There's something unsettling about the way the Supreme Court justices are behaving here in Wisconsin. Time was, that judges were revered as being respectful pillars of the community. Even those who thought they hated lawyers respected judges. But as we know, respect has to be earned. And now, the justices of the Supreme Court are not doing a lot towards earning the honor that would be do them esteemed by their office.
Shirley Abrahamson is doing a lot to make a laughing stock out of the Supreme Court. Why she got reelected in 2009, I will not know. The main reason is that she was backed by liberals. She is the typical liberal-she feels an entitlement to the job and believes the will of the people who elected her in 2009, trump the will of the people who voted to change the Constitution in 2015. For over a century, the Chief Justice of the screen court in the state was based on seniority. But because Abrahamson has stayed beyond her effectiveness, the state had to go through a constitutional amendment to restore the office of Chief Justice to that of a jurist and not a tyrant.
It's a shame that a so-called public servant is working in our own self-interest to not only legislate from the bench but prohibit a smooth transition for the court and the people being served. Yes, it is important to serve, but it is also important to allow opportunity for others especially when you have exceeded your personal effectiveness. Life in its generosity or life in its cruelty allows people to hang on instead of exiting the office with dignity. With other politicians, the subject of term limits arises when the public believes someone has been in office for too long. Do we need to introduce this idea to the Supreme Court?
The Obama administration and their State Department are certainly thankful for Hillary the past two weeks. Hillary and her Scooby that have been the session of many of the mainstream news outlets which is been a welcome distraction for the Obama administration and their continued failure with foreign affairs.
President Obama believes that making a deal with the country of Iran for nuclear weapon limitations will enhance his legacy and cement his reputation as a successful president for school children to read about for generations to come. Sure, it's all about Obama. What about what's good for the country?
Normally, it may be a good idea for a president to work one-on-one with other nations that are not strong allies to develop good relations. Iran certainly cannot be trusted. They have proven time and again that they are not sharing a goal of normalization with United States. And although Congress is a cold equal branch of the government, can enough of them agree on a bill that will strengthen this relationship? Probably not. But president Obama is not being 100% honest with the American people either.
The president said in a news conference or to news outlets things that he wants the American people to believe are in this agreement with Iran. People like Senator Barbara boxer of California announced that the agreement was better than she had hoped for. However, the Iranian government came out and said about the opposite of what President Obama said. Of course, we would like to believe our president. But this is the same president who told us we could keep our doctors if we wanted to. We could keep our insurance policies if we wanted. Health insurance premiums were supposed to go down a $2500 per year per family. Obama care and the affordable care act are also the presidents signature accomplishments. But if you write about these, how can we believe him when trying to make a deal with the terrorist country?
The president is going about this like a person getting out of the Any car dealership and not wanting to leave until he has the best deal possible. And you know what a used car salesman would think. Is there a deal or not? But the bigger question is will it be a good deal for the United States? And the impact on the United States and how it will affect this country in the future should take precedence over the president merely trying to preserve his legacy.
Well, now we know. How many people were surprised by Sunday's announcement that Hillary Clinton will seek the nomination of the Democratic Party for the president of the United States? One thing we do know, the number is close to zero. Except for the low information voters.
With almost no sincerity, Hillary came out with her vision for America. Instead of attacking her would-be opponents, she decided it should all be about Hillary. Clinton is going to be the champion of the middle class. She's going to be about income equality. She's going to be about equal pay for equal work. Were I heard that before? Perhaps you Obama administration?
The issues of the 20 16th campaign are going to be the same as they were in 2012. In 2008. In 2000. In 1992. In 1972. There are no new ideas. There are no new issues. Every four years we elect a president who campaigned on solving certain issues. But the next election cycle, they're the same.
Hillary driving around the country in a van named Scooby is just ridiculous. How long does she think she can maintain the façade that shields above the fray and not the backstabbing muck rake her character assassin we have all grown to know over the past two decades. I'm sure the media will be helping her touting her as the real Hillary. Hillary will be Hillary. The real deal. But for anybody who is familiar with the Democrat rhetoric, you know that what is being said is about the opposite of what is actually being done.
Hillary and the Democrats believe Americans are so dumb all we have to do is lie to them enough and we will start to believe it as the truth. America is headed in the wrong direction. It's time to change course.
We are within a few short weeks of having our next president announced her candidacy. Yes, I'm talking about our president in waiting: Hillary Clinton.
Democrats have been falling all over themselves half believing that this decision is still up in the air. They're even trying to get other Democrats in the race in a halfhearted attempt to believe that the coronation of the president in waiting is going to be competitive. That there will be actual serious candidates willing to debate the president in waiting and having been defeated will have to bow out and turn their support to Mrs. Clinton.
Will the media be in her corner as much as they were for then candidate Barack Obama in 2008? Americans should be looking for some answers to some very specific questions. First, what happened in Benghazi? It's time to get some real answers and not just dismiss it because it was so long ago. Second, how about some answers about this e-mail server?
Anybody who remembers the first Clinton administration knows that the term, God forbid another happens, was filled with cover ups, scandals, and lies. Why would we think this time is going to be any different? As we have seen evidenced, the e-mail server is preparation for getting rid of evidence that may be incriminating or revealing. Sure it was done for convenience-convenient to get rid of what actually happened not only in Benghazi, but also what other foreign dignitaries and countries have been solicited for political favors by making up contribution to the Clinton foundation? But stop kidding ourselves America, the Clintons leave they are entitled to special treatment, better favors, and less scrutiny than anybody else.
For generations, Democrats have pointed out that Republicans have been the party of old white people and their presidential nominees have traditionally waited their turn. Nothing better describes the Democratic Party for 2016. Is it Hillary's turn? Will there be a coronation for our president in waiting? And more importantly, can't the Democrats come up with a better candidate? Is Hillary the best they can do?
This week, the White House rolled out their best solution for how Americans can defeat ISIS -or ISIL. According to the administration, we've been too mean to them and haven't provided enough opportunities for them. ISIS has been denied so many opportunities that it has let them down the road to violence and atrocities according to the State Department.
The president refuses to call it Islamic terrorism. Apparently word grouping too many people into that category and having several omissions. It's a labeling thing. The administration has no problem labeling people as obstructionists, bigots, or Republicans. But when it comes to the nation of Islam, we have to tiptoe around that. There's never been a problem with poking fun at religions such as Catholic or Jewish, telling jokes and drawing offensive cartoons has never been beyond the pale. It's been a celebration of the First Amendment. And that's just great. But if we do the same, draw any cartoon that can be construed as being the prophet Mohammed, that's basis or jail time.
Marie Hart, spokesman for the State Department, tried to convince us that poverty in these countries that are supplying us with terrorists and Islamic terrorists just need better jobs. Perhaps an increase in the minimum wage in Syria will put a lot of this to rest. This would actually be funny if we did not have to take it serious. Every time I see Marie speak, I can't stop thinking that all she needs is a mustache. She's got the nose and the glasses already.
The world is changing and we are not going to adapt by turning our back or not identifying what the real problem is. America must move forward and identify this problem and create a real plan for how to defend this country. It will not be resolved using tactics of community organizers. Unfortunately, will have to wait two more years at least until we get a new president. A president who will be able to address foreign-policy issues and not just try to transform America internally.