American Bar Association ranks Judge David Bunning as "unqualified"

Interesting tidbit from Phyllis Schlafly:

[Judge] Bunning... was nominated for his lifetime job at the age of only 34, and was confirmed because his father was a Senator, despite having inadequate legal experience and an “unqualified” rating from the American Bar Association.

Kim Davis was jailed by an unqualified judge based on a Supreme Court decision that was, in Chief Justice Roberts' words, "an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent."

Unqualified judges are putting Christians in jail for not obeying illegal unconstitutional judgments--in the opinion of the ABA and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. 

Wonder why Ben Carson is missing in liberal polls?

Jazz Shaw:

Yesterday we took a look at that new NBC News / Marist poll out of New Hampshire and Iowa which had the cable news talking heads all excited for a few hours. It was a pretty good poll as these things go and certainly contained plenty of information relevant to the current state of the race heading into the next GOP debate. But having had a while to ponder the findings I noticed something odd. They’re polling pretty much the entire relevant field in both parties when it comes to the primary battles, but when they go to the hypothetical matchups for the general election, isn’t there somebody missing?

Just as a reminder, they put up the allegedly full results on scribd.com for Iowa and New Hampshire. As you’ll see toward the end of the questionnaire they matched up Hillary Clinton and her chief contender, Bernie Sanders. Those are natural choices, of course. (They tossed in Biden as a wild card in some spots since he’s drawing a lot of headlines this month.) And they put them against Trump which is also a no brainer since he’s the frontrunner pretty much everywhere. But where is the matchup between Hillary and Ben Carson? Or any Democrat and Carson for that matter? The guy is in a virtual tie with Trump in Iowa in some polls (22% in this one) and ranks very high among the rest of the field in New Hampshire. 

Instead, they skipped several slots in the Iowa GOP standings and pitted Clinton against… Jeb Bush? You skipped the guy raking in 22% of the support to go with the guy polling at 6%, folks. What’s up with that? And to top it off, instead of going with Bernie Sanders, you next put Trump and Bush against Joe Biden who isn’t even in the race.

Democrats have a long history of excluding blacks from elections--as voters and as candidates. It's no surprise that Carson becomes an Invisible Man now that he poses a threat to the Democrat plantation.

Democrats are terrified of Carson. Terrified. A brilliant, charismatic, honest, conservative, devoutly Christian black man is the Democrats' primal fear. Look what they did to Clarence Thomas--they tried a high-tech lynching that almost worked. 

A few years after the bullshit lie about Thomas and a public hair on a can of coke, the ever morally upright Democrat party elected Bill Clinton to the presidency. 

Democrats haven't devised a stragegy againt Carson yet, so it's better to make him disappear for now. Should he continue rising in the polls--and I think he will--the Party of Slavery and their media servants are going to have to come to grips with their worst nightmare. 

It will probably be very ugly--think Anita Hill with a million times the stakes--but Ben is gonna be hard to lay a glove on. 

The fact that he's been left out of the polling is evidence of the Democrat panic his candidacy evokes. 

Ed Brayton: if Jefferson had wanted religion in government, he'd have put it in the Constitution when he wrote it!

Ed:

[Jefferson] believed that it forbid the government from taking any position at all about religion. When he was president, he refused to issue even purely advisory declarations of prayer and thanksgiving, something both of his predecessors had done.

Important point, if it had any relevance to the Constitution, which it doesn't.

Jefferson had nothing to do with the drafting or ratifying of the Constitution--he was in Europe during the debate and ratification.

The term "separation of church and state" dates to the 17th century, and was in common parlance during debate and ratification of the Constitution. Except that the term was never used in the debate, according to the minutes of the debate. The Constitutional Congress was fully aware of the concept of separation of church and state, and thought it so irrelevant to Constitutional law that not a single member of the Congress used it on record in the debate.

From my own post a while back:

"[S]eparation of church and state" was first used publicly in America not by Thomas Jefferson but by Roger Williams In Rhode Island in 1644, and was widely discussed prior to ratification of the Constitution in 1789 (most prominently by Madison). Despite extensive public discussion of "separation of church and state" and its implications, or more accurately because of the discussion and its implications, "separation of church and state" was not mentioned even once in the Congressional record from June 7 to September 25 during the Founders' recorded official debate on the First Amendment in 1789. 

"Separation" was a well-known and vigorously debated concept for 150 years prior to the Constitutional Convention, and was discredited. The separation phrase was debated vigorously and extensively before the Constitutional convention, and "separators" lost the debate so decisively that the phrase wasn't even mentioned in the Convention, let alone in the Constitution.

So how did "separation of church and state" get into Constitutional law? It was put there by a KKK Kleagle--the former Klansman and Kleagle for Klan recruitment in Alabama in the 1920's named Hugo Black, who was put on the Supreme Court by FDR as a payback for Black's support for his New Deal legislation in the 1930's. The Klan was a crucial cog in the Democrat coalition, and "separation of church and state" was a part of the Alabama Klan initiation oath the Black administered for years to new Klan recruits (it was designed to prevent government support of Catholic schools).

I describe Hugo Black's career and the provenance of "separation of church and state" in detail here.

So while Jefferson had nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitution, and his musing in private letters has nothing genuinely to do with Constitutional law, Jefferson did have strong views on the origin of our rights as Americans:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...

Jefferson noted that our rights come from our Creator.

He also noted that the government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, and that it is the right of the People to alter or abolish it when Government becomes destructive of its rightful ends.

We're getting there.

People who destroyed Detroit have a great idea about what to do with its carcass

Democrat loon Ed Brayton doesn't understand irony.

Brayton:

[There's] an intriguing plan to repopulate the city of Detroit, which has lost more than a million residents from its peak. The idea: Bring in a million or so refugees from the Syrian civil war.

Detroit is Liberalism writ city-sized. The once thriving metropolis made the fatal mistake of electing liberal Democrats for a half-century, and thus committed the predictable municipal suicide. Baltimore and Chicago and Washington D.C. and Ferguson and New Orleans are lining up to quaff the same liberal kool-aid. Democrats ladle it fresh to each generation.

As wry observers have noted, Detroit would have been better off nuked than governed by liberal Democrats.

I'll leave aside the merits of importing a million new Democrat voters Syrian refugees to repopulate the carcass of a city destroyed by Democrats. Taking a liberal Democrat's advice on rebuilding Detroit is like asking Jeffrey Dahmer's advice on gay dating.

I point out to Brayton that Detroit has plenty of refugees already--a half million men, women and children, mostly black, whose lives have been decimated by liberal policies for a half-century.

We've got refugees from the Democrat war in our own cities. Let's save our own refugees first.  

Democrats have been busy solving the problem of too little crime

Lloyd Green at The Daily Beast:

Welcome to the 90s. Crime Is Back: Will the Spike in Help the GOP? 

High crime is good for Republican political prospects—and, with murder rates increasing nationwide, that should have Democrats worried about 2016. 

From New York to Chicago, Baltimore to New Orleans, and Milwaukee to Dallas, the hydra-headed scourges of crime, murder, and mayhem have returned. And as the country hurtles towards 2016, this grim reality could prove to be a political nightmare for the Democrats. But, for the Republicans, crime represents a well-trodden pathway to power.
Let me explain. As in 1968, crime again stands to dislodge the Democrats from the White House, in the same way that in 1988 crime helped propel George H.W. Bush to Ronald Reagan’s third term. 

Look around—history can repeat itself. This past week, three men gunned down police Lt. Joe Gliniewicz in the President’s adopted home state of Illinois, even as people were mourning the execution-style killing of Darren Goforth, a Harris County Texas Sheriff’s Deputy. 

Yet Obama and his party appear helpless, hostages to the same demographic forces they courted, and then rode to power. Having staked their future on the volatile axes of race and income, the Democrats are now witnessing crime reemerge as a campaign issue, and they are out-of-touch and ill-prepared, to say the least. 

While America’s law-abiding taxpaying middle class was looking at all this in horror, the best that Obama could muster was a statement that, “Targeting police officers is completely unacceptable—an affront to civilized society,” and a phone call to Deputy Goforth’s widow. The President’s response felt nonchalant, lacking the urgency of now that the Justice Department poured into Ferguson.

Meanwhile, the Democratic National Committee was spending its time and political capital on a resolution embracing the Black Lives Matter movement. Even in the midst of the blood and the din, it was all about the base.

And the money quote:

As the The New York Times reported, murder is up 76 percent in Milwaukee, 60 percent in St. Louis, 56 percent in Baltimore, and 44 percent in D.C. Blue America is awash in red. 

Please read the whole thing. Green is remarkably candid about the political consequences of the Democrat crime wave, and he's quite close to admitting that the crime wave is a deliberate policy on the part of the Democrats to stimulate their base.

But there's an astonishing aspect to the essay that's easy to miss if you don't step back and look at it.

The Democrat crime wave of 2015 isn't primarily a political catastrophe. It's a human catastrophe--hundreds of people--mostly young black men--are being slaughtered in this abattoir of political calculation.

For goodness sakes, Democrats, your political tactics are killing people.

In a very real sense, the Democrat Crime Wave of 2015 is a metaphor for the Democrat Party's consistent strategy for 200 years: kill as many blacks as you have to to get out the vote.

Before 1960, Democrats killed blacks to get out the white vote. After 1960 they kill blacks to get out the black vote.

The worst thing that can happen to a black man in America is to be governed by a Democrat. Destroying black lives is core tactic of Democrat politics. And liberal Democrat shills like Lloyd Green hew to form--Green describes Democrat incitement to slaughter as a political tactical faux-pax rather than a deliberate criminal atrocity perpetrated by America's largest political party against our citizens, and especially against our black citizens.

The perennially dumbf*ck American electorate needs to learn this: electing Democrats is like playing Russian roulette with a fully loaded revolver. No matter how high your hopes, someone always dies. 

Kim Davis is the court's good servant, but God's first

The best analogy to Kim Davis courageous stand against the immoral, unconstitutional and unlawful imposition of gay marriage is that of St. Thomas More, who was martyred by Henry VIII for refusing to acknowledge the annulment  of the king's marriage to Catherine of Aragon.

More was a high level government official--he was Lord High Chancellor of England--but his first loyalty was to God and His Law, not to the corrupt law of Henry VIII.

On the scaffold, his last words were: "I am the king's good servant, but God's first".

The analogy is pretty good. It's worth noting that both More and Davis stood up for God's law on marriage.

We Christians, and all people of good will, need to stand behind Kim Davis. This needs to be a turning point in our nation's long-emerging coup by judicial oligarchs and conquest by a lawless Left and totalitarian degenerates like the gaystapo.

We Christians are our nation's good servants, but God's first.

To mix the analogy:

Here we stand. We can do no other.

"Woke up this mornin' with my mind, stayin' on Hillary..."

The Woman's Alternative Chorus, singing at Hillary's Portsmouth New Hampshire rally yesterday. 

The Lyrics:

Woke up this mornin’ with my mind, stayin’ on Hillary
Woke up this mornin’ with my mind, stayin’ on Hillary
Hallelu, Hallelu, Hallelu, Hallelu, Hallelujah!

It's an old gospel song--'Hillary' replaces 'Jesus'.

There is a bit of a resemblance: Obama doesn't like either of them, and they both end up convicted felons.

HT: The American Mirror