Roundup
There is a lot of other news today but I’ve run out of time to write about it right now, so here’s a roundup:
A ceasefire in Ukraine—for the moment (see also this).
Chris Cuomo shows his ignorance of a very basic premise of the Declaration of Independence. I would wager his point of view has become very, very common.
Rep. Brooks of Alabama suggests the GOP eliminate the filibuster on spending bills, just as the Democrats eliminated it for judicial nominations. There is no question in my mind that the Democrats would do it in a heartbeat—in fact, will do it next time they come to power and it gets in their way. Performed now, the action would get the GOP out of a current bind, allowing them “to pass a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security while simultaneously revoking President Obama’s executive actions on immigration.” I predict they won’t do it, though.
I am extremely skeptical that there is a god as envisioned by the Judeo-Christian culture. Nevertheless, I do think that our constitution was created by wise humans with the great hopes for humanity, as informed by Judeo-Christian culture. Nevertheless again, I do not think nor wish that the constitution, with its amendments, allows for overturning the one-man-one-woman definition of marriage that was assumed at that time. I support Moore.
It was noted on Ace of Spades earlier today that if our rights aren’t God-given, then they are given by the barrel of a gun.
I’m not sure which option is more likely to give Progressives the vapors.
“What’s worse is Cuomo is advocating “collective” rights. He speaks as if every American right can simply be overturned at a whim simply because “times change.” neo’s linked article by cnsnews Curtis Kalin
As soon as someone rejects the premise that inalienable rights are granted by a source that transcends mankind’s opinion, whether they acknowledge it or not, they are logically reduced to the position that there are NO “inalienable” rights and, that whatever rights we have are transitory and may be amended or revoked at any time.
Alan F,
I agree that the constitution does not allow for the judiciary to ‘interpret’ the constitution so as to require same-sex marriage. However, I do assert that the constitution allows for the public to vote in favor of same-sex marriage at both the State and Federal levels. Either through referendums, voter approved state legislation or constitutional amendment.
Reportedly, there is a high probability that SCOTUS will rule in favor of mandatory state compliance with same-sex marriage. That shall result in the legally inescapable slide down the slippery slope, for if it is unconstitutional discrimination to limit marriage to one man-one woman, it is also unconstitutional discrimination to limit it to two people. Once SCOTUS renders its expected ruling, the slope stops at ability to consent. Any other standard being subjectively arbitrary and thus by their ruling, unconstitutional.
Geoffrey,
Agreed with your points on SSM (and note that I’m opposed to it myself).
It’s also worth noting that a judge in Utah made the same point that you did regarding the link between SSM and marriages between more than two people.
We’ll see where this all goes.
I favor getting rid of the filibuster except for presidential appointments. For example filibustering budgets, instead of allowing an simple majority vote is harmful. After all we won in November, 2014.
Since this is a roundup, I will mention this OT item. Apparently, the Chapel Hill killer was really obsessed with parking places and had problems with lots of his neighbors. His former wife said that when they were married he was obsessed by a film about a serial killer. This was from WaPo this evening.
The problem with the Republicans in the Senate emulating the democrats with the nuclear option is that it will accelerate the country’s division.
Arguably, that is going to happen anyway and absent some wildcard event, I see that irreconcilable division as inescapable.
But that is not the same as a certainty, whereas the Republicans in the Senate engaging in the nuclear option makes that division a near certainty.
There is also the certainty that the MSM will hypocritically use it to lambast the GOP, while disingenuously ‘failing’ to remind LIVs that the dems did the same thing.
Since this is a roundup, allow me to share the video of Wednesday night’s launch of the Deep Space Climate Observatory, or DSCOVR.
This is the full SpaceX webcast, which begins at T-15 minutes. You can skip ahead if you want, but personally, I find the last few minutes of a countdown to be riveting, edge-of-my-seat excitement.
This was SpaceX’s first launch of a payload beyond Earth orbit. DSCOVR is designed to orbit the Sun and provide early warning about solar flares and coronal mass ejections which can affect communications and electrical grids on Earth.
It was a flawless launch, and one of the most visually beautiful ones I’ve seen. The launch occurred at sunset, and the rocket rose bathed in a golden glow. The sky was also very clear, which allowed ground-based tracking cameras to record first stage shutdown, separation, second stage ignition, and payload fairing jettison. This happens at around the 18-19 minute mark in the video. After first stage separation, you can also clearly see the thrusters firing as the stage is turned around in preparation for a controlled descent.
They had intended to land the first stage on a floating platform, but that had to be called off due to rough seas in the landing area, with 30-foot waves. Instead, they brought the stage down to a soft landing on the ocean’s surface, and it was reported that it landed less than 10 meters from the aiming point. That means that if the barge had been in place, the landing might well have been successful.
It’s important to realize that in 57 years of orbital space launches, nobody has ever attempted to do this before. The idea is to recover and reuse the first stage, which is the largest part of the rocket. If this can be done, it will dramatically reduce the cost of launches in the future, and open up space flight to more people and more uses.
Anyway, this is the sort of thing that helps keep me sane and optimistic about the future, in the face of rampant political insanity and Muslim barbarism.
RE: Chris Cuomo and Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore.
While it is true that laws are written and enforced by man; our rights come from our creator – whether that creator be nature or nature’s God; whatever your personal religious beliefs are. I learned that was rather basic; maybe, I’m the one wrong?
Jefferson’s summary part about ” . . . that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” is key.
And, I agree, it seems that, despite his law degree, he seems to be ignorant of this as many folks are.
And it is a very slippery slop to think that rights can be given or taken away by the state.
During the Romney Ryan run Ryan frequently mentioned that “our rights come from God or nature, he always said this in
Tandem, God & nature. Also adding the rights are not granted by any gov or monarch, this Concept was essential
To seperate from the English monarch. What a stupid putz cuomo is, guess he never even listened to the last prez campaign. I’m gonna email that daft idiot repository CNN.
FTR Mo Brooks is a congressman from Alabama, not a senator. He’s also wrong to want to change Senate rules so that spending bills only need a simple majority to advance instead of 60. Also eliminating the filibuster is sure to come back and bite you on the butt at some time down the road. It seems he want’s a little instant gratification.
If those rules had been changed just think what Obama & Harry Reid could of pushed through.
John:
Thanks, I corrected it. (Haste makes waste.)
You write that Brooks is wrong to want to change the rules, and that eliminating the filibuster is sure to come back and bite the GOP on the butt. You are absolutely correct, and I would agree with you, except for one thing. I wrote ” There is no question in my mind that the Democrats would do it in a heartbeat–in fact, will do it next time they come to power and it gets in their way.” The Democrats were afraid to do it at first, then they tested the waters with the end of the filibuster for judicial appointments, and found those waters to be very pleasant. They would have no compunctions about doing it for spending bills next time they are in power if they need to. In other words, whether or not the GOP does it now or holds off from doing it now, it still has a good chance of coming back to bite them on the butt.
That is the point where we’ve arrived, unfortunately. The Democrats only pay lip service to the sacredness of the filibuster when the rule helps them. It used to be there was a common agreement that it was in the interests of both parties to keep it, for when they became the minority party some day. That agreement has now gone the way of the dodo. The Democrats proved they no longer are of that mind, and that for them the ends justify the means.
Geoffrey,
Your first paragraph to me stated perfectly what I have been thinking re: the judiciary v. the public voting. In all the discussion, I haven’t seen that point so clearly stated. As a Californian, I strongly disapproved of the judiciary negating Prop 8. In general our judiciary is even worse than our overwhelming Democrat majority.
It’s a piece that might normally be off-topic, except that for this thread, virtually anything can qualify as on-topic.
So, for anyone who might be checking in on the thread at the end of a(nother) long day, here goes . . .
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2015/02/beat-media-win-white-house.html
Monday, February 09, 2015
Beat the Media, Win the White House
Posted by Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog
Putin has seriously hurt his ‘brand.’
He will never be able to walk back this cat.
So the outside world will never finance Putin & Co in the manner it’s been accustomed.
charles,
The assertion that our inalienable rights come from nature is IMO a specious one and easily disprovable. ‘Nature’ gives us the law of the jungle with might making right. ‘Nature’ is amoral, it is neither moral nor immoral. For rights to be ‘eternal’ and irrevocable, logically they can only be posited as having been granted to us by a “benevolent providence” i.e. God.
“There is no question in my mind that the Democrats would do it in a heartbeat–in fact, will do it next time they come to power and it gets in their way.” neo
It is of a certainty. If McConnell has any remaining vestige of loyalty to the Senate’s integrity, he is searching diligently for some legislative means to prevent the nuclear option from being used again.
Alan F,
Yes the democrats are manipulating the system to achieve their agenda. Over and above the fact that, on so many levels, so much of their agenda is dysfunctional and destructive… clearly liberals are blind (not the Marxist left who are purposely aware) to the means they are using destroying the very system they seek to ‘perfect’.
MJR,
Greenfield is right, the media has to be taken on and exposed to the LIVs. 99% of whom haven’t a clue that the lying is constant and the norm. I gagged at NBC’s hypocrisy in their formal announcement of anchor Brian William’s suspension, as they stated that he had violated the public trust in the media’s obligation to be truthful.
“the outside world will never finance Putin & Co in the manner it’s been accustomed” blert
International banker’s ethics will prevent them from doing business with Putin in the future? In what universe? If he has ‘burned’ them, they’ll simply raise the interest rate. Whether individual or nation, as long as the borrower has income and there’s money to be made, bankers will finance you.
I think the *rights* we inherit from Nature are from evolution
Into * reasoning, rational, compassionate humans that is the
Higher level of Nature * that we posses over animals who are
Irrational, poorly reasoning, uncompassionate, unempathetic
Beings. They know hunger so they kill unempathetically to survive. Ideally humans view other humans as special &unique ¬ subject to *laws of the jungle*.
molly nh,
Certainly we have ‘evolved’ into human beings capable of reason, rationality and compassion. We’ve also equally evolved with the capabilities of hate, intolerance and greed.
The issue is of course, the basis for the claim that mankind has ‘inalienable’ rights, i.e. inherent rights that cannot be taken away.
Logic extends from its originating premise but logic cannot ‘prove’ its premise. When the position is posited that we have ‘natural’ rights that extend solely from our nature, that premise rests upon personal opinion and does so regardless of how large the consensus. Opinion is unprovable, which is why it is mere opinion.
The founders were aware of this and that is why they posited that our rights extend from a source that transcends mankind’s opinion. Within that context it matters not whether there is in fact a God, what matters is that it is the only sustainable basis for positing that mankind has inalienable rights.
The unintended consequence for rejection of the belief in a God is that you also and unavoidably reject the sole basis for claiming that inalienable rights exist.
There’s little doubt that Chris Cuomo is ignorant of the deeper ramifications but nevertheless he’s correct that once you reject faith in a benevolent deity as the basis for rights, all that is left is, “Our laws come from collective agreement and compromise.” and what the ‘collective’ (and its elite) grants, it can take away.
Agreed as I said in my post there was no other way to seperate from the king of england than to go to a higher
Authority …God
Cuomo & his ilk of course demand mutable rights they can tweek ala china russia nazi germany
The Declaration of Independence. It’s only our national charter.