I was reading Mark 3 and came across 24-25.

²⁴ If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. ²⁵ If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.

These verses were used to discredit the Pharisees who were telling Jesus healing on the Sabbath was sin and that He had to getting his power from Satan.

But, they have been purloined by many, ole’ Abe Lincoln among them.

Today our politics are divided, wrapped with vile accusations on both sides, inflamed with “Op Research” or fake news, on and on. Both sides have moved away from the center, in equal measures, see study by Pew a couple of years ago. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/12/7-things-to-know-about-polarization-in-america/.

We need a leader, or leaders from both sides to hit Washington upside the head with a wet cod. We have always disagreed about what to do about a problem, always will. My goodness, can’t we move towards one another a bit.

Go to Problem Solver Caucus, https://www.nolabels.org/blog/problem-solvers-caucus-calls-legislation-tackles-tax-reform-infrastructure-together/.

God Bless to all, and to our experiment in government, may it not fall,  per the admonition from Ben Franklin.

QUOTATION:

“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

ATTRIBUTION:

The response is attributed to BENJAMIN FRANKLIN—at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation—in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention. McHenry’s notes were first published in The American Historical Review, vol. 11, 1906, and the anecdote on p. 618 reads: “A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy. A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.” When McHenry’s notes were included in The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, ed. Max Farrand, vol. 3, appendix A, p. 85 (1911, reprinted 1934), a footnote stated that the date this anecdote was written is uncertain.

 

The WSJ, October 17, 2017, headlined an editorial with the above title. Since SCOTUS decided 5-4 that corporations can spend money on elections (not directly to candidates) the Democrat Party and others have been dodging the pieces of sky falling on them.

The issue was large in the 2016 cycle, HRC and BS (I love his initials) were all over it. “Special interests are going to buy elections….”

Well, the results are in. And as usual in politics, the facts trash all the hype. The top twenty donors in the 2015-16 cycle donated $607 million dollars, $398 million went to Democrat focused super PAC’s, $208 million went to Republican focused super PACS’s. The top donor was Thomas Steyer-$89 million (D); the second was Sheldon Adelson, $77 million (R).

Of the $1.8 BILLION that was sent to super PAC’s, only $85 million, 4.7% came from corporations. WILL SOMEONE WHO CATERWAULED SO MUCH ISSUE A RETRACTION, BERNIE, HILLARY, SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, WASHINGTON POST, NYT, ANYONE!!!!!!  Of course they won’t;

“A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”  M Twain

Maybe John Paul Stevens’ 90 page dissent against the ruling can be used in law schools as a caution about blathering on without understanding the facts.

The No Labels organization has been around for a number of years, Jon Huntsman and Joe Lieberman being the headliners; they promote bi-partisanship in our Congress, https://www.nolabels.org/.

Recently thirty or so congressmen formed the problem solver caucus, with equal numbers of republicans and democrats, to promote bipartisanship.

The PEW Trust did a study 2 years ago that detailed the drift from the center, by both sides in equal measures.

Tired of the caterwauling in DC? Look into the National Strategic Agenda promoted by the caucus, all ideas with surveyed data, bi-partisan support.

The following article appeared in the WSJ on March 29th.

How Trump Can Break the Gridlock

Bill Galston, WSJ, March 28

Donald Trump wasn’t elected to perpetuate the ideologically driven gridlock of the past six years. But his decision to pursue a one-party approach on health care threatened to do just that. Now that this approach has failed, however, Mr. Trump has an opportunity to begin again with a more inclusive strategy, as many members of his own party are urging.

Pennsylvania Rep. Charlie Dent, a leader of the center-right Republican Tuesday Group, told NBC on Sunday that “in order to reform health care in this country, we are going to have to do it in a durable, sustainable way and in a bipartisan manner.”

Ohio’s Gov. John Kasich declared the same day on CNN that “you cannot have major changes in major programs affecting things like health care without including Democrats from the very beginning.” Mr. Kasich placed this point in a broader context: “The Republicans tried to do it with just Republicans. It doesn’t work like that in our country. We are not a parliamentary system.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham, speaking Saturday at a town hall in Columbia, S.C., said that what should happen next is that “the president should reach out to Democrats, I should reach out to Democrats, and we should say ‘Let’s get a shot at doing this together, because it ain’t working doing it by ourselves.’ ” Maine’s Sen. Susan Collins expressed optimism about this strategy: “With the demise of the House bill, there’s a real window of opportunity for a bipartisan approach to health care.”

Why didn’t the House Freedom Caucus support the GOP health bill? “I have no idea,” Mick Mulvaney, President Trump’s budget director, told NBC on Sunday. “I know the Freedom Caucus. I helped found it. I never thought it would come to this.” Mr. Mulvaney must have slept through the events that culminated in John Boehner’s resignation.

The question now is whether the Trump administration will allow its entire agenda to be held hostage by a minority faction of Republicans who will accept nothing less than policy purity—as they define it. This is the inevitable consequence of trying to legislate with the votes of only one party. But there are signs that the White House is contemplating a course correction. “This president is not going to be a partisan president,” Chief of Staff Reince Priebus told Fox News. “It’s time to potentially get a few moderate Democrats on board.”

It is not clear, however, that Mr. Priebus understands the implications of his statement. Real bipartisanship means getting the parties together around a table at the beginning of the legislative process. Asking Democrats to sign on to bills that Republicans have already drafted won’t work; not enough of them will break ranks to change the dynamic.

In today’s polarized climate, real bipartisanship needs to make it impossible for the most intransigent forces to veto potential agreements. This means building coalitions from the center out, beginning with the forces in both parties that do not reject the very legitimacy of compromise.

If the White House gets serious about this approach, it won’t need to start from scratch. Thirty-six representatives, evenly balanced between Democrats and Republicans, have formed the independent Problem Solvers Caucus, co-chaired by New Jersey Democrat Josh Gottheimer and New York Republican Tom Reed. (Full disclosure: I am a co-founder of No Labels, a bipartisan group that some years ago set in motion the process that led eventually to the formation of this caucus.)

Many of these elected officials have been working together across party lines for years and can boast some modest legislative successes. Now they are developing common approaches to many of the forthcoming issues, beginning with the resolution to continue government funding beyond its current expiration date of April 28.

On Feb. 8, all 36 Problem Solvers sent President Trump a letter requesting a meeting to discuss where they could work together with his administration. The signatories pointed out that “the most consequential and long-lasting reforms are usually bipartisan, from the passage of Social Security and Medicare to the last time comprehensive tax reform in 1986 was achieved.”

They declared their willingness to begin working immediately with the White House on tax reform and infrastructure legislation. “Addressing either issue on a broad bipartisan basis,” they said, could “give a significant boost to our economy and provide Americans with confidence that government can work for them.” As Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R., Ill.), a member of the Problem Solvers, recently said: “I think that’s going to have to be the new coalition.”

If Mr. Trump wants a strategy that can break the gridlock and promote the common good, he knows where he can start.

 

Hoopla and Hyperbole. The nomination of Judge Gorsuch has raised the level of political BS to new heights.

“The stolen seat” is the new slogan, kind of like the “stolen election” of the Bush years. A little originality please. When President Obama nominated judge Garland the senate majority leader invoked the “Biden” rule. I note below the core then Senator Biden’s comments, with a link to it all.

“Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed.”

Biden said if Bush were to nominate someone anyway, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/

So, After the Dems invoke the nuclear option to get cabinet members nominated for Obama they are now yelling about a “Mainstream” judge is the only thing that should occur. What goes around,…..

The judiciary is there to ensure laws follow the constitution, not to interpret the will of the people and make law, that is the job of the Congress.  Bi-partisanship is needed to pass laws. I hope the new president doesn’t slip down the slope like our last one did and go around Congress. Leadership is required, sorely lacking for the last eight years.

An invocation at the beginning of a Rotary meeting in Birmingham, Alabama, and some comments from a rabbi, on the day of the election prior to the results.

I am honored to offer an invocation the day after presidential election. With the nature of the campaign, my thoughts turned to the seemingly overwhelming need for unity, as spoken to by both our president elect this early morning and Secretary Clinton an hour ago.  We live in a dangerous world, we must be as united as possible, which means not getting everything we want.

There is plenty of advice to us from scripture about putting aside dissention.  Psalm 133,  “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers and sisters to dwell together in unity!”; Matthew 12:25 “And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand. Surah 3:103   “hold firmly to the rope of Allah all together and do not become divided.”

 

From a founder, Patrick Henry; in his last public speech, given in March 1799,  He declaimed, “Let us trust God, and our better judgment to set us right hereafter. United we stand, divided we fall. Let us not split into factions which must destroy that union upon which our existence hangs.” At the end of his oration, Henry fell into the arms of bystanders and was carried almost lifeless into a nearby tavern. Two months afterward, he died.

Lastly, from Ronald Reagan, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where we were free.”

Please join me in prayer.

God of all nations, Father of the human family, we give you thanks for the freedom we exercise
and the many blessings of democracy we enjoy in these United States of America.
We ask for your protection and guidance for all who devote themselves to the common good who are working for justice and peace at home and around the world, such as Rotary clubs.

 

We lift up all our duly elected leaders and public servants, those who will serve us as president, as legislators and judges, those in the military and law enforcement.
Heal us from our differences and unite us, O Lord,
with a common purpose, dedication, and commitment to achieve liberty and justice
in the years ahead for all people, and especially those who are most vulnerable in our midst.

Lastly we give thanks for this food we are about to consume, bless those who produced and prepared it for us today, and bless us to thy service.    Amen

Rabbi Jonathan Miller

Temple Emanu-El

Birmingham, Alabama

 

I made a point of writing this sermon early in the week, before the election results came in. As I prepared my message for tonight, I wanted to make sure that I was specifically not current with the results of who were the winners and who were the losers in the election. I have not commented on this election from the pulpit. I want to speak to you about the election and not about who was elected and who was defeated. I do not feel that it is my place to publicly support candidates or parties. If as your rabbi I refrain from supporting candidates and parties, I can freely speak to the issues of the day when I share what Judaism has to say about the issues we face as a community, as a people and as a nation. As a citizen, I can be partisan. As a rabbi, partisan politics does not have a place on my pulpit. I am here to speak to you today as your rabbi and not as Jonathan Miller.

 

There are other reasons that I eschew partisan politics from the pulpit, even as I have my own opinions as a citizen. I believe that you should have the ability to come to worship, to bring your tired soul in need of uplift and your thirst for Torah and have these needs addressed. I respect the differences of opinion that our democratic system allows and even encourages. Through the lens of history, I realize that I can be wrong on certain things. I also realize that people and parties who have differed with my opinions over the years have also been wrong. Democracy challenges us with the notion that no single person or party has the corner on rectitude. We can differ from one another, and we can differ passionately.

 

I also believe that we are one nation, even though at times, as to the run up to this election on Tuesday, we do not feel ourselves to be “under God” or “indivisible.” Sometimes it is hard to be in fellowship with people who do not see the world the way we see it. I want the synagogue to be a place of unity and safety. Here we can discuss issues, and not candidates. We can listen to people, with respect, who differ from us. And we must defend the rights of all the citizens of our country for each person to do their part to determine the future course of our nation and the world through our representative democracy.

 

There are other reasons that I do not discuss candidates or party from the pulpit. I am usually disappointed in our politicians. Did I say usually? I should have said always. Politics is a rough and tumble contact sport. It is a zero sum game of winners and losers, a popularity contest wherein 50% plus one lands a person in the win column. And coming in “almost a winner” means absolutely nothing. I don’t like to live my life that way. And, while this election was extreme, the people who vie for a position in political leadership more often than not are most effective when they tear down their opponents, instead of building themselves up. Politics is bloody and it is real, and I don’t like to see real blood shed in the public square. In this election in particular, both of our national candidates and their families were wounded terribly. And it was sad to watch the debasement of the character of the people who would wish to lead our nation. More than any election I have witnessed in my fifteenth presidential election, this election was an election of slogans and character assassination. I believe that we are better than that. I pray that we are.

 

And finally, I am a religious person. I am uncompromising in my beliefs. While I can appreciate the beliefs of others, religious people do not have to compromise. We have to get along and cooperate, but never do we ask a person of faith to explain himself or herself so that we might be satisfied. Politics is by nature a give and take. Politics is by nature most effective when the politicians and their parties compromise for the sake of the greater good. Religious faith is absolute. It should not keep score. Political conviction is a combination of firmly held principles with the knowledge that everyone gives a little and sometimes a lot to make the future better. Political compromise keeps score from one battle to the next. And there is always a next battle. That is the political world in a nutshell. Religion is about finding deeper meanings in the struggles we encounter and working to better align our lives with the dictates of God who commands us to lead better lives.

 

In the Torah, we read about Abraham and Sarah, who are both people of uncompromising faith in God. They did not make truck with the idol worshippers or the Canaanites. They were not politicians. They garnered respect from the people for their absolute fealty to their faith. But who would want Abraham or Sarah or Isaiah or Jeremiah sitting on the throne or legislating in the halls of Congress or Parliament? Religious people are driven by principle. Politicians bend their principles to achieve results.

 

With this backdrop, I want to comment on these sorry elections. I want to share with you my views and my sorrow that this is where we have come as a nation. Not a single one of us should feel righteous. All of us, no matter how Tuesday night’s results turned out, or what transpired in the aftermath of the election on Wednesday, or Thursday or today or tomorrow, no one should feel happy and each one of us ought to feel a bit dirty and soiled.

 

I was shocked at the anger so many of us feel in this country. This election has unleashed a rage against imaginary demons. From the very start of this season, every American was made to feel that he or she is being done wrong, that sinister forces are colluding to take away–ok, let’s do the list–our moral nature, our prosperity, our borders, our health care, our guns, our freedoms, our rights, our security. They, whomever they might be, are coming to take away that which we cherish. Instead of building an inclusive society where all Americans have the opportunity to prosper, we are hunkering down to protect what is ours from our fellow Americans. We have lost our sense of common purpose. No great society was ever built on a foundation of anger.

 

And after anger inevitably comes scapegoating. The Mexicans are the cause of our misfortunes. The Muslims are the cause of our misfortunes. The communists are the cause of our misfortunes. The Catholics are the cause of our misfortunes, and the blacks and the women and the rich and poor and the corporations and the media and the banks and Hollywood and the Chinese–they cause our misfortunes. Ominously for us Jews, many have pointed to us as the cause of their misfortunes. Good Lord, where does it end? Someone else is always a cause of my misfortune. My friends, what does this do?

 

All we have focused on is our misfortunes. And our misfortunes are amplified month to month, week to week, until we punch people at political rallies and threaten each other and hurt each other. And all we think about are our misfortunes and revenge. Does this country have any blessings? Are we not blessed by God? Do we not have opportunities and resources and comforts and strength, the kind of which our American mothers and fathers could not have even imagined one hundred years ago. The ever-expanding knowledge of the world is at our fingertips. We can buy raspberries in November and enjoy roses in December and fill our refrigerators in January. Is there not a single blessing that we enjoy? We have focused and amplified every misfortune imaginable.

 

And then of course, we do not take responsibility for our own state of affairs. It is his fault or her fault or their fault. It is never my fault. I am never responsible for my aches and pains and woes. Let’s blame the Jews or the Muslims or the Mexicans or the Ivy League pinheads. And then none of us have any responsibility for where we have come from or for where we are going. The blaming and the suspicion is beyond anything that could constitute even the possibility of our creating a decent society.

 

We do not trust either candidate. It feels like forever that we have been lied to. We have been lied to by the Republicans. We have been lied to by the Democrats. We have been lied to by the FBI and law enforcement. We have been lied to by the media. Mark Twain wrote that there are “lies lies, and damned lies–and then statistics.” We find it hard to believe that anyone is telling the truth. Fact checkers check the facts, but for what purpose? The lies, lies, damned lies and statistics are repeated over and over again, and when we hear them we recoil.

2000 years ago, Rabbi Shimon taught in this Midrash:

In the hour when God was about to create Adam, the angels were divided into different groups.… Love said, “Let him be created, and he will do loving deeds.” But Truth said, “Let him not be created because he will be all deceit.” Righteousness said, “Let him be created because he will do righteous deeds.” Peace said, “Let him not be created because he will be all quarrelsome and discord.”

 

What did God do? He seized hold of Truth and cast it to the earth, as it is said, You “cast truth to the ground” (Daniel 8:12). Then the angels said to God, “Why do you despise your Angel of Truth? Let Truth rise out of the earth, as it is said, ‘Truth springs out of the earth’” (Genesis Rabbah B’reishit 8:5).

 

In this election, Truth was cast to the ground. And there was no one to claim it. When truth is the first casualty; love, righteousness and peace are established on flimsy foundations. As religious people, we have to hold our leaders accountable not to tell us what they think we want to hear, but instead to tell us what we have to know to be good citizens and to make all of our lives better.

 

That is a great segue to my next concern. All of us cherry pick our news. When I was a child, we read the same newspapers and watched the nightly news at 6:30. We all had the same experience of living together and absorbing the same set of facts. The facts were rarely in question. Instead, we differed in our opinions and then went to the ballot box to cast our votes. The fringe elements were the outliers. Instead today, we gravitate to the sources of news and comment which first agree with our opinions, so we do not have the ability to speak with common discourse. The proliferation of the “gotcha media” poisons our common good. We have created a fractured universe.

 

So where do we go from here? Remember, I wrote this message before the polls were closed in Alabama and before the winners were announced.

 

The Torah tells us about going from here to there. This Shabbat we read “lech l’cha, God’s call to Avram.”

 

The Lord said to Avram, “Go forth from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land that I will show you.

“I will make you into a great nation,

and I will bless you;

I will make your name great,

and you will be a blessing. 

I will bless those who bless you,

and whoever curses you I will curse;

and all the people on the earth

will be blessed through you.”

 

Friends and fellow Jews, I have always thought that the United States of America was the greatest nation ever created. I have always believed that despite our problems and the ugliness that sometimes rears its head in this mighty and diverse country of ours, that we have each been kissed by God because we live here. As citizens, in the aftermath of the election, we are charged to take Avram, our most founding father, and be willing to go out from where we have been. We are charged to take the journey together. We are charged to be a blessing. We are charged to live in a world where God’s name will once again be great, and we are to be God’s agents to help the Divine achieve that greatness.

 

It is well past the time to put the rancor and suspicion behind us and move from where we are to come home to the kingdom of God. America has, since its inception, been the Promised Land for Jews and Christians and Muslims and other believers and those of no belief at all to exercise our freedom for the common good and create a more just and more perfect union. This election, no matter who is elected, cries out for truth, for compassion and for trust that our mission as a nation is still the most inspiring mission for all of humanity. And let us move forward together towards our best selves.

 

Israel Baline was born in Russia in 1888 and came to America at the age of five. During World War I, Israel Baline served as a soldier in the United States’ army during. He put pen to paper and wrote this now famous song. The song was tucked away in a drawer someplace, and pulled out in 1938 as Europe prepared for its apocalypse and America was riven with post-depression fear, resentment and anti-Semitism. By 1938, the Jewish boy from Russia, Israel Baline was known to the world as Irving Berlin. I will spare you my singing. But listen to the words which came from this Jewish boy’s heart, who loved his country even during challenging times–especially during challenging times.

 

While the storm clouds gather far across the sea,

Let us swear allegiance to a land that’s free.

Let us all be grateful for a land so fair,

As we raise our voices in a solemn prayer:

God bless America, land that I love,

Stand beside her and guide her

Through the night with a light from above.

From the mountains, to the prairies,

To the oceans white with foam,

God bless America, my home sweet home.

God bless America, my home sweet home.

May God bless the United States of America, this homeland and this ideal that we all love, and may we live so that we might be worthy of God’s blessings.

 

Amen

WSJ, 10/31/16, Opnion piece

Harry Reid is retiring, thank goodness. A rabid partisan who has lied on the Senate floor and then said, paraphrasing, well it worked didn’t it!  This was about Romney paying taxes.

The article in the WSJ details much more. Reid is one of the reasons Congress doesn’t work, Pelosi another and certainly there are some on the other side of the aisle that don’t help much either.

At least McConnell has stated that the Senate will work as designed, and according to the article it is closer to being so.

FBI Director Comey had a tough decision.  Do his job or play along. He chose the right path, to do his job-or so it appears. Thus the right who trashed him this summer put him on the pedestal the left just ripped him off of. I just hope that the truth comes out, almost seventy and still hoping the truth can come out of D.C.  Pollyanna to the end.

But, from www.nationalreviewonline.com, Jim Geraghty, today.

You have to have a sense of humor to follow politics.

When Comey does what Democrats want him to do, they praise him as Eliot Ness, King Solomon, Frank Serpico, and Jesus all rolled into one. But the moment he follows procedure and brings up topics the Clinton campaign doesn’t want in the news, he’s Torquemada, Captain Queeg, Javert, and Ahab rolled into one. Look, we get it, Democrats, you have absolute faith in Comey’s judgment as long as he’s ruling in your favor. If you guys were less invested in an emotionally convienient narrative where all wisdom and virtue aligns with your political interests of the moment, you would have praised Comey’s summer decision but not put him up on a pedestal.

Instead, they had to insist that no reasonable person could question his summer decision. I mean, it was just in July that Hillary Clinton’s campaign was telling us how independent, thorough, respected, and honest Comey was.

Throughout his long career in law enforcement, the independence of FBI chief James Comey has rarely been questioned. Comey is a well-respected Republican who served as George W. Bush’s Deputy Attorney General. And when President Obama tapped him to serve as Director of the FBI, he was confirmed by a 93-1 vote.

Donna Brazile — now the Democratic National Committee chair — said that attacking James Comey’s decision was attacking the rule of law itself.

Since Donna Brazile blocked me last night when I pointed out her former words, here’s a screenshot of her Tweet.

 

 

 

From the Daily Signal

This Is the Percentage of Millennials Who Believe George W. Bush Killed More People Than Stalin

The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation released its first “Annual Report on U.S. Attitudes Towards Socialism” Monday. The survey showed a distinct generation gap regarding beliefs about socialism and communism between older and younger Americans.

For example, 80 percent of baby boomers and 91 percent of elderly Americans believe that communism was and still is a problem in the world today, while just 55 percent of millennials say the same.

Just 37 percent of millennials had a “very unfavorable” view of communism, compared to 57 percent of Americans overall. Close to half (45 percent) of Americans aged 16 to 20 said they would vote for a socialist, and 21 percent would vote for a communist.

The survey also revealed a general lack of historical knowledge, especially among young adults. According to the report, one-third (32 percent) of millennials believed that more people were killed under George W. Bush than under Joseph Stalin.

When millennial respondents were asked about their familiarity with various historical communist figures, 42 percent were unfamiliar with Mao Zedong, 40 percent with Che Guevara, and 33 percent with Vladimir Lenin—three notorious figures in communist regimes. Among millennials familiar with Lenin, 25 percent viewed him favorably.

“It is because of such widespread ignorance about communism that we formed the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, which is dedicated to telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” said Lee Edwards, a distinguished fellow in conservative thought at The Heritage Foundation and co-founder of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, an organization that seeks to “memorialize, educate, and document the grim history of communism around the world.”

“Ronald Reagan said that ‘freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction,’” he added. “It is the solemn obligation of this generation to educate the rising generation about the manifold victims and crimes of the deadliest ism of the last 100 years—communism.”

The survey was conducted among 2,300 people, with a margin of error of 2.8 percent and a 95 percent level of confidence.

Trump Wasn’t the Only One to Attack the American Order Last Night

From national review on line

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/441274/hillary-clinton-attacked-rule-law-third-debate?utm_source=nr&utm_medium=satemail&utm_campaign=american-order&utm_content=cook

by CHARLES C. W. COOKE October 20, 2016 12:34 PM @CHARLESCWCOOKE For good reason, an awful lot of today’s post-debate reaction will focus on Trump’s refusal to promise that he’ll accept the results of the election. As Ramesh notes, that moment was “the story of the night” — and deservedly so: I think it’s pretty clear that the story the media will take away from this debate (justifiably) is Trump’s refusal to commit to respecting the outcome of the election. Once again, that is, his message will be the one driving the debate. And once again, his message is not a good one for winning a general election. If his claims that the election is being rigged have any effect on the vote, it will be to depress turnout among supporters of his who believe him.  Whatever Trump’s remark does to the race, it is dangerous in and of itself. The peaceful transfer of power is a key hallmark of the American system, and that Trump couldn’t bring himself to give even a pro forma answer in its favor is absurd. This, as many progressive commentators have noted, is exactly how faith in our institutions is weakened.  But — yes, there’s a but – I can’t help but feel irritated at the on/off nature of journalistic outrage, especially when it comes to the integrity of our constitutional order. As any student of government knows, elections are a key part of what we commonly refer to as “democracy,” but they are not all of it. In liberal democracies — and indeed in republics — we rely upon other institutions to counter-balance simple majority rule. Because it is so well designed, the United States has a host of these: among them the rule of law, separation of powers, a Bill of Rights, a Senate, and so forth. And here’s the thing: They are every bit as important as elections. Without the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment, the majority could do whatever it wants to the minority. Without the rule of law, the people’s representatives could act as capriciously as they wished. Without separation of powers, all of the functions of the state would be concentrated in one pair of hands. Elections are crucial to the operation of the American order, of course. But so are all of the other parts. Democracy alone does not a great nation make. I bring this up because, perusing the news this morning, I see outrage only in one direction. Everywhere – really, everywhere – I see complaints about Trump’s abhorrent comments. And that’s fine: We should be outraged. How dare a presidential aspirant in the world’s finest republic behave in the way Trump has. But, outside of a handful of opinion journals, I see nothing about the attacks we heard on the other parts of the system. That’s a real shame. As Damon Linker notes over at The Week: On the Supreme Court, Clinton said, in effect, that she thinks the Court should serve as a second legislative body in which liberals hold a majority of the seats and exercise veto power over the other branches of government. Linker is exactly right. That is precisely what Clinton was saying, and without any shame or hesitation. And, as Jonah writes, this matters a great deal, because it amounts to an attack on the notion of independent law itself: In her first answer of the night, Hillary Clinton was asked about the Supreme Court. She said justices should stand up to the rich and side with the people or some such treacle. It should support the usual favored groups, etc. It should fight big money and the powerful. And so on. Only problem: That’s not what justices are supposed to do. Lest I be misunderstood here, let me make this clear: That Clinton made this case in no way excuses Trump’s disgraceful comments. Not even close. But, by the same token, that Trump made his disgraceful comments in no way excuses Clinton’s. This isn’t an either/or matter. Sure, voters will have to choose just one candidate on Election Day. But the press doesn’t. How hard would it be to explain that there were two extremely worrying moments last night; that both candidates made comments that threaten the American settlement? A similar double-standard applies to discussion of the U.S. Constitution. Last night, Hillary Clinton demonstrated once again that, when it comes to the Second Amendment, she is either ignorant or she is lying. Asked about her criticism of Heller, Clinton said: You mentioned the Heller decision, and what I was saying that you reference, Chris, was that I disagreed with the way the court applied the Second Amendment in that case. Because what the District of Columbia was trying to do was protect toddlers from guns. This is flatly incorrect. Heller, as anyone who has read it knows, revolved around the question of whether the government in Washington, D.C., could legally ban handguns entirely. It had nothing to do with “toddlers.” “Toddlers,” as Sean Davis correctly points out, are not mentioned in the majority opinion, and they are not mentioned in the dissent. Other than in an extremely indirect sense, “toddlers” had nothing to do with the legal question being considered. Hillary then said: But there’s no doubt that I respect the Second Amendment, that I also believe there’s an individual right to bear arms. That is not in conflict with sensible, commonsense regulation. Again, Hillary is either ignorant here, or she is lying. Why? Because a Second Amendment without Heller isn’t a Second Amendment at all. Indeed, absent the affirmation provided by Heller, what would the Second Amendment do exactly? Heller, recall, did not determine the scope of constitutionally permissible regulation, but confirmed that the federal government is permitted to impose neither direct nor indirect prohibitions upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. By taking the position she is, Hillary is not arguing that, say, an “assault weapons” ban falls within the lines, but that a) Americans enjoy an individual right to keep and bear arms, and b) that the government can institute a blanket ban on an entire class of arms and restrict the rest to the vanishing point. This, clearly, is nonsense, akin in nature to arguing that a) Americans have a right to a free press, and b) that the government can shut down all newspapers and impose draconian restrictions upon the operation of news websites. Perhaps because she knows how utterly unsustainable this tack is, Hillary has avoided making the explicit case that the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” (for more on this conspiracy theory, click here). But in practice that is exactly what she is doing. And where’s the outrage? Where are the New York Times op-eds? If Donald Trump were to mischaracterize the foundational cases that underpin the Fourth, Fifth, or Eighth Amendments — and to do so vaguely and dishonestly — we would surely hear about what a threat he represented to liberty. Last year, when Trump first suggested a temporary ban on Muslim immigration, the papers were up in arms. “Constitution!” they cried. “Constitution! Constitution!” That Congress actually enjoys plenary power over the immigration system — and that the courts have confirmed this for 125 years – seemed not to matter. The press thought that the Constitution might be violated, and that was enough. But last night, when Hillary Clinton took square aim at a provision within the Bill of Rights, we have heard nothing about it outside of the Right. The outrage over Trump’s comments is real — he really, really should be admonished. But it’s also highly selective, and given that his opponent, not he, is about to be elected president, that should worry us going forward.

HRC has decided to rail against the recent SCOTUS case noted above as detrimental to our republic. She rails against billionaires, corporations, etc. overpowering the everyday folks.

Trump has done somewhat the same, singling out hedge fund folks for increased taxes.

As an aside, so where, as of now, are hedge fund folks putting their money into this election? AEI recently published an article, noted below, that states HRC has received 2,000 times more money from the hedge fund folks than Trump, $46.5 million. Trump has followed in the footsteps of Bernie by obtaining more small donations than HRC.

What I don’t understand is the total disregard for the facts that money doesn’t win elections, whether from the left or the right. There is tons of data out there on this, look at Tom Steyer in the last cycle, tens of millions of dollars spent and no winners.  So if a corporation wants to spend money, let them, lots of well paying jobs result. You would think Hillary would like that. All that money spent on campaigns without decent results.  That sounds like our public education dilemma.

This is a diversion by HRC so we don’t talk about the fact that most of her policies have long records of not working to solve our problems, or it is a red herring. (A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring)

But, politics is about appealing to to basest of our instincts rather than to our highest instincts.  Both candidates today are doing so.  Both are flawed.

A constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United: Really? How?

This is a peculiar claim to make after almost eight years of the Obama presidency, in which the most significant government actions—the Dodd-Frank Act, ObamaCare, and various tax increases on corporations and wealthy individuals—could hardly be said to favor corporations or business interests generally. It is also peculiar in light of a recent Wall Street Journal report that hedge fund contributions to Clinton superpacs have outraised those to Trump superpacs by a ratio of more than 2000-to-1 ($46.5 million to $19,000).