Gorsuch Puts Down the Left’s Serial Rapist -- In his first vote, Justice Gorsuch stood with us.

Daniel Greenfiel, FrontPage  April 27, 2017

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam

A few months after lefty activists crowded Washington D.C. for the Women’s March, activists from many of those same organizations went to bat for a serial rapist and murderer.

Ledell Lee’s victims were all women.  While he was on trial for the rape and murder of Debra Reese, the testimony of three of his rape victims was presented. Lee had made a habit of knocking on doors and asking to borrow some tools to see whether a woman’s husband might be home.

Debra Reese called her mother and told her that a strange man had tried to borrow some tools. A few minutes later, Ledell Lee had beaten her to death with a tire thumper. Marks on her neck showed that the former baby boutique worker had also been strangled.

Then Lee headed out to spend the $300 he had stolen from her.

Three years earlier, Ledell Lee had attacked a 17-year-old girl while she was rocking her 3-month old niece to sleep. Lee hit her, dragged her out of the house, held her head under water until she lost consciousness and raped her.

A year after that atrocity, Ledell Lee attacked a 50-year-old woman walking home from the grocery store. He strangled her repeatedly, dragged her to the back of a building and raped her.

When Lee was caught after murdering Debra Reese, the evidence tied him to these assaults and two murders. He was convicted of two rapes and sentenced to death for his crimes against Debra Reese. Justice would be done. But first justice had to elbow past the ACLU and the pro-crime lobby.  READ it HERE

by Rachel del Guidice  Daily Signal, April 23, 2017

Working with Republican lawmakers through the Congressional Review Act, President Donald Trump has signed more regulatory rollbacks than any other president. (Photo: Polaris/Newscom)

As President Donald Trump reaches his 100th day in the White House on April 29, he will have worked with Congress to rescind more regulations using the Congressional Review Act than any other president.

“We’re excited about what we’re doing so far. We’ve done more than that’s ever been done in the history of Congress with the CRA,” Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., told The Daily Signal in an interview, referring to the law called the Congressional Review Act.

The Congressional Review Act, the tool Trump and lawmakers are using to undo these regulations, allows Congress to repeal executive branch regulations in a certain window of time.

“Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress is given 60 legislative days to disapprove a rule and receive the president’s signature, after which the rule goes into effect,” Paul Larkin, a senior legal research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, wrote in a February report. The 60 days begins after Congress is notified that a rule has been finalized.  READ it HERE

April 29, 2017 National Review Online

It’s already clear the race Mr. Trump is running is no mere sprint.

We’re all playing the 100-day game, and it’s kind of silly. What’s Trump done since January 20 last? But that’s like asking who won the first 100 yards in a marathon.

The only game that really matters is the 1,285 game. That’s the number of days till the 2020 election.

But then the mind does tend to focus on round numbers, and so let’s ask what’s happened since Trump was inaugurated.

And the answer is a lot in some ways, less in others. But in one respect, there’s been a huge change, and that is our sense that there’s a new sheriff in town, there’s a new guy in charge, and things we could never have imagined had Hillary won are now possible. More than possible. On the cards, more likely than not to happen.

In great measure, that’s because of actions Trump has taken. The tomahawk missile attack on a Syrian base. The MOAB bomb in Afghanistan. What is vastly more important still, though hardly noticed, the successful courting of President XI and the possible rapprochement with China. In 100 days, Trump has reinvented American foreign policy and shown himself a master of diplomacy.

But it’s more than what he’s done, even as FDR’s first 100 days was about more than the flurry of legislation passed in the spring of 1933. That’s the benchmark, when people talk about the first 100 days of an administration. Roosevelt had inherited an economic crisis and had a compliant Congress that rubber-stamped anything the White House sent its way.

When it comes to what was actually passed in FDR’s first 100 days, however, not too many people could tell you offhand. The list included some benign welfare laws, such as the Federal Emergency Relief Administration; some useful infrastructure projects that put people back to work; and the semi-fascist National Recovery Act (the Blue Eagle) that was happily shut down by the Supreme Court.

The point is that what changed, with FDR’s inauguration, was more than a new set of laws. There was also the sense that, after a cruel depression, things were finally going to get better. America had lost its step and would now rebound. And in the end, that mattered more than anything else, in the 1930s.

FDR’s New Deal programs came from some of the smartest minds of the time. With the benefit of hindsight, a lot of those ideas seem nutty today. With the benefit of hindsight, a lot of things from back when seem nutty. But that doesn’t begin to describe the sense of relief that people in the 1930s felt about America, with a new president in office. Go back and listen to his fireside chats, and see if you don’t feel the same way.

That’s why, in looking at the first 100 days of a new administration, you have to go beyond objective yardsticks — what was passed, what was done — and ask whether there’s something new in the air.  READ it HERE

by Randall Smith, Public Discourse, March 3rd, 2017

In a remarkable 1978 essay entitled “Power of the Powerless,” Vaclav Havel—poet, philosopher, and future president of the Czech Republic—wrote:

In an era when metaphysical and existential certainties are in a state of crisis, when people are being uprooted and alienated and are losing their sense of what this world means . . . ideology inevitably has a certain hypnotic charm. To wandering humankind it offers an immediately available home: all one has to do is accept it, and suddenly everything becomes clear once more, life takes on new meaning, and all mysteries, unanswered questions, anxiety, and loneliness vanish. Of course, one pays dearly for this low-rent home: the price is abdication of one’s own reason, conscience, and responsibility, for an essential aspect of this ideology is the consignment of reason and conscience to a higher authority. The principle involved here is that the center of power is identical with the center of truth.

Havel’s most famous example from that essay is of a greengrocer required by the communist authorities to put in his shop window a sign with the slogan: “Workers of the world, unite!” “Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world?” asks Havel. “Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment’s thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?” No, answers Havel. It is not the content of the word or gesture itself that is ultimately significant; it’s what the word or gesture implies (or might be interpreted as implying) about the person and about the person’s loyalty (or secret disloyalty) to the “correct” ideology. The discourse of ideology, argues Havel, gradually turns into “a world of appearances, a mere ritual, a formalized language deprived of semantic contact with reality and transformed into a system of ritual signs that replace reality with pseudo-reality.”

We might ask ourselves, with some embarrassment, whether, after decades of enforcing politically correct speech codes, the plight of black people (or any of the other disadvantaged groups we say we want to help in American society) is any better than it was before we developed our current hypersensitivity to people’s every word and gesture. READ the REST HERE

by Andrew C. McCarthy April 26, 2017  National Review Online

A federal judge suspended Trump’s unenforced ban on funding for sanctuary cities. A showboating federal judge in San Francisco has issued an injunction against President Trump’s executive order cutting off federal funds from so-called sanctuary cities. The ruling distorts the E.O. beyond recognition, accusing the president of usurping legislative authority despite the order’s express adherence to “existing law.”

Moreover, undeterred by the inconvenience that the order has not been enforced, the activist court — better to say, the fantasist court — dreams up harms that might befall San Francisco and Santa Clara, the sanctuary jurisdictions behind the suit, if it were enforced. The court thus flouts the standing doctrine, which limits judicial authority to actual controversies involving concrete, non-speculative harms.

Although he vents for 49 pages, Judge William H. Orrick III gives away the game early, on page 4. There, the Obama appointee explains that his ruling is about . . . nothing. That is, Orrick acknowledges that he is adopting the construction of the E.O. urged by the Trump Justice Department, which maintains that the order does nothing more than call for the enforcement of already existing law.

Although that construction is completely consistent with the E.O. as written, Judge Orrick implausibly describes it as “implausible.” Since Orrick ultimately agrees with the Trump Justice Department, and since no enforcement action has been taken based on the E.O., why not just dismiss the case? Why the judicial theatrics?
READ it HERE

Kate Walsh O'Beirne, 1949-2017

Remembering Kate O’Beirne - An intelligent and cheerful soul

by John O'Sullivan April 24, 2017 National Review

When the late Robert Bork was received into the Catholic Church only a few years ago, his two godparents were Kate O’Beirne and me. He was amused enough by this to say to Kate that he felt that he was becoming an Irish Catholic rather than a Roman Catholic.

“Beware the sin of pride, Bob,” responded Kate. Almost everyone who knew Kate from National Review, the Heritage Foundation, the Washington media world she all-too-briefly dazzled, or in her earlier life as an Army wife and lawyer, can tell some such story of her quick spontaneous wit and engaging laugh. If she had wished, she could have been a stand-up comedian — a kind of very cleaned-up conservative anti-feminist Amy or Samantha — but with substance, an intent to amuse and instruct rather than to wound and defeat, and enough talent to start a very different stand-up trend.

Kate’s wit and sharpness were an important part of her appeal to conservatives. We get so used to seeing our champions floored by non-sequiturs and platitudes that it’s an enormous relief when one comes along who can more than hold her own with the best of enemies. I never felt nervous on Kate’s behalf when she was on a platform or a television talk show defending some difficult point of conservative theory or Republican folly. I had seen her win too many arguments on NR cruise panels (against me on too many occasions) to doubt her ability to kill a fallacy with an epigram and to leave her defeated opponent laughing. I would sometimes watch her husband, Jim O’Beirne, when she was speaking to see how he was reacting. He always looked supremely relaxed.

Much of this ability was down to the fact that Kate was both highly intelligent and well-prepared. She had a deep hinterland of legal, historical, political, and religious knowledge. She thought hard about the topics of the day before appearing on TV to discuss them. And she never let her side down. But many people do as much and still flounder. Kate had that X-factor ability to make a complicated truth understandable and a stern test appealing. I think that’s God-given. And Kate didn’t let the gift go to waste.

Kate was a serious and devout Catholic, but she was also the kind of believer who shocks the puritan souls of non-believers by being able to joke about the faith and the faithful. I remember once that she mentioned that some NR cruisers in Rome were making a side-trip to see Padre Pio.

“He’s rumored to be able to see directly into your soul,” she said. “Are you going, John?” Kate’s wit and sharpness were an important part of her appeal to conservatives. “Er, well, I’ve got a very crowded program, Kate, and er . . . ” “No, I’m not going either,” she said very firmly, before bursting out laughing. READ HERE

May 01, 2017 | By Christopher Caldwell, The Weekly Standard

If Britain winds up leaving the European Union, it will be the doing of a woman who was not even publicly identified with the cause when voters approved the referendum for “Brexit" 10 months ago. This week Conservative prime minister Theresa May called a general election for June 8. It will determine whether she can pull off the exit.

One of the wiser observations about politics in this populist age was made by Trump adviser Steve Bannon in February. "If you think they're going to give you your country back without a fight," he said, "you are sadly mistaken." The identity of "they" may vary from country to country but the fight is the same: Brexit=Trump. The British citizens who thought they had won the right to leave the European Union were not quite correct. They had won the right to fight over the matter with their almost unanimously pro-EU elites. 

Brexit could easily have unraveled. The "Leave" side had the democratic elation, but the "Remain" side held better political cards. There was a very serious difficulty in translating a referendum—which has no legitimacy under Britain's system of parliamentary supremacy—into a law. There was a generously bankrolled public-relations agitation to bully Parliament into calling a second referendum. It was suddenly discovered that regional assemblies and the House of Lords had previously unasserted veto powers. And there was a divided Conservative party, most of whose members were unsympathetic to the democracy movement that had just triumphed.  READ HERE

Paul Joseph Watson  (3rd HOUR Commercial Free) Wednesday 4/19/17:  Interviews GAB Founder Andrew Torba  -- discusses his new social media platform for free speech.

Watch  YOU tube Here

By Kyle Olson, American Mirror, April 19, 2017


Are Fox News execs about to hand over the scalp of their ratings king to the smear group Media Matters? (UPDATE: Yes.)

On Wednesday, talk radio host Glenn Beck tweeted an email from the Bonner Group, a leftist fundraising firm that works for Media Matters.

The April 13 email is an invitation to join a briefing call on Media Matters’ campaign against the network’s biggest star.
“Thanks to Media Matters, O’Reilly and Fox News are being held accountable,” the email reads.

“We are currently at a critical juncture in this campaign I hope you can join Media Matters President Angelo Carusone to hear about the success of the campaign so far, and our plans moving forward,” Mary Pat Bonner writes.

She then offers a way for readers to sign up for an “update” call.The email may be the “irrefutable” evidence O’Reilly’s attorney said proves the whole this is a set up.

“Bill O’Reilly has been subjected to a brutal campaign of character assassination that is unprecedented in post-McCarthyist America. This law firm has uncovered evidence that the smear campaign is being orchestrated by far-left organization bent on destroying O’Reilly for political and financial reasons,” Marc Kasowitz said in a statement, according to Mediaite.

READ HERE

While Republicans continue to enact bold reforms that have Wisconsin moving forward, Democrats are in disarray – offering only obstruction and the same, tired policies from yesterday that have resulted in this historic low point for Democrats. Visitors to the site will learn the truth about Democrats in Wisconsin:

• Historic electoral losses going back to 2010
• Senator Tammy Baldwin's scandal at Tomah
• A field of potential gubernatorial candidates dropping out left and right
• Democrats playing games instead of doing their job

Learn more at http://www.democratsindisarray.com/