A good hockey player plays where the puck is.
A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
Wayne Gretzky
Tweet of the Day
Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren 2016:"You didn't earn that. We the State paid for your education, mandated benefits" https://t.co/j9J7hPQlJy
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) January 9, 2016
Image of the Day
A State Supreme Court Justice Defies SCOTUS
Let me state clearly that I strongly disagree with the judicial tyranny of the Obergefell (second gay marriage) decision. But AL Chief Justice Ray Moore appears to be defying SCOTUS (which he denies). The most puzzling part of this is that I thought Alabama had privatized marriage, but unless I queried wrongly, it's not done yet. The Alabama Senate did vote, but the House had balked ahead of the Obergefell decision, and my understanding is that the House ran out of time on the legislative calendar last year. But in any event, a state cannot discriminate, which SCOTUS ruled Alabama was doing. Short of a constitutional amendment, Moore has no choice but to comply under our legal system.
Political Potpourri
The first substantive set of polls in the new year: Fox has a national poll reflecting the expected order of Trump, Cruz, Rubio and Carson, with Trump at 35, 10 over Cruz. A slight uptick as Rubio looks headed back into the mid-teens. Fox has Cruz up by 4 over Trump and 12 over Rubio (at 15) in Iowa. Two new NH polls: Fox has Trump lapping Rubio (at 15) and Cruz. But NH1 shows much different findings with Trump lapping Kasich and Bush, Christie, Cruz, and Rubio. (It's been a while since I've seen Bush in the money.)
It does seem that Trump's latest polls are peaking in the early 30's, and I expect the race to tighten as we head into the home stretch of Iowa and NH. Trump's biggest risk right now is losing both Iowa and NH. I think the vote is flux, and you could see Trump's support collapse depending on results. But Trump has a solid lead going into NH at this point, and he clearly benefits from a fragmented opposition. I don't see Kasich, Bush, Christie or Carson pulling out before NH, which I think would benefit Rubio and/or Cruz. If Rubio places in the money at both Iowa and NH, I think he picks up momentum from lower-ranked candidates dropping out; I think Cruz mostly benefits from a Trump breakdown.
Fox showed the top 3 all beating Clinton, Rubio the most by 9. I've noticed Rubio ads over the weekend on cable. Next week's debate will be the last big shot for those below the top 3 to shine before Iowa, I believe. Election Betting Odds has leader Rubio down a point and now second place Trump picking up 2. On the Dem side, Clinton has lost 3.5 points, all to Sanders' gain. But she is leading Sanders by nearly 75%. Sanders has actually broken out into a solid double-digit lead over Clinton in NH, but it's hard to see where he beats Clinton after that. Nationally, Clinton is down a couple of points over the past week in the betting results, but she has a nearly 4-1 lead over Rubio and Trump. Cruz seems to have lost a little momentum in the same results, down about a point.
Facebook Corner
 |
| via Libertarian Catholic |
Jesus, as anyone remotely knowledgeable of the Scriptures knows, is not arguing judgment is sinful. He is looking at the motives of the person doing the judging; it's His version of 'hate the sin; love the sinner'. It is God's place to judge the worthiness of the sinner. Recall how He condemned the proud Pharisee who pointed out to all who could hear that he kept the commandments in contrast to sinful others; Jesus points out that the Pharisee has already received his reward, but his vanity is itself a vice.
That is, we are not wrong to condemn the facts of sinful behavior--murder, theft, lying, etc. But we need to question whether our intent is to guide the moral development of our fellow men or to reject them as lesser children of God. We need to focus on individual facts of wrongdoing, not the person who did wrongdoing. If our intent is to make ourselves look better than others, we are sinning: we are guilty of hypocrisy.
[See Image of the Day]. Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
Luke 6:37
“Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven;
James 4:11-12
Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?
The troll citing passages from Matthew, Luke, et al., is in a state of denial. The meme is spot on. What Jesus is condemning is not the act of judging, but the motivation of the person doing the judgment. Jesus is hardly a moral relativist. Forgiveness of sins means nothing if judgment of what's right and wrong is arbitrary. Jesus Himself was judgmental and like John the Baptist called on sinners to repent.
(LFC). Bernie Sanders Hints Elizabeth Warren as Vice President
Sanders/Warren: You didn't earn that....
( Cato Institute). "Americans overwhelming support (92%) requiring police officers wear body cameras that would record video of their interactions....A truth too often overlooked is that public support for a policy is not synonymous with a willingness to pay for it. However in the case of body cameras, a majority—55%—of Americans says they would be willing to pay higher taxes in order to outfit their local police department with body cameras."
I have no problems with body cameras, but i want them on politicians first, so we can at least see some of the shady stuff they get up to as they sell out the future of our nation.
This is populist garbage. I don't have an issue with transparency in legislation, but note that corruption increases with complexity of the law. The problem is more serious when rulemaking is delegated to unaccountable bureaucrats.
Lawmakers cannot pass laws without a majority of votes, and these votes and laws are typically on the record, unlike cop behavior on the job. On the other hand, a cop can encounter a citizen and use force without independent corroboration of the encounter, and the system tends to favor the cop's story of the encounter without additional evidence. Laws tend to be more generally applicable, while the arrest circumstance is more individual in nature. It is manifestly obvious that police should be accountable for their violations of the rights of others. A lawmaker is accountable every election.
(Cato Institute). "Some wonder whether Ronald Reagan would be labeled a RINO by today’s Republicans. Perhaps. But there is no doubt that Bill Clinton would never be nominated by today’s Democratic party. In fact, it is doubtful that today’s Democratic party would even nominate the Hillary Clinton of 1992–2000."
No one wonders about Reagan except the RINOs. The Republican Party "leadership" and career operators would treat Reagan just like they are treating Cruz. Not a doubt.
No way. Reagan had much better people and leadership skills.
Both parties have evolved over the years. Remember when the Democrats used to have the religious folks and was pro-slavery?
No. This is totally ignorant of history. In fact, the Northern-Southern Democrat split over slavery helped Lincoln win in 1860. Religious issues were more complex; for example, Prohibition and related issues (blue laws) reflected more of a WASP element and were opposed by Catholics, especially Irish and German immigrants, part of the Democratic coalition.
Guest Post Comment: Zonian retracts, Romney - who has his own birther issues - says it's a non-issue
I agree that both Cruz and McCain are natural-born citizens. But there was a nuance in Cruz' case: that of dual citizenship with the US and Canada. (There are differences in McCain's case; he was born at a US military base in Panama; consider the exceptions to the 14th amendment, e.g., offspring of diplomats or military personnel under allegiance to a foreign power.)
The intent of the natural-born citizen requirement for POTUS was to check against foreign interference through the Office of the Presidency. Technically Cruz, until he renounced his dual citienship in Canada in 2014, in appearance could have had divided allegiance.
Guest Post Comment: Pot calls kettle black
With respect to John McCain, regardless of how many angels lawyers claim dance on the point of a pin, we can easily establish the case based on the fact that McCain's father was a native of Iowa and his mother of Oklahoma--and the prevailing English use of "natural born" before Independence. Cf. Wikipedia on the natural born citizenship clause:
Consider this British statute of 1708: "The children of all natural born subjects born out of the ligeance [i.e. out of England] of Her Majesty Her Heirs and Successors shall be deemed and adjudged to be natural born subjects...." Blackstone added that offspring who are not inhabitants may also be natural born subjects. The English lexicographer Samuel Johnson wrote in 1756 that the word "natural" means "native," and that the word "native" may mean either an "inhabitant" or an "offspring".
I think there are nuances in Cruz' case in the sense Canada, like almost all the Americas, recognizes birthright citizenship, and in theory he could have divided allegiance. Moreover, his father was not an American citizen (I am not familiar with whether Cruz could also claim Cuban citizenship.) There have been nuances with mixed-citizenship couples. Consider this statement: According to Coke: "[I]f any of the King's ambassadors in foreign nations, have children there of their wives, being English women, by the common laws of England they are natural-born subjects, and yet they are born out-of the King's dominions." The obvious point is that Coke makes a point of an English ambassador having an English wife vs. a non-English wife, and certainly the Congress has modified relevant criteria over time.
I did read somewhere there was a nuance about the circumstances of Obama's mother who had him at 18. I think if she had him 2 or 3 years later, whether or not he was born in Hawaii wouldn't have mattered. With birthright citizenship, his parents' citizenship status wouldn't have mattered. Cruz' mother was older than Ms. Obama.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Chip Bok via Townhall |
Aretha Franklin (with George Michael), "I Knew You Were Waiting For Me"
