My thanks to the SHR Media Network for allowing me to broadcast in their studio and over their air twice weekly, Tuesdays and Thursdays, as well as appear on the Sack Heads Radio Show™ each Wednesday evening.
Tuesday night at the saloon we discussed:
Is social media failing due to censorship, and why do you need Facebook anyway?
Happy Stories: homeowner’s 19-year-old son shoots and kills 3 home invaders;
Russia gave John Podesta $35 million dollars while he advised Obama and Clinton;
Demorats falling apart: DNC fires EVERYONE;
California: let’s decriminalize the purposeful transmission of HIV to others;
Ford decides to up reinvestment in 3 Michigan plants by $350 million dollars;
Masshole Demorat warns illegals on social media of upcoming ICE raids;
Demorats delay vote on Judge Neil Gorsuch, Schumer promises a filibuster;
What is the Joe Biden Rule?
California AG charges anti-abortion undercover videographers with 15 felony counts of covertly recording videos, falsifying identities and using a fake research company in order to expose the parting out of the unborn for profit by Planned Parenthood;
Why Leftists and Demorats hate Judge Neil Gorsuch
Trump’s budget proposal, reducing the size of government, slashing agencies;
What is the US Debt Clock?
Maintaining our nuclear arsenal;
Demorats lie about the percentile of our budget spent on defense; 35% vs 16%;
Please join me, the Bloviating Zeppelin(on Twitter @BZep and on Gab.ai @BZep), every Tuesday and Thursday night on the SHR Media Network from 11 PM to 1 AM Eastern and 8 PM to 10 PM Pacific, at the Berserk Bobcat Saloon — where the speech is free but the drinks are not.
Please tune in to “The Aftermath” this Thursday for my interview with acclaimed military and intelligence expert and journalist/author Susan Katz Keating. An exchange you won’t want to miss, this will be my naked and sordid attempt to convince her to appear once a week on the show. Susan, I hope you’re reading this.
As ever, thank you so kindly for listening, commenting, and interacting in the chat room or listening via podcast. Thanks also to the BBS bouncer Snowball for kicking all the louts out of Mary Brockman’s chair at the bar.
Want to listen to all the Berserk Bobcat Saloon archives in podcast? Go here.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Monday stepped up his criticism of House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, calling on House Speaker Paul Ryan to replace him.
“Without further ado, Speaker Ryan should replace Chairman Nunes,” the Senate minority leader said from the floor. “If Speaker Ryan wants the House to have a credible investigation, he needs to replace Chairman Nunes.”
Nunes caused an uproar last week when he told the press that he had seen intelligence showing that members of President Trump’s transition team had been caught up in surveillance operations — without first discussing the information with fellow committee members. He later briefed Trump on the information.
Please see my post here on the developments from last week as documented by Chairman Devin Nunes, who dropped this bomb-shell on Wednesday, March 22nd:
Of course, the fecal material struck propellant and the American Media Maggots threw camshafts nationally. Why? Because after berating President Trump over his March 4th Tweet (“Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my “wires tapped” in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!”), the information provided by Chairman Nunes tended to prove that — ahem — President Trump was correct. Think Trump and the Sweden comment, the Brussels terror attack and the election. Proven correct. Hmm.
New York Representative Peter King, a member of the House Intelligence Committee said this to Bill O’Reilly on March 22nd.
You are up to date on the back story. Of course, Demorats and the AMM could not let that stand. However, as I am wont to say, “but wait; there’s more.” From the NYTimes.com:
House Democrats Ask Devin Nunes to Recuse Himself From Russia Inquiry
by Matthew Rosenberg and Emmarie Huetteman
WASHINGTON — Top House Democrats on Monday called on the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee to recuse himself from the panel’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, thrusting the entire inquiry into jeopardy amid what they described as mounting evidence he was too close to President Trump to be impartial.
The demands followed revelations that the committee’s chairman, Representative Devin Nunes of California, had met on White House grounds with a source who showed him secret American intelligence reports. The reports, Mr. Nunes said last week, showed that Mr. Trump or his closest associates may have been “incidentally” swept up in foreign surveillance by American spy agencies.
The new revelation that the information actually came from a meeting held on the grounds of the White House intensified questions about what prompted Mr. Nunes to make the claim about the intelligence gathering, and who gave him the information.
Two extremely important questions, then:
Is this Chairman Nunes conducting illegal, biased or shady activities for Trump, perhaps at the behest of the Russians, or
Is this Chairman Nunes doing his job?
The highest ranking Demorat on the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, along with (naturally) Nancy Pelosi believe that Nunes is in the pocket of the White House.
“The public cannot have the necessary confidence that matters involving the president’s campaign or transition team can be objectively investigated or overseen by the chairman,” Mr. Schiff said on Monday night.
If the Demorats truly believe this, wouldn’t they want to do what they did at Trump’s inauguration, and boycott the committee?
Still, Mr. Schiff stopped short of pulling the panel’s Democrats out of the investigation. Doing so could jeopardize Democrats’ influence over the inquiry and, importantly, their access to intelligence on possible ties between Trump associates and Moscow.
The revelation that Mr. Nunes had viewed intelligence materials on White House grounds the day before bolstering the administration’s case fueled damaging speculation that he was acting at the instruction of the president. That could prove fatal to the bipartisan investigation, which has hinged on the ability of Mr. Nunes to conduct a neutral inquiry while maintaining the trust and cooperation of Mr. Schiff.
Ms. Pelosi echoed Mr. Schiff’s call for Mr. Nunes to recuse himself, saying his behavior had “tarnished” his post and urging Speaker Paul D. Ryan to speak out.
“Speaker Ryan must insist that Chairman Nunes at least recuse himself from the Trump-Russia investigation immediately,” she said in a statement. “That leadership is long overdue.”
Trey Gowdy, no stranger to conflict, partisan politics in his hearings or to DC investigations, said this about the actions of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes.
What Trey Gowdy said was, “just let Devin Nunes do his job.”
Chairman Nunes appeared on the Bill O’Reilly show with more direct information, which also includes the fact that the FBI “can’t make” a second appearance in committee.
For some reason the Church Lady seems to be speaking into my ear at this point.
So you have to ask yourself, as I’ve said and written since last year, “where is the evidence that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians and/or had anything to do with the throwing of the election in order to favor Mr Trump?” After all, even former DNI James Clapper (2010-2017, under Obama) said this during the March 5th edition of “Meet the Press.”
If this is true — and was likely known in 2016 — then what was the need for the surveillance of Trump and his associates under the Obama administration? We know the phones had to be tapped because of the Michael Flynn situation and because of the release of transcripts from conversations between Trump and both Turnbull and Nieto.
Trey Gowdy sums it up adroitly on Face the Nation last Sunday.
Remember, the NSA is cooperating, and the FBI is not. That makes me want to ask: did, possibly, the leak — or several of them — occur within the FBI itself?
Did the Obama administration use the cover of “legitimate surveillance” on foreign persons in order to unearth whatever it could on Donald Trump and his campaign? And isn’t this a clever and timely distraction from the real issue? The actual content of what Chairman Nunes is saying?
Remember, as per the Demorats, Leftists and American Media Maggots, this is all incidental. No one did it on purpose.
A “gun-free zone” is designed to do one thing only: convince those amongst us with the brain power of your average hubcap (that means you, Demorats and Leftists) that signs, hashtags and good thoughts actually accomplish anything.
Just as those who believe domestic violence TRO’s actually accomplish anything.
All they do is create work for attorneys and Leftists.
Schumer: Democrats will filibuster Gorsuch nomination
by Robert Barnes, Ed O’Keefe and Ann E. Marimow
Senate hearings on Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch ended Thursday on a confrontational note, with the body’s top Democrat vowing a filibuster that could complicate Gorsuch’s expected confirmation and ultimately upend the traditional approach to approving justices.
Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he will vote no on President Trump’s nominee and asked other Democrats to join him in blocking an up-or-down vote on Gorsuch.
In terms of the Senate, what does this mean for the nominee?
Under Senate rules, it requires 60 votes to overcome such an obstacle. Republicans eager to confirm Gorsuch before their Easter recess — and before the court concludes hearing the current term of cases next month — have only 52 senators.
As we well know, there are 100 members in the Senate, two from each state. Having 52 Senators is a technical majority and, of course, the vote is splitting entirely by party lines. You’ve of course heard of the term “nuclear option.” Here is its application.
Republicans have vowed Gorsuch will be confirmed even if it means overhauling the way justices have long been approved. Traditionally, senators can force the Senate to muster a supermajority just to bring up the nomination of a Supreme Court justice. If that is reached, the confirmation requires a simple majority.
It’s a strategic question for the Demorats. What tactics to use and, more importantly, when?
There are also competing views among Democrats about whether to filibuster Gorsuch’s nomination — which could provoke the Republican majority to rewrite the rules — or instead avoid confrontation and preserve the filibuster threat for the future. Retaining the filibuster could force Trump to select a relatively moderate nominee if in the coming years he gets a chance to replace a second Supreme Court justice.
Then comes the specious argument from the Washington Post, showing its bias by not telling the full truth.
Among recent Supreme Court nominees the 60-vote threshold has not caused a problem. President Barack Obama’s choices of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan each received more than 60 votes. Samuel A. Alito Jr., chosen by President George W. Bush, was confirmed 58-42 in 2006, but 72 senators voted to defeat a possible filibuster and allow his confirmation vote to go forward. Indeed, only Alito — among the last 16 Supreme Court nominees — was forced to clear the supermajority hurdle to break a filibuster.
Historically, the Republicans have proven they lack the balls, the testosterone, the cajones, to do what needs to be done. But, in truth, what are the overarching objections Demorats have to Judge Neil Gorsuch?
First and foremost, Demorats are butt-hurt that they lacked the power to ram through Obama SCOTUS nominee Merrick Garland last year, at the end of Obama’s second term. They wanted lame-duck input into a SCOTUS appointment. Apparently they forgot the Joe Biden Rule:
The downplaying of the significance of the Democratic obstructionism exposes just whose side the media are on. They previously flipped out when Republicans used the Joe Biden Rule to put off the hearing of Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland. The Joe Biden Rule states that: If a vacancy opens up on the Supreme Court during a presidential election season, then the incoming President gets to fill the seat.
Then there was this question from the AMM in reference to the above video, at the latter portion of Barack Hussein Obama’s imperial presidency with regard to SCOTUS appointments.
The American Media Maggots would have you believe that a situation such as that of Garland had never occurred before in history. Historical Alzheimers? Purposeful? Intentional? I say yes.
Historically, many Supreme Court nominations made in a president’s final year in office have been rejected by the Senate. That started with John Quincy Adams and last occurred to Lyndon B. Johnson.
Then there are the words of Barack Hussein Obama himself.
We now know that the Biden Rule is acceptable for Demorats, unacceptable for Republicans (as utilized by Mitch McConnell).
I repeat: what are the major objections by the Demorats of Neil Gorsuch?
Because the left sees its power ebbing. Former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, complained that “Judge Gorsuch’s record reveals [that] he holds radical views far outside the mainstream of American legal thought.” And ABC News reported that Obama’s former secretary of Labor, Tony Perez, said, “[s]imply put, a Justice Gorsuch on the Supreme Court is intolerable and it’s up to Democrats to block his nomination.”
Good to know. ABC = signing off on whatever Pelosi says. But again, specifically, what are the so-called “radical” views?
They state the obvious:
Trump’s nominee, despite a Columbia, Harvard Law and Oxford pedigree, is committed to deferring to the wisdom of our Constitution. That 1787 document clearly spells out a short list of what government may do, and concludes with a broad list of what government may not do. The original U.S. Constitution chains down and forbids governmental action not included in its list of 17 enumerated powers. If an action is not authorized by the original meaning of the Constitution’s text, then the government may not do it. Period. Such a view reflects deference to the accumulated wisdom of the founders of our republic.
Sounds bad to you? Sounds good to me. Like a feature, not a bug.
Judge Gorsuch’s view is that judges should only interpret law, not make it. Making law is reserved for elected officials, who can be held accountable. If politicians make a mistake, they can correct it by a later vote. Judicial self-restraint also vindicates the principle of prudence. A judge going rogue, ecstatically inventing a new “positive right,” causes societal upheaval. Conservatives view innovation with great skepticism.
Even worse, from the leftist view, Judge Gorsuch implicitly recognizes the natural law. The natural law says that some things are not up for deciding. Euthanasia, for example, is evil because of the intrinsic worth of each person. A positive law inventing a new right to euthanasia may not be made. This is a recognition that an objective right and wrong exists, and has existed, across all times and cultures. It was the basis for convicting Nazis after World War II, as their state-approved acts were inherently evil.
Judge Gorsuch’s views that judges should only judge, and Congress should legislate, is entirely mainstream despite what Demorats and Leftists say. Judicial restraint was followed in England and the United States for 700 years. The alternative view that whatever a judge thinks is best is no standard at all. It is the very definition of tyranny.
A far-sighted anti-federalist judge, writing under the pen name “Brutus,” noted: “there is no power above them that can control their decisions, or correct their errors.” Let that sink for a moment and rattle around your wheelhouse.
He correctly predicted in 1788 that we would gradually lose our liberties due to Supreme Court justices’ temptation to extend government power.
Our current Constitution frames government in terms of what it cannot do.
– The government cannot engage in unreasonable searches and seizures;
– The government cannot inflict cruel and unusual punishment
And therefore, the individual has a right to NOT be subject to various circumstances applied by the government.
Our current Constitution does not “guarantee” so-called “rights” to such things as housing, clothing, food, jobs — rights that place onus upon the federal government to obtain the resources from other citizens to pay for them.
Let me make this abundantly clear: “RIGHTS THAT PLACE ONUS UPON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO OBTAIN THE RESOURCES FROM OTHER CITIZENS TO PAY FOR THEM.”
Not by concession or acquiescence but by force.
Too many judges, federal and otherwise, believe it’s not about what the Constitution or various laws actually mean, it’s about what they mean.
The most recent egregious example is that of Hawaii’s Judge Watson who predicated his ruling on the Trump refugee stay not via the documents submitted and appearing before him, but instead upon words said outside the court by means of hearsay and of no pertinence at all to the very specific issue at hand before his court.
The documents. The words. The law.
Federal judges take and wield power not meant for them in order to impose their personal political views of how we all should conduct our lives. States cannot be independent or tailor their own changes. Oh no; one size must fit all and in all circumstances.
This is the bottom line:
Make no mitsake; the Demorats’ decision to filibuster is nothing more than political payback or revenge for McConnell daring to have an actual memory. Further, Schumer — the new Harry Reid for the Demorats — has to put on his Game Face in every national event now whether he believes in it or not because failure to do so will result in his immediate excommunication and loss of power. The DC Triumvirate:
This is the beginning of a series of posts dealing with issues where some individuals in the United States government are attempting to hold at least a portion of the rest of the federal government accountable and responsible for its actions and inactions. The public displays we find, however, are not unlike the most bizarre of Kabuki Theater or Theater of the Absurd.
Jason Chaffetz vs BLM, otherwise know as the Bureau of Land Management.
Please remember, ladies and gentlemen, these are your federal tax dollars either