Connect with us

Opinions

Anthony Kennedy’s retirement might save Mitch McConnell and the GOP

Published

on

While the electoral map is favors Republicans when it comes to keeping control of the Senate, a boatload of broken promises, combined with Trump’s high disapproval numbers, have even Mitch McConnell worried that his gig as Senate Majority Leader could be coming to an end.

Normally, when the economy is doing well, Republicans can reduce or eliminate their losses. But with Trump’s trade war spinning out of control, and with recent news about how his tax cuts aren’t all they were cracked up to be, the GOP is unable to provide voters with a reason to vote for them.

While the House may be a lost cause, McConnell’s hope of keeping his leadership job might have been given a big boost following yesterday’s announcement that Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy is hanging up his robe.

After years of Congressional capitulation to the judicial branch of government where the Supreme Court has been appointed as the sole arbiter of the Constitution, judicial appointments have become a political football where the majority party plays offense and the minority party plays defense. Instead of making judicial appointments based on adherence to the Constitution, nominations are made based on the political ideology of the party in control and how closely aligned the nominee is likely to be with that ideology.

Still, with only a track record of ineptitude to run on, the GOP is positioned to keep its majority in the Senate by making Kennedy’s replacement the paramount issue in November.

Trump released his list of potential Supreme Court nominees last fall. and unless he breaks another campaign promise, will nominate a candidate that will earn the pro-life seal of approval. Meanwhile, McConnell said yesterday that the Senate will vote in the fall on the new nominee. I’m guessing it will be just before November 6.

The judiciary was designed by the Founding Fathers to be the weakest branch of government; the power is supposed to belong to “we the people” via the legislative branch and the individual states. Unfortunately, in post-Constitutional America, judges have taken that power from us . . . and that’s good news for Trump and the GOP.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook. Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinions

Nature, an international journal of ‘science,’ makes ludicrous political statement on sex and gender

Published

on

Nature an international journal of science makes ludicrous political statement on sex and gender

Anyone who thinks science is objective would be partially correct. Anyone who believes scientists are objective hasn’t been paying much attention lately.

Let’s look at a single paragraph from Nature, the self-proclaimed International Journal of Science. I’m not cherrypicking a single bad paragraph. It just encapsulates the lunacy being promoted in the name of this “scientific” article.

US proposal for defining gender has no basis in science

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07238-8The proposal — on which HHS officials have refused to comment — is a terrible idea that should be killed off. It has no foundation in science and would undo decades of progress on understanding sex — a classification based on internal and external bodily characteristics — and gender, a social construct related to biological differences but also rooted in culture, societal norms and individual behaviour. Worse, it would undermine efforts to reduce discrimination against transgender people and those who do not fall into the binary categories of male or female.

Let’s start from the top and work our way down. The opinion of this “scientific” journal is that a proposed classification system designed to protect all people’s privacy and safety without the possibility for discrimination is a “terrible idea that should be killed off.” This, of course, has no basis whatsoever in the science they claim to promote. Don’t get me wrong. There are times when science and politics mix, especially when it comes to allocation of research spending. But this isn’t like saying, “Research dollars spent on curing individual types of cancer would be better used helping scientists understand the root cause of all types of cancers.” That conclusion would come from the mix of science and politics. On the topic of sex and gender, they’ve abandoned the scientific side of the argument and gone completely political.

Their next statement is incredible. “It has no foundation in science and would undo decades of progress in understanding sex.” This isn’t simply inaccurate. It’s a bald faced lie. Of course sex is based on science. In the rare cases where sex is ambiguous or indeterminable, science enables doctors to help babies move along the path of least resistance while also allowing them the ability to self-determine their sex when they are older. Exceptions can and should be made in such cases. As for undoing “decades of progress understanding sex,” this is also a politically motivated lie. The HHS proposal has absolutely nothing to do with progress understanding sex. They aren’t changing textbooks or erasing research. Again, Nature is weaponizing their scientific credentials to give weight to a purely political statement. It’s a catchy use of words that could have just as easily been written by leftist speechwriters as alleged scientists.

As for gender, we’ll give that part of the statement to them. If we are to base sex on science, then we should accept that gender is a preference. We may not agree with someone’s preference, but that’s really none of our business unless it affects us directly. Thankfully, the rules proposed by HHS pertain to sex, not gender identity.

The last sentence of the paragraph is the funny one. Any hopes the editors had of not coming across as total political hacks masquerading as scientists can be tossed out the window when we read, “Worse, it would undermine efforts to reduce discrimination against transgender people and those who do not fall into the binary categories of male or female.”

Their entire article tries to ride the scientific high horse to the leftist finish line, but they can only do so by abandoning the science they claim to uphold and embracing the politics they claim to despise. This is why their best arguments revolve around discrimination. Unfortunately for them, being their best arguments does not mean they’re good arguments.

Let’s be clear about the charges the left likes to make about discrimination. By definition, there is nothing discriminatory about basing decisions surrounding sex on the biological physical components that determine sex. In fact, it’s the only way to NOT discriminate because it puts all people on equal footing. There are no advantages given to those who choose a non-biological sex as their gender and there are no disadvantages to people who abide by the sex they were born into. But the left loves throwing “discrimination” and “bigotry” into the mix any time there’s a perceived threat to their all-encompassing supremacy over accepted cultural norms.

Political statements disguised as science hurts both sides of the coin. It confuses the politics and dirties the science. Shame on Nature for weaponizing their credentials to push a political ideology. The credibility of this “scientific” journal is gone.

Continue Reading

Foreign Affairs

President Trump sends the wrong message about Saudi Arabia

Published

on

President Trump sends the wrong message about Saudi Arabia

It’s no secret I am not a fan of President Trump’s temperament, style, or morals, but I’ve been honest about supporting many pieces of his agenda. I fall into the same bucket as many conservative commentators who applaud when he does right while booing when he does wrong. His statement on the Saudi Arabia situation regarding the murder of Jamal Khashoggi is worthy of more than just boos. It’s an embarrassment to the United States because it sends the wrong message to any who read it, foreign or domestic.

I’m not alone in feeling this way, though fewer conservatives than I’d like to see are willing to speak out:

Let’s look at the President’s points one-by-one.

Iran

Preisident Response to Saudi Arabia 1

He led with his strongest point: Iran. Saudi Arabia is the primary counterbalance that keeps Iran from becoming the dominant regime in the Middle East. It behooves us to keep the Saudis better equipped, which also helps bolster our economy. Keeping the Saudis ahead of Iran should have been the only thing the President highlighted as reasons to not completely end our relationship with them. But it wasn’t. He added more points to his pitch.

Business

President Responds to Saudi Arabia 2

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. This tells Americans and the world that our loyalty is for sale. If you spend enough money, you can get away with murder. It wasn’t the President’s intention to deliver such a message, but that’s exactly how it came out. The consummate salesman saw it as a benefit to include in his message as if this was a value proposition. It should have gone unsaid.

A little punishment

President Responds to Saudi Arabia 3

This part of the message says, “we did something.” It wasn’t much, but at least there’s some action being taken against those directly responsible. However, it should have been noted that this is the initial response and as the investigation continues it’s very likely we will deliver harsher punishment to others responsible. He couldn’t say that, though, because we won’t deliver any more punishment. We won’t investigate further. As far as the White House is concerned, this is done. Mohammed bin Salman isn’t getting his hand slapped, let alone any actual punishment for his evil actions.

Classic Trump

President Responds to Saudi Arabia 4

This paragraph tells us either the President wrote the statement himself or someone is excellent at mimicking him. It’s classic Trump in style and function. Say something bad about the victim but temper it by saying the victim’s affiliations had nothing to do with his decision. Then acknowledge the possibility that MBS was involved; “maybe he did and maybe he didn’t!”

He did. Despite weak protestations from the Kingdom, every piece of evidence and every action the Saudis took all point unquestionably towards MBS.

The close

President Responds to Saudi Arabia 6

The last two paragraphs were for his base. They’re intended to justify the decision and remind his supporters that he’s doing this because it’s in the best interests of the United States. It’s his closing of the sales pitch and it will work on most Republicans who embrace him.

For me, this is all a bunch of nonsense. It’s a smokescreen to keep us from seeing the reality of the situation, which can be summed up in one paragraph:

A decent ally that does lots of business with America just got a free pass because the man responsible happens to be very friendly to the administration. We are abandoning our values in the same way President Obama did on numerous occasions with his foreign policy. The message to the world is that our silence on human rights issues is for sale.

The message should have been, “We will punish MBS for murdering Jamal Khashoggi, but we will not let this bolster Iran’s foothold in the Middle East.” Instead, the message was, “It is what it is, but we need the business.” Very sad.

Continue Reading

Entertainment and Sports

Amazon’s Homecoming shows Sam Esmail may be the best writer-director on television

Published

on

Amazons Homecoming shows Sam Esmail may be the best writer-director on television

Fans of Mr. Robot can point to many things they love about the show. The original storyline, impeccable acting, sharp direction, and stunning twists make it fun throughout its first three seasons. But it’s with Homecoming, the Julia Roberts series on Amazon, that creator-writer-director Sam Esmail shows he’s more than just a guy with cool story ideas.

Don’t worry. No spoilers.

Before we get into Esmail, let’s get the cast out of the way. Roberts, Stephan James, Bobby Cannavale, and Shea Whigham are all perfectly cast in their roles. That’s rare for television; even Mr. Robot had a few casting miscues, but Rami Malek made up for those. In Homecoming, it’s hard to imagine anyone doing better at playing the four major characters.

Now, onto Esmail. This psychological drama is set in two different time periods that Esmail frames perfectly, literally. He shoots the past in widescreen and the present in a square frame. If anyone has ever used this clever differentiating device, that’s news to me.

But beyond his trademark camera cleverness that leans heavily on visual storytelling, Esmail does something extraordinary. He makes a somewhat interesting story premise absolutely enthralling. With Mr. Robot, it’s easy to get engulfed by the story because it’s huge. There are worldwide implications to every machination of multiple good guys and bad guys. The premise is easy to play with, and while Esmail made it his own and told the story brilliantly, the sheer magnitude of the stakes are enough to keep people interested.

With Homecoming, there aren’t insanely talented hackers taking on the biggest corporation in the world with vast criminal organizations intermingled into the plot. Instead, we have a waitress, a low-level government pencil pusher, a creepy mid-level executive, and a soldier. Esmail takes this humble premise and somehow keeps us immersed in intrigue. I can’t say much more without spoiling it, so I won’t.

Season two is already green-lit. We don’t know how well the first season did since Amazon doesn’t report viewing numbers, but the critical response has been strong, scoring a 99% on Rotten Tomatoes. Reports indicate we can expect the next installment in fall, 2019.

One note to those who will watch it – pay attention to the visual mastery. Small screen directors often overlook the nuance of the visual components of their work, but Esmail lives in the nuances. His mastery over shot selection, lighting, and a Fincheresque control of camera movements had me rewinding several scenes in order to absorb it all.

We are seeing the early stages of what could end up being a tremendous directing career. I can’t wait to see Homecoming and Mr. Robot carry on, but I’m even more excited about any new projects Esmail brings to the small screen.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report