Between Opportunities
Did you hear the servants of Moloch raging in the gallery of the US Senate today? There can be no more reliable interpretation of the consequences of events on earth than the reaction of the fallen angels and their disciples. On the Vigil of the Feast of the Most Holy Rosary and on the eve of the Anniversary of the Victory of Lepanto, join me in saying: Deus Vult!
When the Kavanaugh hearings began on Sep 4, I told you what the Democrats would do. They hijacked the hearings at the very outset with guerrilla tactics. They played their latest dirty trick this weekend with a four decade old unsubstantiated allegation; she claims that when they were both 17, Kavanaugh got drunk and tried to take her clothes off.
Kavanaugh unequivocally denied it and 65 women who knew him in high school went public in his defense, defending his character and conduct at the time, and since. Dozens of other women who have worked with and for him in the intervening decades have come forward defending him. It might not be enough.
The accuser could have come forward and testified (but that would have involved cross examination), and the Democrats could have shared what they knew in July (but that would have undermined the strategy).
They’re not interested in justice, let alone truth. I hope the GOP digs deep to find a backbone and slam this through on a 51-50 vote. If they fail, I hope Trump nominates some firebrand like Amy Coney Barrett who will terrorize the Left with glee for four decades.
The reporting from the Washington Post
There is an obvious flaw, however, with one of the asserted justifications for Colorado’s law. According to the individual respondents, Colorado can compel Phillips’ speech to prevent him from ‘denigrating the dignity’ of same-sex couples, ‘asserting their inferiority,’ and subjecting them to ‘humiliation, frustration, and embarrassment.’ These justifications are completely foreign to our free-speech jurisprudence. States cannot punish protected speech because some group finds it offensive, hurtful, stigmatic, unreasonable, or undignified. If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. A contrary rule would allow the government to stamp out virtually any speech at will.
“In ‘Obergefell,’ I warned that the Court’s decision would inevitably come into conflict with religious liberty, as individuals are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples. This case proves that the conflict has already emerged. Because the Court’s decision vindicates Phillips’ right to free exercise, it seems that religious liberty has lived to fight another day. But, in future cases, the freedom of speech could be essential to preventing ‘Obergefell’ from being used to stamp out every vestige of dissent and vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. If that freedom is to maintain its vitality, reasoning like the Colorado Court of Appeals’ must be rejected.”
{Clarence Thomas}
Thomas doesn’t go far enough, of course. What the law should protect
In just one week, Trump guaranteed the Democrats will retake the House of Representatives in 2018, which means it is all but certain Trump will be impeached in 2019.
How did this happen?
Plus Trump fired his already-bad National Security Adviser this week and replaced him with an even-worse pro-war neo-con.
The Democrats will win the House in November, but Republicans will hold the Senate and Trump is still likely to win reelection in 2020, so long as: