after two different Ninth Circuit panels surprisingly upheld Second Amendment rights by blocking California’s confiscation of large-capacity magazines and Hawaii’s ban on open carry, the nation’s most progressive circuit returned to form. In a ruling earlier this month, it upheld one of the most bizarre and nonsensical gun regulations in the nation. It did so by essentially ignoring the plain language of Heller and approving a legal regime that will naturally and inevitably lead to diminishing options for citizens who seek to lawfully exercise their constitutional right to self-defense.
Here are the basic facts. California’s Unsafe Handgun Act requires new handguns sold in the state to have three key safety features. First, new guns must have an indicator that shows when a round is loaded in the weapon’s chamber. Second, new guns must have a magazine-detachment mechanism that prevents the gun from discharging when a magazine is not in it. Finally, the third provision “requires new handguns to stamp microscopically the handgun’s make, model, and serial number onto each fired shell casing.”
The Unsafe Handgun Act is just as problematic as it sounds.
For one thing, to quote the majority opinion: “According to the [plaintiffs], no handguns were available in the United States that met the microstamping requirements. The record does not indicate whether and how these figures have changed over time.” (Emphasis added.) That means California was granting consumers permission to buy guns that didn’t exist on the market.
…Let’s be clear: This law represents slow-motion prohibition. Imagine if California passed an “Unsafe Automobile Act” that said all new cars sold had to either a) come from a roster of models approved by the state only after their manufacturers paid a fee or b) be able to fly. Each year, the approved roster shrank as carmakers either discontinued models or refused to pay the fees. And each year carmakers refused to design and build flying cars.
Well, if you’re on the Ninth Circuit, you might believe that such a law was perfectly fine, because shrinking consumer choice is irrelevant so long as the public can buy something to get you from point A to point B.It wouldn’t even matter if no manufacturer was even trying to enter the flying-car market.
After all, that’s what the Ninth Circuit panel thinks about guns. The majority in the Unsafe Handgun Act case actually wrote this: “Simply because no gun manufacturer is ‘even considering trying’ to implement the technology, it does not follow that microstamping is technologically infeasible.”
…There is now a desperate need for the Supreme Court to step forward. Perhaps with Brett Kavanaugh confirmed, the Court will be less reluctant to take a Second Amendment case…”
Which will more than justify the continued tolerance of The Donald’s equally bizarre behavior.
Since we’re on the subject of the bizarre, in the latest installment of the Darwinism at Its Finest segment, courtesy today of Bill Meisen, FOX News details how a…
“…California Highway Patrol told FOX40 the incident happened at 3:44 a.m. on the highway’s northbound lanes near the Del Paso Road exit about 10 miles north of downtown Sacramento, when the drivers collided and drove near the exit where they began to fight. During the altercation, one of the men pulled out a blunt object and beat the other man while in one of the highway traffic lanes, killing him, according to CHP.
“Fights on the freeway between angry motorists, whether it’s the result of a traffic collision or some sort of road rage type incident, occur quite often,” CHP Officer Mike Zerfas told FOX40.“Usually not in the middle of the lanes like it happened here.”
After the fight, the suspect walked away in the middle of Interstate 5 where he was then struck and killed by another vehicle.
...Zerfas told FOX40 the whole situation could have been avoided if the drivers simply contacted police when the collision happened…”
Thank you, Officer Obvious! Perhaps, like the subjects of our On the Lighter Side video accessible through link #4 immediately below the Quote of the Day at the top of the page, the unidentified and thankfully deceased killer started his celebration dance a leetle too early!
Which brings us, appropriately enough, to The Lighter Side:
Finally, we’ll call it a day with this truly “titillating” tale ripped from Religion Section, courtesy of a mother with neither any sense of modesty nor common sense:
“The 29-year-old mother of three claims she was shamed for breastfeeding her one-year-old daughter inside the church while waiting for her four-year-old twins to finish Sunday school.
…According to Marchant, she had gone to pick up her twins from the Sunday school area when her youngest child “was getting fussy and asking to nurse.” “I sat down on a bench and decided to nurse her like always,” she said. “I don’t use a cover.”
Later in the day, she was shocked to receive the social media message from the unnamed church leader shaming her for her actions, though no one said anything to her at the time. “She said that “nursing fully exposed,” the term she used, was making people uncomfortable…”
…“Even if I wanted to go somewhere private, that’s not reasonable when I have to watch my 4-year-old twins, and legally speaking, it’s not something she is allowed to ask,” she added.
Pastor Walls said church staffers told him that Marchant “was wearing a dress that was pulled down with both of her breasts exposed,” the Daily reports, but that The Naz is “very sorry” for the humiliation caused to Marchant.
…The lead pastor added that there are three discreet areas in the church for “those who want a private space” to nurse.
Marchant met with church leaders to discuss the issue and the Breastfeeding Anti-Discrimination Act, which was approved by Gov. Rick Snyder four years ago. The law prohibits women from being denied public goods, services, facilities and accommodations because of breastfeeding.
Church staff seemed more focused on continuing to describe the incident as “immodest” and questioning whether she planned to sue than addressing the issue, she said.
“A lot of people have stopped nursing because of stuff like that, and I want to say something because a lot of people wouldn’t,” Marchant said. Marchant said she doesn’t plan to return to the church.“
We’re at a loss to understand why the church issued any apology at all. How can one be “shamed” by receipt of a private communication simply asking for adherence to understandable guidelines of modesty and propriety, particularly in a house of worship? Would Ms. Marchant feel it appropriate to drop her dress entirely and sit in the midst of the foyer clad only in her skivvies?!?
And why couldn’t she take her 4-year-old twins to whatever areas the church had set aside for nursing mothers? We’d also love to see the statistics on which she bases her claim “A lot of people have stopped nursing because of stuff like that”. “Stuff” like…what: politely being asked not to hang your boobs out in a church?!? Furthermore, we question Ms. Marchant’s understanding of the law, as a church by statute is not by a public facility, nor does it offer public goods, services or accommodations. Not to mention Ms. Marchant declined to utilize the accommodations she knew were available.
Given her statements, Ms. Marchant seems far more interested in advocating the cause of restriction-free breast feeding than following the Christian concept of love and forgiveness as set forth in the 13th chapter of I Corinthians.
And frankly, in view of her attitude and conduct, we’re relatively certain her presence won’t be missed.
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.