January 8, 2017

"During nearly two decades in the Senate, Jeff Sessions had never endorsed anyone in a presidential primary."

"But last January, the Alabama Republican, afraid that his party was floundering, sent a five-point questionnaire to all its presidential contenders to determine who might deserve his support. Just one answered: Donald J. Trump. Mr. Sessions is in many ways Mr. Trump’s antithesis: reedy-voiced, diminutive and mild-mannered, a devout Methodist and an Eagle Scout who will soon celebrate a golden wedding anniversary with his college sweetheart... But... Mr. Sessions shared one trait with Mr. Trump: He was an outsider, dismissed by much of the Republican Party as a fringe player on all but his signature issue, immigration. The two men unexpectedly bonded over their willingness to buck the establishment and the unlikely hope that lower-middle- and working-class voters would carry a billionaire to the White House."

From the NYT article, "Jeff Sessions, a Lifelong Outsider, Finds the Inside Track."

Here are the 5 questions (and how Trump answered them):

Question 1: How would you vote (or how did you vote) on fast-track, and would you support or oppose advancing a final trade agreement which enters the United States into a new international commission with binding authority on future United States trade policy?

ANSWER: I was steadfastly opposed to giving Obama his Fast-Track powers, and would have absolutely voted against it. This is one of the strongest distinctions between me and the other candidates in this race.  The Congress, apparently under the magical spell of donors, gave massive new powers to a President who has repeatedly abused his authority.  The other candidates in this race actually fought on Obama’s side to give him more power to abuse.

As for creating a new international commission with authority over United States trade policy I am, again, steadfastly opposed.  No foreign power should be given any control over the United States.  Yet the other candidates who supported Fast Track allowed President Obama to do just that.  It’s not too late to save our sovereignty: when I win the nomination, I will put America back in charge.

Question 2:
If the vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership were held today, and you had a vote to cast in Congress, would you vote for it or against it?

ANSWER: I have strongly and consistently opposed the TPP.  For decades, I have warned about how our terrible trade deals are killing the middle class.  We are getting taken to the cleaners.  My message on trade has been consistent from the beginning, and if politicians had listened to me years ago we would have saved millions of jobs, rebuilt our crumbling infrastructure, and saved trillions of dollars.

My candidacy is the only way to stop this terrible deal that will send our manufacturing – including our auto manufacturing – overseas.

TPP allows foreign countries to cheat by manipulating their currency, making it impossible for American companies to fairly compete.  Yet other candidates in this race have voted in favor of the currency manipulation that is killing our middle class.

What our incompetent leaders don’t understand is that the United States holds all the cards.  Other countries need access to our markets.  Yet we refuse to use that leverage, and we negotiate one terrible job-killing deal after another.  We buy from other countries, but they refuse to buy from us.

Under my Administration, we are bringing these jobs back to America.  No more one-sided deals.

Stopping the TPP is a matter of economic security and national security.  When I am the nominee, I will stop Obamatrade in its tracks and bring millions of new voters into our party — putting new states in play in the general election.

Question 3: Upon entering office, will you promptly and unconditionally terminate and rescind all of President Obama’s illegal executive amnesties – which provide work permits and entitlements to illegal aliens – including President Obama’s first executive amnesty in 2012, which remains in effect?

ANSWER: I will immediately cancel both of President Obama’s illegal executive amnesties, and all other unconstitutional executive orders.  After my inauguration, for the first time in decades, Americans will wake up in a country where their immigration laws are enforced.

Question 4: A supermajority of GOP voters say immigration is too high. Every year, on autopilot, we let in another one million immigrants on green cards, 700,000 foreign guest workers, half a million foreign students, and 100,000 refugees and asylees. Historical precedent would be to reduce record-breaking immigration, rather than continuing to surge it beyond all historical precedent. Will you support legislation to reduce immigration numbers, and will you oppose legislation that would add to the number?

ANSWER: I will support legislation to reduce the numbers, and will oppose legislation to increase the numbers.  I have laid out a detailed plan to accomplish this goal on my website www.DonaldJTrump.com.  My suggested reforms include a requirement to give all open jobs to Americans first — instead of importing foreign replacements.  This plan will appeal to voters from all walks of life by making it easier for workers in this country to find jobs and support their families.  It will also help minority workers, youth, and previous immigrants who face intense job competition from waves of incoming foreign workers.

I also proposed a temporary timeout on Muslim immigration until we can figure out what is going on and get our security situation under control.

Question 5: Today, law enforcement are under increasing scrutiny and face excessive criticism from the political elites and the media, and are being targeted by criminals and terrorists. Meanwhile, since 2011, the federal prison population has declined by over 20,000, and is on track to be at its lowest level since 2005. Since 2009, the total state prison population has dropped every year, and is over 56,000 lower than it was then. These circumstances may have contributed to a nationwide spike in crime. The FBI recently reported an overall increase in violent crime and a 17 percent increase in homicides in the nation’s 50 largest cities. At the same time, the CDC reports that heroin and opioid drug overdoses have reached an all-time record high. Do you support efforts by President Obama and some Republicans in Congress to reduce penalties for drug-trafficking and further reduce the federal prison population, or do you think government should do more to keep drug traffickers off the streets?

ANSWER: The way our cops are being treated is terrible, and our spineless politicians are not defending them.  Some politicians are mute, others are throwing fuel on the fire.

Policing saves lives, especially in our poorest communities.  Policing makes schools safe, increases property values, encourages investment and job growth.  We must stop attacks on police.  I have been the only candidate with a clear message on this issue.  As for drug traffickers, they are wreaking havoc on our communities and I oppose efforts to reduce penalties for drug traffickers: we must do more to keep traffickers out of our neighborhoods.

I have been pro-law enforcement all of my life.  The American people are crying out for safer communities, and I will bring this message of supporting law enforcement and safe communities to a general election.

130 comments:

Hagar said...

The details of an immigration policy we can work out, but it needs to be a policy that is understood and enforced at all levels.
What this administration has wrought is just anarchy.

HT said...

For so many who voted for him, it all comes down to immigration. As a Southern dem who would never vote for Sessions, I say don't get distracted about his past, whatever it may or may not be. He's pretty run of the mill to me, but not everyone is used to "frank race talk" at the dinner table. He's 70 which I think is the average age for cabinet members.

It all comes down to immigration. We will see what happens. That is where the drama lies, not anything else no matter who takes the bait and how often. It's immigration.

Guildofcannonballs said...

Let me apologize to Chuck: You Sir were right about everything all along.

This leak, in the sense Trump is taking a leak on my leg as I read it, proves Trump is no more than a lying Prog Wolf in sheep's skin.

I repent, and could never dream of forgiveness in a million years.

Hagar said...

Caught a little of an harangue by Jerry Brown to the faithful in L.A. the other day.
It reminded me of George Wallace's "segregation fohevah!" speech, except that Wallace's was calculated political theater, while Governor "Moonbeam" seemed to really be genuinely wound up about it.

And California has hired Eric Holder's law firm to represent the state in resisting any and all attempts by the Federal Government to enforce its immigration laws.
Now all we need is a latter day general P.G.T. Beauregard to command the California national Guard troops, and we are off to the races!

Jupiter said...

What's not to like?

YoungHegelian said...

For Trump's supporters, Jeff Session as AG is a two-fer. In one appointment, Trump pays his debt to the anti-immigration crowd, & more importantly I think, to the Catholics & Evangelicals who backed him because they thought that an HRC administration would further erode their 1A rights.

Jeff Sessions is the Democrats worse nightmare, only in ways they don't yet understand. Take a look at this article. The attack on the black churches & black Christians by gay activists, hitherto ignored (no doubt deliberately) creates a major opening for the Republican Party to proselytize to the black community.

Mark my words -- within the next year or so, AG Jeff Sessions will go before a black congregation and, in that rhetorical style shared by both black & white Southern Protestants, unleash a jeremiad where he tells them that he will defend their right to live & to preach the Gospel of Our Lord & Savior, Jesus Christ in its entirety until his last breath. And he will bring down the house, because there will not be a single person there that will doubt his sincerity.

If & when this happens, it will be the beginning of the end for the modern Democratic Party. Michigan was tipped to Trump because a few percentage points of the black community stayed home. Obama's 95% 2012 showing among blacks was the high-water mark of black voter participation. Whatever is the actual number of black voters of which Obama got 95% (let's call it X), once support for Democrats among blacks drops to somewhere between 80% to 70% of X, the Democrats cease to exist at any elected office above the local level.

Achilles said...

100% sanity.

HT said...

YH you do dream big.

rhhardin said...

Sessions, formerly a racist, is now a hater.

Achilles said...

This just reinforces everything we Trump supporters thought. We were this election away from losing our country forever. Every person that wanted Hillary to win, including the NRO crowd, George F.idiot Will, everyone that voted for McMuffin, etc. is just on the other side.

We already knew the democrats were enemies of decency. Trump is actually fighting for sovereignty and is trending far more conservative than even Reagan did. What this election did was allow the dhimmi's and traitors pretending to be on the right to out themselves.

HT said...

Google is not all powerful yet. I could not find the Achilles to English translator.

sunsong said...

Another extremist pick from Trump

Michael K said...

Sessions is proof that Trump means it. I hope the GOP sticks together and gets his nominees through the first week.

Michael K said...

"Another extremist pick from Trump:"

Anybody to the right of Castro or Karl Marx is "extreme " to sunsong.

Achilles said...

HT said...
Google is not all powerful yet. I could not find the Achilles to English translator.

Google is not interested in helping people who lack critical thinking skills overcome their disability.

HT said...

Your a killjoy Achilles. No sense of humor either.

Achilles said...

@YH,

More important than bringing down the corrupt democrat party, Trump and Sessions are going to deal a mortal blow to the globalists and their awful movement to empower billionaires. The democrat party was just one of their tools. They also had a lot of the GOPe bought and paid for as well. The Neocons and open borders COC were even bigger losers than the democrat party this election.

YoungHegelian said...

@HT,

No, it's not me who dreams big. I really am enough of an Hegelian that I believe that ideas work themselves out among societies, & they do so inexorably.

The Democratic coalition is based on a high/low coalition -- the educated, wealthy, & secular whites who do all the talking, & the black & Latinos who do most of the voting. For the secular whites, gay rights is the civil rights issue of our times. They believe that no burden is too heavy to bring this 2.5% of the population to "equality". If that equality includes screwing over the traditional faiths, well, so be it. Secular whites despise the traditional faiths anyway, & are always happy to do them a dirty deed.

The Democrats' minority partners, on the hand, are the first & second most religious ethnic groups in the country. Will they sit still while their churches, which have played such an important historical roll in their communities, are forced to knuckle under to laws which represent to them "that faggot shit that the honkies are always going on about"? I doubt it.

The Democratic Party coalition as currently structured cannot hold. Trump proved that, as does the map of state governors & legislatures. I'm just giving the outlines for a likely defection of one of its major pillars.

Achilles said...

HT said...
Your a killjoy Achilles. No sense of humor either.

My sense of humor is very dry. But it is there.

I kill unicorns, not good humor. There is a difference and a distinction.

Yancey Ward said...

From the original article:

"He was an outsider, dismissed by much of the Republican Party as a fringe player on all but[emphasis added-Y.W.] his signature issue, immigration.

Sessions was a fringe player on immigration, too, in the Republican Party, and would be today had Rubio, Bush, or Clinton won in November.

Birkel said...

It is cute when a person like sunsong learns a word but has no idea what it means.

YoungHegelian said...

He was an outsider, dismissed by much of the Republican Party as a fringe player

Maybe, but Sessions as a Southern, white, Protestant is dead center of the moral weight of the Republican Party. For a thrice-married, serial adulterer, & perhaps worst of all, a quintessential NYC boy like Trump, Sessions was a necessity to shore up his base with a constituency that could have cost him the election if it had stayed home.

Cheryl said...

YH, from your lips (fingertips?) to God's ears. That would be amazing. As a Southern white Protestant I can't understand why this hasn't happened already.

I am frankly surprised that a sitting senator asked these questions and got exactly one response. Is Sessions so much of a pariah that the other candidates couldn't be bothered with him? It speaks well of Trump that he answered Sessions with serious answers, and seemed to actively court his support.

Yancey Ward said...

The shocking revelation, if true, is that Trump was the only candidate that bothered to respond to Sessions. I mean, even if I thought Sessions' support was meaningless, I would have responded if I were any of the other candidates in the Republican field.

stever said...

All the right people are going crazy. What's not to like? Some are too smart to admit it, others are flailing at the windmills of FB memes and fake news clickbait.

Dr Weevil said...

I wonder how many of the people who objected bitterly when anyone referred to the incumbent POTUS as 'Barak Hussein Obama' are now gleefully referring to the AG-designate as 'Jefferson Beauregard Sessions'. I'm guessing it's somewhere over 50%, and that at least half of that half will not see anything hypocritical about their behavior even if someone explains it to them slowly and carefully.

YoungHegelian said...

@Cheryl,

Is Sessions so much of a pariah that the other candidates couldn't be bothered with him?

No, it's just that the other Republican candidates took for granted that, they, if nominated, would get the white, Southern, Protestant vote that Sessions represents. Trump knew he had to work to get those people's votes, & if he didn't he was toast.

So, he worked at it, & he wasn't toast.

Original Mike said...

"I wonder how many of the people who objected bitterly when anyone referred to the incumbent POTUS as 'Barak Hussein Obama' are now gleefully referring to the AG-designate as 'Jefferson Beauregard Sessions'",

Well, the former made the speaker racist while the latter makes Sessions racist. Surely you see that.

YoungHegelian said...

@Weevil,

The assistant manager of my favorite neighborhood pizza parlor, a Salvadoran immigrant married to another Salvadoran immigrant, named his first-born son Jefferson.

Maybe Jeff Sessions & Billy Jeff Clinton have some Central American ancestors? To quote Judy Tenuta:

Well, it could happen..

n.n said...

So, Trump is pro-native. He is pro-Human rights (e.g. right to life). Hopefully, he will end Obama's adventures in social [in]justice, end the mass abortions from Benghazi to Aleppo to Kiev to Berlin and Paris, address the refugee crises and promote emigration reform, and correct the reset that has been a first-order cause catastrophic anthropogenic climate change threatening a world war with China, Russia, and every other nation that does not want to end on a progressive path.

Fabi said...

Sessions has this week received the endorsement of several prominent Democrats in his home state -- two of them African Americans. The dumbass Democrats on the Hill will only screw themselves further if they try to smear J. Beauregard as a racist.

Michael K said...

Barak Hussein Obama used his full name to make himself look exotic, which was catnip to the lefties.

Do you think Barry Sotero could have gotten the Dims nomination ?

Big Mike said...

Very fair questions, pretty good answers. Jeff Sessions won in 2002 with 59% of the vote, in 2008 with 63% of the vote, and in 2014 the Dems threw in the towel and he was unopposed. Seems like a man who understands his constituents.

Dr Weevil said...

I don't know, Michael K. "Barry Soetero" is half-exotic. What if he'd been named "Stanley Dunham, Jr."? (That's my pet theory about the whole birth-certificate thing: his deep dark secret is that his mother was so pissed about being named "Stanley Anne Dunham" - grandma and grandpa must have really wanted a boy - that she took it out on her son by naming him "Stanley Anne Dunham, Jr.", a secret he's been fleeing ever since. No, I'm not serious, but it's a good theory.)

walter said...

So..Cruz didn't answer (his friend)formally..maybe directly?

Michael Fitzgerald said...

This is an example of why DJT is a success. Contrary to progressive slander, he is not a lazy entitled elitist, but a driven man who outworks his competition. I remember reading twenty years ago about Trump talking about how he sleeps only 4 hours a night, and this gives him an advantage over competitors because he can spend more waking time working than they can. While Hillary was measuring the drapery for the White House, Trump was working, holding multiple rallies every day, visiting disaster sites like Louisiana and Detroit, meeting with the president of Mexico etc. Donald Trump is the candidate who earned the position of president of the United States, and his electoral victory was the culmination of a lifetime of hard work and smarts.

J. Farmer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
boycat said...

Me, I hope Sessions has Hillary, Bill, Chelsea, the Clinton Foundation, Huma, and Cheryl Mills on his radar as AG. Barack can't pardon 'em all.

J. Farmer said...

Jeff Sessions and Kris Kobach are about as good as it gets on immigration. I like Sessions at DOJ, though his drug warrior rhetoric is a little tired. I would have preferred to see Kobach at DHS, but hopefully a position can be found where his hardline (and correct) immigration policies can be influential.

Achilles said...

Cheryl said...

Is Sessions so much of a pariah that the other candidates couldn't be bothered with him? It speaks well of Trump that he answered Sessions with serious answers, and seemed to actively court his support.

The other candidates were courting donors, not voters. The GOPe serves donors. Trump correctly went to the voters.

Now all we need to do is go to paper ballots, ink stains on fingers, and photo ID at the voting stations and the voters will be permanently back in control of this country.

Francisco D said...

The Left is going to yap a lot about Trump's Cabinet picks because that is all they can do.

The Dems need to peel off three Republican Senators to deny any Cabinet picks. I count Lisa Murkowski as one possible defector, but the other likely ones would have been Kelly Ayotte and Mark Kirk (my former congressman). However, they were the only two sitting Republican senators to lose in 2016.

It was a good election all around!

hubert rainfield said...

You are prolific Ann and your thoughts are well received by all manner and form of beast. I do not question my brethren. I am sure that I am the least educated, but I do have a mind and a soul and I am very 'good~on' with the fact that there is a changing of the guard. It makes me happy. You are very fair with your approach. Something that is certainly missing in the MSM. They are unwatchable and an embarrasssment Cheers to your continued success and a happy retirement career.

Drago said...

Victoria is apparently quite upset that the future Attorney General of the US will enforce US Law.

That might strike the casual observer as somewhat ludicrous.

I'll leave it there.

J. Farmer said...

@YoungHegelian:

The attacks leveled against Kim Burrell are absurd. That said, there is no issue of "rights" involved here. You don't have a right to appear on a talk show, and you don't have a right not to be attacked rhetorically by people who disagree with you, even in an hysterical way.

YoungHegelian said...

@Farmer,

That said, there is no issue of "rights" involved here

Who's necessarily speaking of rights? What the religious community is seeing is that you can be deprived of your livelihood in an instant by the gay community & its supporters for not toeing the party line.

If somehow you think that that sort of social control isn't going to be fought by every means available by a large fraction of the US population that considers itself to be "believers", then you are delusional.

Farmer, I lived through the 80s & the AIDS epidemic. I haven't always thought that the gay community had a sizable streak of "death wish" in it. That now a community of 2.5% of the population is picking a fight with about 65% of the population thinking that its secular allies will be there for it when the shit hits the fan strikes me as just another example of that "death wish".

gadfly said...

So Sessions could not ask fellow Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio explicit questions while in one of the many recesses that occur during Senate proceedings?

But Sessions could ignore indecent Trump utterings and incidents. For example, Sessions, our new legal beagle, couldn't or wouldn't answer whether grabbing female genitals was sexual assault.

No, the NYT story about Sessions doesn't hold water. It is difficult to accept that the Senator suddenly became a one-trick pony.

Fabi said...

Maybe Sessions understood that we weren't electing a Pope.

J. Farmer said...

@Young Hegelian:

Who's necessarily speaking of rights?

You were. You wrote: "...where he tells them that he will defend their right to live & to preach the Gospel of Our Lord & Savior, Jesus Christ in its entirety until his last breath." Emphasis mine.

If somehow you think that that sort of social control isn't going to be fought by every means available by a large fraction of the US population that considers itself to be "believers", then you are delusional.

How is it going to be fought? Burrell had a talk show appearance and a radio show canceled. That is not a violation of her rights, and there are no legal remedies I can think of. Now, people who support Burrell are free to boycott Ellen or the Texas radio station or otherwise put pressure on them or advertisers. I have yet to see such support or organization materialize. I am not sure what your 65% figure is supposed to represent. Many people who identify themselves as Christians don't have much of an issue with homosexuality and while they make think the Burrell has been wronged in this situation, they are not motivated to do much about it.

J. Farmer said...

p.s. The fact that black Americans tend to be more religiously conservative and less accepting of homosexuality is widely known. This hasn't translated into broad support for the Republican Party, and I don't see it changing in the near future.

Jupiter said...

Achilles said...
"This just reinforces everything we Trump supporters thought. We were this election away from losing our country forever. Every person that wanted Hillary to win, including the NRO crowd, George F.idiot Will, everyone that voted for McMuffin, etc. is just on the other side."

Don't be so quick to write them of, Achilles. We have had a reprieve, from what looked like a descent into tyranny or war or both, but we are still on the brink. While America remains a democracy, it will not do to write off the conservative intellectuals just because they have written us off. We can hope that the Trump coalition represents a long-term power shift. If that is true, leave them alone, and they'll come home, wagging their tails behind them.

Jupiter said...

Cheryl said...

"I am frankly surprised that a sitting senator asked these questions and got exactly one response. Is Sessions so much of a pariah that the other candidates couldn't be bothered with him? It speaks well of Trump that he answered Sessions with serious answers, and seemed to actively court his support."

The difficulty was that any answer they gave to Sessions might well become public. And none of them believed that the election could be won by a candidate whose views would be acceptable to Sessions.

J. Farmer said...

@Jupiter:

We can hope that the Trump coalition represents a long-term power shift.

We can certainly hope, but that and 4 bucks will get you a gallon of milk. I wish I could share Achilles' optimism, but while I supported and voted for Trump, I always considered his candidacy a hail mary pass. America is still probably doomed.

Michael K said...

"his mother was so pissed about being named "Stanley Anne Dunham" - grandma and grandpa must have really wanted a boy - that she took it out on her son by naming him "Stanley Anne Dunham, Jr.", a secret he's been fleeing ever since. No, I'm not serious, but it's a good theory.)"

Interesting theory. I've always wondered about the father on the birth certificate.

HT said...

And none of them believed that the election could be won by a candidate whose views would be acceptable to Sessions. You are overestimating his pariah-ness.

Jupiter said...

J. Farmer said...
"p.s. The fact that black Americans tend to be more religiously conservative and less accepting of homosexuality is widely known. This hasn't translated into broad support for the Republican Party, and I don't see it changing in the near future."

All true, but blacks may be beginning to recognize that they have become a political liability to the Democrats, at the same time that their votes are taken for granted. In the Progressive deck, Black has always been trumps, as many feminists have found out the hard way. But the Democrats have two new minorities, homosexuals and Muslims, to use to attack their white Christian opponents as racists and bigots. And Latinos are a larger voting bloc, who have no use at all for Black Power. Meanwhile blacks, along with poor whites, are the most direct victims of globalism and unrestricted immigration. What have the Democrats done for them lately? Oh yeah, a pigmented white boy in the White House. When do you suppose that will happen again?


YoungHegelian said...

@Farmer,

This hasn't translated into broad support for the Republican Party, and I don't see it changing in the near future.

The Dems never went after their churches, Farmer!

Are you just deliberately being obtuse? In case you're think that I pulled these concerns out of my ass, let me refer you to two articles from the recent press.

The first is from the Volokh Conspiracy. Its nut graf quote:

With the mainstream media busy celebrating the Supreme Court’s ultimate recognition of a right to same-sex marriage, this didn’t get that much attention in mainstream news outlets. But in the course of researching my book, “Lawless,” I noticed that Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr.’s answer was big news in both the conservative blogosphere and in publications catering to religiously traditionalist audiences

The above article links to one by Megan McCardle. Its nut graf (for me):

I’ve heard from a number of evangelicals who, despite their reservations about the man, ended up voting for Donald Trump because they fear that the left is out to build a world where it will not be possible to hold any prominent job while holding onto their church’s beliefs about sexuality. Discussions I’ve had in recent days with nice, well-meaning progressives suggest that this is not a paranoid fantasy.

Farmer, you just have no sympathy nor understanding for believers. You have even less when they get in the way of your sex life. But, the seculars are going after their raison d'etre, & you expect them to roll over & play dead. Ain't gonna happen. I'm telling you don't think that this method of social control will continue or succeed. Trump & Sessions is just the first phase of these people fighting back. It can get a lot uglier than Trump & Sessions.

Jupiter said...

Michael K said...

"Interesting theory. I've always wondered about the father on the birth certificate."

It seems unlikely that a boy with the given name Barack Hussein Obama had Frank Marshall Davis listed as the father on his birth certificate. The whole point of recruiting Obama Sr. as the beard was to make it appear that Dunham was knocked up by an exotic foreigner, not a feckless black Communist pornographer.

Mike Sylwester said...

During the last Presidential election, I was a one-issue voter on the immigration issue.

My guidepost was Senator Jeff Sessions.

During August-November 2015, I favored Donald Trump because of the immigration issue.

Because of Trump's obnoxious, unPresidential demeanor, however, I switched to Ted Cruz as soon as Cruz proclaimed an immigration platform that was satisfactory, that was Trump-like.

During that period when I wavered between Trump and Cruz, the most effective argument for me was that Sessions had endorsed Trump -- rather than endorsing Cruz

Sessions' endorsement of Trump over Cruz was the most important endorsement of my political life.

Lem said...

the GOP poor defense of the tea parties alianated a lot of loyal conservatives against the establishment. Trump reaped the benefit.

Lem said...

And the tea parties causes.

J. Farmer said...

@Young Hegelian:

Farmer, you just have no sympathy nor understanding for believers. You have even less when they get in the way of your sex life. But, the seculars are going after their raison d'etre, & you expect them to roll over & play dead. Ain't gonna happen. I'm telling you don't think that this method of social control will continue or succeed. Trump & Sessions is just the first phase of these people fighting back. It can get a lot uglier than Trump & Sessions.

So, in the last election, evangelicals went for the Republican candidate. How is that a sign of them fighting back when it's what they've been doing for at least 30 years now. As for me having "no sympathy nor understanding for believers," I described the attacks on Burrell as "absurd" and "hysterical," so I'm not sure how much more sympathetic to her situation I can be.

And again, what would a President Trump or Attorney General Sessions do about a pastor getting a daytime talk show appearance and a Texas radio show cancelled? Have either Ellen Degeneres or the radio station faced any significant backlash from the public for their actions? Has there been any large fraction of black Americans who have defected to the Republican Party over the issue of homosexuality? The number of Americans who are animated politically over gay issues is nowhere near the 65% number you claim. For most people, it's a nonissue. Facing a loss of a radio show or talk show appearance isn't going to get many Americans that exercised. For most, it's basically a non-issue.

traditionalguy said...

Don't kid pourself that Methodists are conservative of moral legalists. They are the nicest believers in Christ and at the same time in liberal thought found on earth. As for equal women in power, the Feminists haven't begun to catch up with them yet.

Wait and see. Sweet and Nice Sessions is a tough guy.

Jupiter said...

J. Farmer said...
"For most people, it's a nonissue. Facing a loss of a radio show or talk show appearance isn't going to get many Americans that exercised. For most, it's basically a non-issue."

When they went after Brendan Eich, who created FireFox, for having made a contribution to a political campaign (a campaign for a measure that passed, and was then struck down by a homosexual "judge"), I began to see that it might be time to start thinking in terms of violent resistance to the regime. When that little shitsack Brad Avakian fined the Klein's $140,000, here in Oregon, for refusing to bake a cake for some lesbians, I helped pay the fine. And I began to arm myself.

Like you say, basically a non-issue.

Jupiter said...

It is interesting to note, in that context, that while the Democrats and Clinton were sweeping the Oregon election by double-digit, Brad Avakian, whose name has become very well-known as a result of his criminal abuse of his position, lost the Secretary of State election to a Republican. I suspect that anyone else alive, with D after his name, would have won. Maybe not Charles Manson.

Like you say, basically a non-issue.

Michael K said...

So, in the last election, evangelicals went for the Republican candidate. How is that a sign of them fighting back when it's what they've been doing for at least 30 years now.

The difference this year is that the evangelicals have given up on the GOPe that promises stuff and never delivers.

They went for Trump, for all his past indiscretions and marriages.

The tolerance that gays and other people with alternate life styles enjoy in this country comes directly from the JudeoChristian tradition.

"Love the sinner if you hate the sin."

That doesn't work in Muslim lands or in various totalitarian states the profess atheism.

I am certainly no authority on Christianity although I grew up attending Catholic schools and heard some BS from nuns and brothers, but this is what makes America a refuge that we cannot risk with mass Muslim immigration.

J. Farmer said...

@Young Hegelian:

Like you say, basically a non-issue.

Actually I said, "For most, it's basically a nonissue." Your personal reaction is not reflective of "most." I'd bet money on the fact that a majority of Americans don't even know who Brendan Eich is, let alone are driven to political activism by the case.

YoungHegelian said...

@Farmer,

Was the bakers in Washington state getting shut down a non-issue? Was the pizzeria almost shut down a non-issue? Was Kim Davis refusing to sign the marriage certificates a non-issue? Was Brendan Eich a non-issue?

You speak as if this business with Burrell was a one-off. It's not, and you know it's not.

You make the claim that "of course, the evangelicals voted Republican". Can you see the future or somethin' 'Cause from what I've read, everyone was amazed that a sleaze like Trump got 81% of the evangelical vote. The two articles that I posted are attempts to make sense of that bizarre fact.

As for me having "no sympathy nor understanding for believers," I described the attacks on Burrell as "absurd" and "hysterical," so I'm not sure how much more sympathetic to her situation I can be.

I'm glad you think that the attack on Burrell were "absurd". I believe you, because I know there is a strong libertarian streak in you when it comes to free speech. But, Farmer, you & I have been on this board a long time, and we know each other's positions. Have you ever evinced sympathy for believers on any stripe & I've missed it? By now, I pretty much know who are the atheists/agnostics, the true-believers, & the "meh" majority. I'm open to re-education as who thinks what.

Fabi said...

When that little shitsack Brad Avakian fined the Klein's $140,000, here in Oregon, for refusing to bake a cake for some lesbians, I helped pay the fine.

Good for you, Jupiter!

J. Farmer said...

@Michael K:

That doesn't work in Muslim lands or in various totalitarian states the profess atheism.

That might very well be true, but it has nothing to do with the point I am making.

J. Farmer said...

@Young Hegelian:

Was the bakers in Washington state getting shut down a non-issue? Was the pizzeria almost shut down a non-issue? Was Kim Davis refusing to sign the marriage certificates a non-issue? Was Brendan Eich a non-issue?

For most Americans, yes.

By now, I pretty much know who are the atheists/agnostics, the true-believers, & the "meh" majority.

I think I've been pretty up front about being an atheist. I don't believe in state non-discrimination laws for races, religions, sexual orientation, or any other identity politics trait. I'm for total free association.

Can you see the future or somethin' 'Cause from what I've read, everyone was amazed that a sleaze like Trump got 81% of the evangelical vote.

From what I've seen, "everyone" has been wrong quite a bit about the Donald Trump candidacy. If evangelical and gay rights issues were ever front and center during this campaign, I certainly missed it.





ken in tx said...

Sessions helped wipe out the Klan in Alabama. So, what is this racist crap? Oh, I get it. He's white and from Alabama, so he must be a racist, right?

John said...

And Al Sharpton is promising a "season of civil disobedience".

I liked Sessions already but if I hadn't, this would certainly change my mind. Terrific pick by Trump.

Ever notice how successful the progs are at these civil disobedience, social justice, demo things?

They boycotted Chick-Fil-A. That year CFA passed KFC as the biggest chicken chain in the world. Even though they have something like half the stores and are only open 6 days a week.

They demoed Memories Pizza when they said they wouldn't cater a gay wedding. The restaurant shut for a week or 2. They also received donations of more than $800,000.

They demoed Scott Walker and he and the Repos came back stronger than ever.

They demoed the bejabbers out of Trump, sometimes violently and look how well that worked out.

They were going to turn Trump electors.

Probably some other examples that are not coming to mind at the moment.

Everything they do seems to bounce back and hit them in the face while bringing success to the target.

I hope they never notice that my Packaging Machinery Handbook (available via Ann's Amazon portal) has not one single good thing to say about same sex marriage. Nor is it positive about transsexuals.

I really would not want the publicity associated with a social justice tsunami.

Not fond of the briar patch, either.

John Henry

Jupiter said...

J. Farmer,

As it happens, I am also an atheist. But Christians make first-rate neighbors, unlike Leftists. If the choice is between watching the Leftists terrorize the Christians, or terrorizing the Leftists, I am down for terrorizing some Leftists. Who the fuck needs them, anyway? Filthy parasites, every last one of them. When they came for the Christians, I didn't say anything, because I was too busy reloading.

But I'm just a crazy old coot. You seem to have overlooked the remarkable fact that Brad Avakian, the self-appointed persecutor of "homophobic" Christians, lost to a Republican, in Oregon (not Washington, that was a somewhat different Leftist outrage), in an election in which the Democrats swept every other position on the ballot.

Apparently, Avakian actually sought out the lesbians, and got them to file a complaint, so he could make an example of the Christians. He figured that bankrupting an honest Christian couple, destroying their livelihood and seizing their home was a great way to build name recognition for a statewide campaign in reliably Progressive Oregon. I'm sure he expected to be Governor in a few years. Vicious little shit couldn't win dog-catcher at this point. His opponent didn't even mention the issue. Didn't have to.

J. Farmer said...

@Jupiter:

"You seem to have overlooked the remarkable fact that Brad Avakian, the self-appointed persecutor of "homophobic" Christians, lost to a Republican, in Oregon (not Washington, that was a somewhat different Leftist outrage), in an election in which the Democrats swept every other position on the ballot."

I live in Florida and certainly don't keep up with Oregon state politics. Is Oregon's non-discrimination law, which prohibits business owners from not discriminating against people with certain identity traits going to be repealed anytime soon?

I agree with a lot of what you say but it doesn't contradict my point at all.

Commander Crankshaft said...

So he should fully understand what it means to go unendorsed, by having his own confirmation blocked.

Jupiter said...

J. Farmer said...

"I live in Florida and certainly don't keep up with Oregon state politics."

The case received a lot of national attention (although for some reason everyone seems to think it happened in Washington), but I don't suppose Avakian's comeuppance was covered to the same degree.

http://ijr.com/2016/11/732759-the-man-who-put-oregon-christian-bakers-out-of-business-just-got-beaten-at-polls-by-republican/

"Is Oregon's non-discrimination law, which prohibits business owners from not [sic] discriminating against people with certain identity traits going to be repealed anytime soon?"

I very much doubt it. Oregon's politics is dominated by Portland, which is a reliable redoubt of Progressivism. My point is rather that Christians feel that they are under attack for good reason, and many otherwise reliable Democrats apparently side with the Christians when push comes to shove. But no, Oregon is not going to repeal any non-discrimination laws. We can't even repeal the law that says you can't pump your own gasoline. Oregonians (most of whom are from California) love them some laws.

Birkel said...

Hello "Rhythm and Balls". Why did you decide to be "Commander Crankshaft"? Did you experience embarrassment over one of your drunken tirades?

J. Farmer said...

@Jupiter:

"The case received a lot of national attention (although for some reason everyone seems to think it happened in Washington), but I don't suppose Avakian's comeuppance was covered to the same degree."

"Avakian's comeuppance" was what I was referring to. I know of the Christian baker's case, and I opposed it. I don't believe anyone running a business should be compelled by law to offer their services. A baker that wants to refuse service to a gay person, a black person, or a Christian person is well within their right to do so, in my opinion.

My point is rather that Christians feel that they are under attack for good reason, and many otherwise reliable Democrats apparently side with the Christians when push comes to shove.

Where I would disagree is in your phrase "Christians feel." I think it is certainly true that some Christians feel that way, but I don't think it's enough to define a new movement in response, which is how I understood the point Young Hegelian was trying to make.

Freder Frederson said...

And I began to arm myself.

So terrorism is a solution to political problems?

God, you are disgusting.

holdfast said...

"He figured that bankrupting an honest Christian couple, destroying their livelihood and seizing their home was a great way to build name recognition for a statewide campaign in reliably Progressive Oregon."

I think this case actually woke up a lot of people, including folks like me who are pretty much non-religious. One can still support (or at least tolerate) SSM while still believing that this action against the bakers was a brutal case of anti-religious discrimination, and also just generally scary.

Drago said...

Jupiter: "And I began to arm myself."

Freder: "So terrorism is a solution to political problems?"

So, to summarize the left: actual terrorism by Islamists is not really terrorism ("workplace violence", "man-caused disaster", "understandable reaction to Western nation policies", etc) and law abiding US citizens exercising their 2nd Amendment rights IS terrorism.

For the life of me I cannot figure out how the Dems lost.

Freder Frederson said...

and law abiding US citizens exercising their 2nd Amendment rights IS terrorism.

No, arming yourself because you disagree with a court decision that involves no threat to your safety (and doesn't even affect you directly) implies that you are planning to use your weapons for something other than lawful self defense.

Context is everything.

Sammy Finkelman said...

The last two items are leading questions.

Sammy Finkelman said...

When Sessions sent that questionarre it was probably already 95% worked out between them.

Michael K said...

A baker that wants to refuse service to a gay person, a black person, or a Christian person is well within their right to do so, in my opinion.

That actually was not the facts of the case. I would hesitate to refuse ANY service that way.

What happened was that the lesbian couple were regular customers and had never been denied service.

What they did was ask for a wedding cake. The bakers declined politely and suggested another baker for that ceremony. I don't know if a particular sentiment was requested.

The lesbians sued and the Oregon official decreed a capital punishment for their little business.

I never heard of any second thoughts by the lesbians who had beens served regularly prior to this incident.

Michael K said...

No, arming yourself because you disagree with a court decision that involves no threat to your safety (and doesn't even affect you directly) implies that you are planning to use your weapons for something other than lawful self defense.

Context is everything.


Freder thanks for reminding me why I am not a leftist,

Lewis Wetzel said...

YoungHegelian said...
. . .
If & when this happens, it will be the beginning of the end for the modern Democratic Party. Michigan was tipped to Trump because a few percentage points of the black community stayed home. Obama's 95% 2012 showing among blacks was the high-water mark of black voter participation. Whatever is the actual number of black voters of which Obama got 95% (let's call it X), once support for Democrats among blacks drops to somewhere between 80% to 70% of X, the Democrats cease to exist at any elected office above the local level.

1/8/17, 12:23 PM


I watched the Dem convention. I was especially interested in the Black Christian speakers. So much of what the white progs who run the D's is anti-Christian, I was interested to see how the Black ministers would square the circle.
They did it by going all Old Testament. In the OT, justice is the hammer of God, used against His enemies and the enemies of His people. I can see how this fits into the Democrat playbook, but Black Christians aren't Jews. Blacks know that, despite their suffering as a people, that they aren't God's people. The message of racial disharmony, us-versus-them has, I would guess, limited resonance among Black Christians. They, like White Christians, follow Jesus:


Matthew 22:36-40

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.


The important words are "love", not "justice."

It would fly under the radar of the Democrats, but a reconciliation between the Southern Baptists and the Black Baptist and Methodist derived churches could go a long way towards breaking the Democrat's claim on Black votes.

Freder Frederson said...

A baker that wants to refuse service to a gay person, a black person, or a Christian person is well within their right to do so, in my opinion.

Your opinion is wrong. It is against the law to refuse service based on race, religion or national origin under federal law. And that has been extended to sexual preference or identity in many states.

Drago said...

Freder: "No, arming yourself because you disagree with a court decision that involves no threat to your safety (and doesn't even affect you directly) implies that you are planning to use your weapons for something other than lawful self defense."

It's important to remember that in addition to being superior to others in every single way leftists, simply by virtue of being leftists, can discern your innermost thoughts and beliefs.

This is why the lefties are comfortable criminalizing opposing viewpoints.

Again, it's just impossible to figure out how the Dems lost.

A complete mystery.

Lewis Wetzel said...

"Your opinion is wrong."
Where do you think that rights come from, Frederson? Your neighbors?

Francisco D said...

Freder,

Your arrogance is priceless. Thank you.

cf said...

i agree with >>>
What's not to like?

MostHighGood & America, Speed on.

Unknown said...

"For decades, I have warned about how our terrible trade deals are killing the middle class. "

I am very proud of my president elect.

Original Mike said...

"Hello "Rhythm and Balls". Why did you decide to be "Commander Crankshaft"? Did you experience embarrassment over one of your drunken tirades?"

I appeal to the old timers. Before he was Ritmo, didn't he call himself something before that?

J. Farmer said...

@Michael K:

That actually was not the facts of the case.

I was never discussing any facts of the case. I was giving my opinion on what the policy should be, not on what it is.

@Freder Frederson:

Your opinion is wrong. It is against the law to refuse service based on race, religion or national origin under federal law. And that has been extended to sexual preference or identity in many states.

I am well aware of the federal and state laws. I am saying that I do not support such laws. If, for example, members of the Westboro Baptist Church went to a baker and asked for a cake that says "God Hates Fags" on it, and a gay baker refused service, I would support them. If a Christian baker refused to provide a cake for a gay wedding, I'd support that, too.

As for your response to Young Hegelian, we're probably largely in agreement. I think his response is hysterical and overwrought.

Original Mike said...

"If, for example, members of the Westboro Baptist Church went to a baker and asked for a cake that says "God Hates Fags" on it, and a gay baker refused service, I would support them."

Freder would too! (Yeah, riiiiight.).

Bad Lieutenant said...

Farmer, you just have no sympathy nor understanding for believers. You have even less when they get in the way of your sex life. But, the seculars are going after their raison d'etre, & you expect them to roll over & play dead. Ain't gonna happen. I'm telling you don't think that this method of social control will continue or succeed. Trump & Sessions is just the first phase of these people fighting back. It can get a lot uglier than Trump & Sessions.

1/8/17, 3:20 PM


Farmer should heed none other than HRC: I'm having trouble finding the quote but she said something to the effect that it would be interesting for future students of this election to see how disproportionately the LGBT agenda had been the tail that Wagged the dog for the party's focus.

Rhythm and Balls changed again? I knew him first as "montana urban legend"

Michael K said...

Blogger J. Farmer said...
@Michael K:

That actually was not the facts of the case.

I was never discussing any facts of the case. I was giving my opinion on what the policy should be, not on what it is.


I was not addressing you in that comment. I was addressing you in this one.

No, arming yourself because you disagree with a court decision that involves no threat to your safety (and doesn't even affect you directly) implies that you are planning to use your weapons for something other than lawful self defense.

Context is everything.

Freder thanks for reminding me why I am not a leftist,

J. Farmer said...

@Michael K:

I was not addressing you in that comment.

You quote me saying, "A baker that wants to refuse service to a gay person, a black person, or a Christian person is well within their right to do so, in my opinion." And then you wrote, "That was not the facts of the case."

I was addressing you in this one.

The comment you then reproduced below that statement was not made by me but by Freder Frederson. If it was just a mix up, I understand.

@Bad Lieutenant:

Farmer should heed none other than HRC: I'm having trouble finding the quote but she said something to the effect that it would be interesting for future students of this election to see how disproportionately the LGBT agenda had been the tail that Wagged the dog for the party's focus.

Exactly which point of mine is that statement supposed to address? How does what you wrote address any of the arguments I have made?

I do not doubt that gays and gay-related causes receive disproportionate attention to their share of the population. There are probably numerous reasons for this, not the least being gays are likely overrepresented in the arts, entertainment, and the media. But again, nothing to do with my point.

This digression began with Young Hegelian's claims. You can read his claims above and my responses to why I think he is mistaken. To briefly recap, he invoked the Kim Burrell case and how he thought Jeff Sessions (whose AG appointment I wholeheartedly support) "will defend [Christian's] right to live & to preach the Gospel of Our Lord & Savior, Jesus Christ." I remarked that Kim Burrell's rights were not in jeopardy. She was perfectly within her rights to preach her belief, and Ellen Degeneres was perfectly within her right to cancel Burrell's appearance. I don't happen to agree with that decision, but Burrell was not denied her rights by having a talkshow appearance cancelled or having her Texas radio show cancelled. I also believe YH was mistaken in his belief that the Burrell case could be used to leverage significant black support for the Republican Party or for conservatism writ large.

Big Mike said...

Wife came in earlier and told me that she had read how the Democrats planned to raise Hell during the Jeff Sessions hearings.

This is going to be interesting. Case #1 -- They give Sessions a lot of grief and bullshit and he does not get confirmed. In that case one of the most senior Republicans will still be in the Senate, and ready to even scores. And scores will be settled. I make this a low probability event.

Case #2 -- They give Sessions a lot of grief and bullshit but he gets confirmed anyway, sort of like Clarence Thomas. From the perspective of "laws are for the little guy" folks like Chuck Schumer, that would be even more disastrous.

So I think it will be Case #3 -- some pro forma grief and bullshit, followed by Sessions' easy confirmation.

Fen said...

No Freder, you are wrong. Again.

In the Hobby Lobby case, SCOTUS references several decisions that state people are allowed to refuse service based on moral conscience objections.

That means a Jewish seamstress cannot be forced to make Gestapo costumes for the local KKK rally.

It also means a feminist photographer can refuse to do a BDSM shoot that she feels promotes violence against women.

I would link and quote the precedent cases that SCOTUS mentions but 1) I'm on a crummy laptop and 2) the effort would be wasted on you. Maybe someone else will waste their time educating you for free...

Bad Lieutenant said...

Exactly which point of mine is that statement supposed to address? How does what you wrote address any of the arguments I have made?

If you're paying me to write according to your order, please let me give you the routing number for my Swiss bank. If I'm writing what comes to mind, do allow me to proceed.

My remark was in support of the remark which I quoted. You are of a mind to deny that there may be a tectonic shift ongoing in American politics which will include the deprecation of LGBT issues. I'm telling you that it's happening now, it's on both sides, and just as you didn't see Trump winning either, nor now see America recovering from its tailspin, you don't see what I am saying. Or don't wish to.

Interestingly you may be trying to communicate to me and others the same thing about Jews.

Bad Lieutenant said...

To answer your question more directly, Farmer, I don't know about this person in Texas and I don't really care. Hope she does well. The case is a blip. If you watched the movie Battleship, you'll know that we need to watch very carefully for the blips.

At the margin I would say that in the last few elections Republican/conservative gays have been breaking left. I would be interested to watch the trend reverse.

J. Farmer said...

@Bad Lieutenant:

If you're paying me to write according to your order, please let me give you the routing number for my Swiss bank.

You began your comment with, "Farmer should heed none other than HRC..." I don't think it's an "order" to inquiry why I should heed a statement that has nothing to do with anything I've said here.

You are of a mind to deny that there may be a tectonic shift ongoing in American politics which will include the deprecation of LGBT issues.

I'd be perfectly willing to acknowledge such a shift if I saw some evidence for it. So far, I haven't seen it.

...and just as you didn't see Trump winning either, nor now see America recovering from its tailspin, you don't see what I am saying.

I supported Trump at the beginning of the Republican primaries and voted for him in the general election.

To answer your question more directly, Farmer, I don't know about this person in Texas and I don't really care. Hope she does well. The case is a blip.

Well, that case was the point of the conversation between myself and Young Hegelian. He saw it as evidence of some kind of shift in national politics; I don't, and I explained why.

According to Pew research polls, only about 25% of Trump supporters identified LGBT issues as important to them. Overall, it was around 40% of voters. During Trump's post-election 60 Minutes interview, he described the issue of same-sex marriage as "settled" and said that he is "fine" with that. Has there been any significant push back from the electorate over this statement? Polling from 2016 showed nationwide support for same-sex marriage at around 60%. Anti discrimination laws regarding gays differ from state to state, but I am not aware of any significant effort to repeal such laws at the state level.

So to reiterate: if there is some kind of nationwide push back against gay-related issues, I have not seen much evidence for it, though I'm happy to entertain the argument.



Bad Lieutenant said...

In a hurry, are you? Well, keep watching. The best evidence would be in another election and we're not going to have another election for a little while. So you don't have to see it for 2 years, if you don't want to.

But Hillary threw you under the bus within a week of losing. You think ascendancy of people like Keith Ellison is going to result in more bones thrown to the LGBT?

Bad Lieutenant said...

You began your comment with, "Farmer should heed none other than HRC..." I don't think it's an "order" to inquiry why I should heed a statement that has nothing to do with anything I've said here.

The statement does not support you, but it certainly does not have nothing to do with you. The statement says you're f*****. And the statement is not from some schmuck on a Blog, it's from the Democratic loser of 2016. The Democratic loser of 2016 is saying that the LGBT faction has too much power and this may have played a part in her loss. What do you think that means?

J. Farmer said...

@Bad Lieutenant:

So you don't have to see it for 2 years, if you don't want to.

Earlier you said it's "happening now." I'll I'm asking for is some evidence.

But Hillary threw you under the bus within a week of losing. You think ascendancy of people like Keith Ellison is going to result in more bones thrown to the LGBT?

How is it throwing me "under the bus," when I've never supported Clinton nor the majority of her policies?

And the statement is not from some schmuck on a Blog, it's from the Democratic loser of 2016.

I don't even know what "statement" it is you're referring to, and I don't trust your supposed paraphrase. Go find the statement and its source, and I'll be happy to give you my reaction. If she said what you attribute to her, then I'd say she's wrong, just as she'd be wrong about losing the election due to Russian hacking or James Comey's Congressional letter. LGBT issues were practically nonexistent during the election campaign, let alone represented a tail wagging a dog.

Bay Area Guy said...

"I wonder how many of the people who objected bitterly when anyone referred to the incumbent POTUS as 'Barak Hussein Obama' are now gleefully referring to the AG-designate as 'Jefferson Beauregard Sessions'."

"Jefferson Beauregard Sessions" is quaint and a tad pompous.

If it were "Jefferson Davis Sessions" he'd be a racist - according to the Dems (without irony)*

*Historically, the Democratic Party was home to the Slaveholders in the South, and enablers in the North.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Yes, the Northern Democrats held firmly to the compromise position that the residents of a newly created state should be able to choose to allow slavery. Very enlightened, compared to the southern troglodytes, who would force their peculiar institution on Jayhawkers and Sooners.

Bruce Hayden said...

@Lewis - Sooners? Weren't the Sooners the homesteaders who jumped the (literal there) gun in the OK Land Runs starting in 1889?

Both of my father's parents' families homesteaded there, but I have called his father's family "Laters" for the land they got in the OK Panhandle. His mother's family appeared to have been luckier, settling in the center of the state.

As for the Jayhawkers, it was weird to me was visiting Laurence KS, maybe 125 years after it had been burned. It was weird because I had grown up in CO, just west of there, where the Civil War had not really touched that much. That was an Eastern thing. We had been to Gettysburg, and I had met (Civil War historian) Bruce Catton (buried in the next family plot over, in Benzonia, MI, in a cemetery filled with GAR markers). But it was always something that was a bit distant, because of the geographical distance. And, that CO's history at the time was more involved in finding gold, than questions of slavery. And, then to find a reminder of the conflict so close.

donald said...

Context being everything and all, the idea that some government entity can destroy my business because I don't want to do business with ANYBODY is pretty serious. It violates my very existence and I would fight to my death to resist this tyrannical bullshit. Im a live and let live kinda guy, but I'll be fucked if I will accept that. That bitch, is context.

Bruce Hayden said...

Several side thoughts on Christianity and the South. From a more Northerner point of view (mainstream Protestant from MA through CT, OH, and MI), Southern White Baptist and Black Baptist (etc) seem theologically almost indistinguishable to me. Far closer together that the sort of Protestant tradition I was raised in. The support that Sessions is getting from the Black community back home suggests to me that these two religious strains are slowly growing together. We shall see, but expect that even now, we wouldn't see the sort of reaction my partner experienced 30 years ago stumbling into the wrong colored church with two young children in rural KY.

Secondly, I think that Christianity does well in adversity. Right now, it is under threat around the world from Islam on one side, and essentially athieism and progressivism/socialism on the other. And those threats are being felt in this country, after nearly 400 years of Christian (and esp Protestant) ascendancy. It is that complacency that has allowed, if not encouraged, the rise of the secular left.

Third, as we discovered under Obama and his two AGs, the Attorney General in this country wields immense power, arguably more than any other cabinet member over our day to day lives here. I think that we have seen over the last eight years the effects that a DoJ without a moral compass can have in this country, with the only real priority being political expediency and power. Which is why I welcome the possibility of an AG with a strong moral compass, with the nomination of Sen Sessions.

Fourth, I buy into Big Mike's conclusion that Case#3 is most likely. The opposition would be led in the Senate by NY Jew and Head Clown Chuck Schumer. Exactly the wrong person to be doing so, at this day and time. Even tokenly Catholic Nancy Pelosi would be better. Schumer, as Minority Leader makes this a Christian Red State versus godless (or at least non-Christian) Blue State conflict, at a time when a bunch of Dem Senators are facing reelection in flyover states with strong Christian values. (Compounded by their fund raising problems resulting from them still being in the minority in the next Congress, and not having the ear of a Republican President).

Bad Lieutenant said...

Bruce,

"Fourth, I buy into Big Mike's conclusion that Case#3 is most likely. The opposition would be led in the Senate by NY Jew and Head Clown Chuck Schumer. Exactly the wrong person to be doing so, at this day and time."

In my opinion, Bruce, not the best thing you ever wrote. Oh, some facts may be on your side but I'm trying to think of the occasion when I would see fit to write that, or its reverse. Because however you meant it, "Dog of a Jew, who are you to question a Christian Senator who wants something?" is what it sounds like.

Oh, you're free to say what you like, but I wondered if you knew how that went over. I doubt if you meant that. I wonder if Sen. Sessions would be grateful for your contribution. I daresay the Democrats who rely on three-quarters of the Jewish vote are entirely grateful for your contribution.

jnseward said...

The reason none of the other candidates answered the questions is because none of them could come up with answers that they could afford to have on the record.

Rusty said...

Freder Frederson said...
and law abiding US citizens exercising their 2nd Amendment rights IS terrorism.

"No, arming yourself because you disagree with a court decision that involves no threat to your safety (and doesn't even affect you directly) implies that you are planning to use your weapons for something other than lawful self defense."

1775 Freder. Most of those acts of parliment had no effect on the working people of the American Colonies. Odd then, that they decided to arm themselves.

J. Farmer said...

@Donald:

Context being everything and all, the idea that some government entity can destroy my business because I don't want to do business with ANYBODY is pretty serious.

It's been that way for more than 50 years now. Read Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Nearly half the states also have state anti-discrimination laws that affecting how businesses offering services to the public may act.

Now I am against all of these laws, but the notion that these are tyrannical laws that need to be fought to the death is not one that is widely shared by most Americans. In any event, what exactly would a gun accomplish. If you were sued in court, lost, and a judgment rendered against you, what would you do? What relief would a gun provide?

Matthew Sablan said...

"But last January, the Alabama Republican, afraid that his party was floundering, sent a five-point questionnaire to all its presidential contenders to determine who might deserve his support. Just one answered: Donald J. Trump."

-- My theory of: "He actually asked for people to vote for him where no one else did" gains a further anecdote.

damikesc said...

But Sessions could ignore indecent Trump utterings and incidents. For example, Sessions, our new legal beagle, couldn't or wouldn't answer whether grabbing female genitals was sexual assault.

If they "let you", which was a key part of the comment, then obviously it would not be. Don't see why you'd need to ask anybody a question so patently silly.

Was the bakers in Washington state getting shut down a non-issue? Was the pizzeria almost shut down a non-issue? Was Kim Davis refusing to sign the marriage certificates a non-issue? Was Brendan Eich a non-issue?

For most Americans, yes.


Clearly it was not. Davis was front-page news for a while. Ditto Eich. And everybody knows about the issues bakers have.

Oregon is not going to repeal any non-discrimination laws. We can't even repeal the law that says you can't pump your own gasoline. Oregonians (most of whom are from California) love them some laws.

Well, looking at Portland, maybe they shouldn't be trusted to pump their own gas...

Your opinion is wrong. It is against the law to refuse service based on race, religion or national origin under federal law. And that has been extended to sexual preference or identity in many states.

Seems only political affiliation is allowed and, man, Democrats seem to love using that. They are proponents of Free Assembly...sometimes.

Some people thought slavery was wrong when it was legal. They were called Republicans. Some people thought that the opinion that slavery was wrong was incorrect. Those people were called Democrats.

We know where you stand.

J. Farmer said...

@damikesc:

Clearly it was not. Davis was front-page news for a while. Ditto Eich. And everybody knows about the issues bakers have.

Something being front pages doesn't mean it's going to be an issue that's going to motivate someone to act politically. In the Kim Davis case, a majority of Americans were against her position. Brendan Eich was not covered anywhere near as extensively, and I would be very surprised if a majority of Americans even recognized the name. Lastly, as far as the "issues bakers have," there has been a single case that I am aware of in Oregon where the baker ran afoul of Oregon's state anti discrimination law. Bakers in the majority of states could refuse to provide a cake to a gay wedding without running afoul of any law.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

My theory of: "He actually asked for people to vote for him where no one else did" gains a further anecdote

More importantly, he actually gave them a reason to vote for him. Beyond, "I'm Jeb Bush, damnit!"

Rance Fasoldt said...

In the 80s the gay community wanted just to be tolerated. Now it is the least tolerant group I can think of.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Farmer, fail on retrieving the HRC quote. You have my word, I saw it. Maybe someone else here knows what I mean and can provide cite?

That said, the election is one piece that happened "now." I doubt you will be seeing any Burn the Fags at the Stake Reconciliation Acts, but keep an eye out. Does the analysis, GOP LGBT support/clout trending up, DEM LGBT support/clout trending down, seem so improbable to you, then?

...

Guild, huh? ("I repent, and could never dream of forgiveness in a million years.")

J. Farmer said...

@Bad Lieutenant:

You have my word, I saw it.

No offense, but I am not going to take your word for it. And that's not an allegation of dishonesty or deceit; memory can be faulty.

That said, the election is one piece that happened "now."

Except what is the evidence that gay-related issues were a significant factor in this election? I haven't seen any, and in fact the polling data I have seen as suggested that gay-related issues ranked very low in their list of concerns, while among Democrats, it was over 50%.

I doubt you will be seeing any Burn the Fags at the Stake Reconciliation Acts, but keep an eye out.

And now we're into unhinged territory.

Does the analysis, GOP LGBT support/clout trending up, DEM LGBT support/clout trending down, seem so improbable to you, then?

As a gay man who is essentially a paleocon and an ethnonationalist, it doesn't seem improbable at all. But that's not the point. Young Hegelian was claiming that LGBT issues would be utilized by Sessions to leverage Republican support from the black community. I think that is wildly improbable.

Unknown said...

Farmer, you are aware that Hillary Clinton is on record as saying that government will "change doctrines of churches"? She explicitly promised to use the government boot against churches that she didn't like!

Gays are the most predatory and anti-religious people out there, right now. Rather, anti-Christian. There are lots of business owners that have been destroyed by the gays.

First is the baker in Oregon, which you know about. Then the florist in Washington, then the baker in Colorado (who was literally ordered to a reeducation camp to "cure" his "bigotry." And the gay bakery? They were allowed to send away Christians.....). Memories Pizza in Indiana; Garden City church in New Jersey who was forced to allow gay weddings on its property; a couple in New York who had gays invading their actual house; and several photographers forced to photograph gay weddings.

Gays in particular have tagged the LDS or Mormon church. You know about Brendan Eich, do you know about Scott Eckern, who was driven out of San Fransisco and practically tarred and feathered because he quietly did the same thing as Eich but was revealed and blacklisted? What about the NFL which sent players to reeducation camp when they said they didn't want to see Michael Sam kissing-- a cry out against PDS?

Next is the Gay Lobby which is full on attacking religious colleges. Surely you are aware of Athlete Ally's campaign against BYU, arguing that BYU should be banned from playing sports. Rather, that other schools should be forbidden to play BYU, because BYU has an honor code that says no sexual relations before marriage, and they don't recognize gay marriage. Gays are demanding that BYU's law school lose its accreditation as well.

Conversations with local gays have led to them demanding that Christian churches and Christians should be banned from the public entirely; forbidden to speak, preach, advertise; pray, or do anything where someone not of the church might hear. Massachusetts has already decreed specifically that churches are "public accommodations" if they so much as let a visitor set foot inside them; and "Public accommodations" are not allowed to practice "bigotry" or have "hate speech", thus openly declaring their intent to control churches unless they go underground.

The left is fully intent on destroying Christianity, and one of their main weapons is the gays.

--Vance

J. Farmer said...

@Vance:

Conversations with local gays have led to them demanding that Christian churches and Christians should be banned from the public entirely; forbidden to speak, preach, advertise; pray, or do anything where someone not of the church might hear.

Bullshit.

Unknown said...

Completely wrong, Farmer. I participated myself in those discussions. If you cared to do the research, you could search the Deseret News's archives and see the comments yourself.

It's all part and parcel of their "the First Amendment only means you cannot be punished for praying in secret!" bit. The left and gays in general argue, quite fiercely, that the government can force you to give up your Constitutional Rights when you choose to engage in economic activity. You don't have to own a business, so if you get a business license you give up all your rights.

And of course, you have no right to a job to work for someone else, either. So Christians are out of luck in the brave new world of gay rights: you cannot work for others, and you cannot work for yourself. Unless you repudiate God, of course.

--Vance

J. Farmer said...

@Vance:

If you cared to do the research, you could search the Deseret News's archives and see the comments yourself.

Anonymous commenters on a news webiste? Terrifying. Anyone can demand "that Christian churches and Christians should be banned from the public entirely," but there is absolutely no mechanism for them to do so. You are being, as usual it seems, overwrought. Even the handful of cases you have mentioned involved businesses running afoul of state anti discrimination laws. Most states have no such laws.

Also, your problem isn't really with "the left" per se. It's really with Christians who do not experience any conflict between their faith and homosexuality. Nearly 70% of Catholics, 66% of mainline protestants, 62% of Orthodox Christians, and 51% of historically black churches believe that homosexuality should be accepted. For all Christians overall, the number is 54%.

Most U.S. Christian groups grow more accepting of homosexuality

Oscar DeNoe said...

Either Mike.
Haha,haha.
Stanley Anne Dunham, Jr.
Shot a man in Reno just to watch him die?

Mike said...

Duh, Farmer. ALL the Christians I know are accepting of homosexuals, but do not condone gay marriage. Except for those Westboro asshats you mentioned earlier, there isn't a church anywhere that claims to be Christ-centered that would say "God hates fags." There is no conflict. Christians aren't the ones obsessed with gays. But some gays are obsessed with disrupting Christian churches and in California this is something we've been dealing with for a long time. Activist gays come in and sit and tell church members that they are listening and watching for "discriminatory" words or deeds.

What they are doing is hoping what worked in Canada will work here. Quoting the Bible is literally prosecuted as hate speech in Ontario and Quebec. We've been told that they are organizing to try and force gay weddings as a public accommodation at Baptist churches.

I don't think Christians that are more or less militant than Vance wants are the problem. I think aggressive tactics by the SJW left is the problem. And many of them just hate Christians.

J. Farmer said...

@Mike:

ALL the Christians I know are accepting of homosexuals, but do not condone gay marriage.

A majority of Christians support the legal right to same-sex marriage.

Except for those Westboro asshats you mentioned earlier, there isn't a church anywhere that claims to be Christ-centered that would say "God hates fags."

Who said anything about "God hates fags?" The poll question was on whether or not society should accept homosexuality, not "accepting of homosexuals." Nearly a third of mainline protestants say "no." I don't think they are hateful or any way theologically similar to the Westboro Baptist Church, which is essentially a single Kansas family.

Quoting the Bible is literally prosecuted as hate speech in Ontario and Quebec.

Canada does not have a First Amendment; the United States does. There are no such things as "discriminatory words" that could withstand a judicial challenge in America. Nearly half of gay Americans are Christian. The right of business owners to refuse service to certain customers has already been restricted at the federal level for over 50 years.