Corporate Media views, aka Fake News are dropping precipitously. While MORNING JOE ratings are down -50%
Meanwhile, independent journalists and pundits, some operating on laptops in kitchens, capture record views.
Let us sum this up in one graphic.
Read the remainder of this entry »
While I am not tired of winning, I am unable to keep track. It is a lot of winning. A lot.
The golden wine-goblet of victory overflows, and we are heady with delight. More than we hoped to win is ours! — And it is but 10 days yet.
Too much winning? Maybe. But is this what the onset of a Golden Age feels like?
Let us consult the pundit Andrew Klavan:
Vision swims and stars dance in the vision. Optimism is alien to conservatives. Seeing one of our number wreathed in grins and giggles is akin to seeing Eeyore the Stuffed Donkey tap-dancing with joy.
Read the remainder of this entry »
After a long pause, my “Not Tire of Winning Yet” series of columns will resume. Already I am backlogged, and cannot keep up. Many events are unfolded as second-order side effects showing a seismic shift in the political and social atmosphere.
It may be premature to say that Woke is dead, but it may not be. Woke has been struck a doughty blow and deep. The monster staggers and sways, gargling blood, eyes crossed, claws twitching and feet twisting. Let us see whether it falls.
Read the remainder of this entry »
Three days since Donald Trump’s historic landslide:
Donald J Trump has been elevated to the purple by the prince-electors at Aachen, and coronated in Rome by the Pope, so that he is now Imperator of the Holy Roman Empire, and of the Empire of Man, Rex Quondam Rexque Futurum.
All Glory to God and to his anointed!
The Tribune Assembly of the Commoners in America, who retain a quaint custom of confirming the Electoral determination by local ballot, have also granted His Imperial Majesty the Mandate of the Commons.
Read the remainder of this entry »
This is the future I was promised as a child.
Absolutely gargantuan. Towering almost 400 feet, the first stage alone is 240 foot tall. This is by far the most powerful rocket ever built, dwarfing even the mighty Saturn V.
Had I written this in a science fiction story, even ANALOG magazine would have scoffed. Who launches a heavy booster and catches it again with Mechagodzilla-sized chopsticks?
Because of Musk’s political support for a politician who would prevent government from stopping such efforts, the current regime has overloaded the efforts with bureaucratic red tape, in an effort to stop this effort.
Because Elon has joined MAGA, and because this is a triumph of the American spirit over the vampiric, dream-killing, progress-reversing, envy-riddled spirit of the Anti-America, i.e. Progressivism, I am listing this as NOT TIRED OF WINNING in my column.
From a Fox News Affiliate (by: Ella Lee, Zach Schonfeld, The Hill):
Judge Aileen Cannon on Monday tossed former President Trump’s case over his alleged mishandling of classified information, ruling that special counsel Jack Smith was not lawfully appointed.
The ruling hands a major victory to Trump, marking the first time one of his four criminal cases has been dismissed entirely.
“The Superseding Indictment is dismissed because Special Counsel Smith’s appointment violates the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution,” Cannon wrote in a 93-page ruling.
The judge said that her determination is “confined to this proceeding.”
In Trump v. United States, the court holds that a former president has absolute immunity for his core constitutional powers.
The High Court language is clear enough to speak for itself. Allow me simply to quote:
A federal grand jury indicted former President Donald J. Trump on four counts for conduct that occurred during his Presidency following the November 2020 election. The indictment alleged that after losing that election, Trump conspired to overturn it by spreading knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the collecting, counting, and certifying of the election results. Trump moved to dismiss the indictment based on Presidential immunity, arguing that a President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions performed within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities, and that the indictment’s allegations fell within the core of his official duties. The District Court denied Trump’s motion to dismiss, holding that former Presidents do not possess federal criminal immunity for any acts. The D. C. Circuit affirmed. Both the District Court and the D. C. Circuit declined to decide whether the indicted conduct involved official acts.
Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. Pp. 5–43. (a) This case is the first criminal prosecution in our Nation’s history of a former President for actions taken during his Presidency. Determining whether and under what circumstances such a prosecution may proceed requires careful assessment of the scope of Presidential power under the Constitution. The nature of that power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity. Pp. 5–15.
The whole opinion is available behind the link above.
No comment is needed from me. The case is self explanatory to anyone familiar with even the basic principles of constitutional law, or, for that matter, basic common sense. That is had to go all the way to the Supreme Court when any District Court or even any 1st year Law Student could have reached this result is a sad sign of the sick corruption rotting the minds and souls of our society.
The Supreme Court this very day in the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. ___ (2024) together with a companion case, Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, rescinded the nigh unbridled power of the Administrative State to interpret their own laws for themselves, called the Chevron doctrine.
The Loper and Relentless ruling today held that The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority. The courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is silent or ambiguous; Chevron is overruled.
Justice Neil Gorsuch in the concurring opinion writes “…today, the Court places a tombstone on Chevron no one can miss. In doing so, the Court returns judges to interpretative rules that have guided federal courts since the Nation’s founding.”
This ruling is a significant and far-reaching as the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) overruling Roe v. Wade (1973).
The case being overruled is Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, (467 U.S. 837, 104 S. Ct. 2778 (1984)) which established the Chevron doctrine. At first Chevron was a minor case, but, as with Roe v Wade, successive layers of reinterpretation expanded its meaning far beyond the original holding, and made it the single most cited case in administrative law.
The Chevron doctrine held that if Congress has not directly said otherwise in the authorizing statue, a court must defer the agency’s own interpretation of the statute authorizing the agency, provided it was reasonable. In other words, Federal Agencies merely decided for themselves what their own powers were, and what they were authorized to do.
Vacated and remanded, 6-2, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on June 28, 2024. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch concurred. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined. Justice Jackson recused herself. However, Jackson joined the dissent in the Relentless case.
Read the remainder of this entry »
Thirty minutes after the polls closed, the Iowa Caucus race was called for GOP nomination for Trump, who won 99 out of 99 counties in a unprecedented landslide victory.
More here:
ADDENDUM:
I just discovered that Trump only won 98 out of 99 Iowa counties. A Democrat voter entered the GOP Caucus at the last minute to cast a vote for Nikki Haley, overturning the result in one county by one vote. Dem for Nikki. Make of that what you will.
Below is a report on the voter fraud in the 2020 Election campaign which recounts the voting irregularities and illegalities in one tidy summation. I reprint it here because it is being ignored or libeled by the press.
As best I know, no point-by-point rebuttal, answer, or explanation exists for these allegations.
The endnotes are extensive, and I hope were transferred here accurately. If not, please tell me.
“Out of fraud no action arises.”
It has often been repeated there is “no evidence” of fraud in the 2020 Election. In actuality, there is no evidence Joe Biden won.
Ongoing investigations in the Swing States reveal hundreds of thousands of votes were altered and/or not lawfully cast in the Presidential Election. Joe Biden needed them. On Election Night Nov. 3, 2020, President Donald J. Trump was sailing to reelection with landslide leads in numerous battlegrounds.
In Georgia, President Trump was up by 12 points, and over 335,000 votes, with 56 percent of the vote in at 10:17 p.m.[1]
In Wisconsin, President Trump was leading by 121,380 votes and 5 points at 12:12 a.m., which Fox News anchor Bret Baier noted was “not a small margin.”
In Pennsylvania, President Trump was leading by 659,145 votes at 12:38 a.m., a full 15 points.
In Michigan, President Trump was leading by 293,052 votes and 10 points.[2]
The election was over.
However, precincts in Atlanta, Detroit, Philadelphia, Phoenix, and Milwaukee kept counting until the results reached the desired outcome, which was the opposite of the will of the voters.
Read the remainder of this entry »
Addendum to an earlier post:
Justice Thomas, writing the concurring opinion in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, refuties the dissent of Justice Jackson. He produces such gems of judicial wisdom, faceted with clarity and brilliance, that I am unable to restrict myself to one paragraph or passage.
There are worse ways to idle away an hour, dear reader, and to read may restore one’s faith in human reason and in the American way of life. Here is treasure.
This excerpt begins in Section IV of the concurrence, and omits footnotes and references for ease of reading.
*** *** ***
IV
Far from advancing the cause of improved race relations in our Nation, affirmative action highlights our racial differences with pernicious effect.
In fact, recent history reveals a disturbing pattern: Affirmative action policies appear to have prolonged the asserted need for racial discrimination.
Parties and amici in these cases report that, in the nearly 50 years since Bakke, 438 U. S. 265, racial progress on campuses adopting affirmative action admissions policies has stagnated, including making no meaningful progress toward a colorblind goal since Grutter.
Rather, the legacy of Grutter appears to be ever increasing and strident demands for yet more racially oriented solutions.
Read the remainder of this entry »
The Supreme Court has ruled Biden’s $430 billion student loan ‘forgiveness’ plan unconstitutional.
The cases are Department of Education v. Brown, United States Supreme Court No. No. 22–535, and Biden v. Nebraska, United States Supreme Court No. 22–506.
In the first, the High Court unanimously (and, in my humble opinion, correctly) held that the plaintiffs, who were not eligible for Biden’s student loan relief, lacked standing to sue because they could not show that they had been harmed directly by it.
In the second, the vote once again was six to three, with the six Republican appointed justices voting for the Constitution and the three Leftists voting against.
The dissent, in effect, would remove the lawmaking power of congress from congress and award it to the Secretary of Education, which in this case did not even abide by its own rules and procedures of public comment, and so on, before issuing an administrative fiat.
Let us give thanks to heaven that the unjust judges, finally, are in the minority.
Read the remainder of this entry »
A crowded day for victories this day.
The Supreme Court announced the decision of 303 CREATIVE LLC v. ELENIS holding the First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.
Read the remainder of this entry »
Rejoice! The Supreme Court, thanks to its constitutionalist and originalist justices, has this day made a ruling on Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. ___ (2023) and its companion case Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, 600 U.S. ___ (2023), held that race-based admissions policies at Harvard College and the University of North Carolina violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
For some reason, no news outlets give a link to the actual ruling. Here it is: Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard
Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion. Concurring opinions by Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh. Dissent by Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson.
The High Court says:
Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.
Well said. Sad that this is a startling sentence in the modern day.
Accordingly, the Court has held that the Equal Protection Clause applies “without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality”— it is “universal in [its] application.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 369. For “[t]he guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to a person of another color.” Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U. S. 265, 289–290.
Read the remainder of this entry »
