web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Ben Sasse

Wait, what? Trump endorses … Ben Sasse?

Westlake Legal Group bs Wait, what? Trump endorses … Ben Sasse? Trump The Blog republican Nebraska National John Kelly gop endorsement emergency Ben Sasse

Who’s more annoyed by this, Trumpers or anti-Trumpers?

One Trump fan on Twitter tried to cope with the news last night by suggesting that POTUS was using reverse psychology in endorsing a longtime critic. Reportedly he endorsed one Republican House member last year out of spite, because that congressman was from a battleground district and had tried to distance himself from Trump before the midterm elections. Trump refused to allow him that distance, punishing him instead with the rhetorical equivalent of a hug. Maybe he was doing the same thing to Sasse!

But … Sasse isn’t from a battleground. He’s from blood-red Nebraska and is facing a primary challenge. Trump’s endorsement is a godsend to him by signaling to Trumpers there that they shouldn’t give Sasse the Mark Sanford treatment in the primary. POTUS has all but singlehandedly ensured Sasse’s reelection by bestowing his blessing.

I can’t wait for them to campaign together.

Another longtime Trump critic who was facing a Sanford scenario himself next year before he quit the party couldn’t resist snickering at the news:

That’s why Sasse landed the Trump endorsement. He *used to be* an outspoken Trump critic. But since the 2016 election, when he refused to support the president, he’s gone the Mike Lee route, gradually dialing back his criticism until it’s all but disappeared. He’s still more willing than most to take a shot at Trump, in fairness; it’s just that he does it sporadically now and usually in the form of low-key press releases that no one reads. His final surrender came a few months ago when he voted against a bill to stop Trump from claiming emergency authority to fund the border wall, then concocted an embarrassing excuse blaming his vote on Pelosi for not going far enough in trying to curb presidential power. Anti-Trumpers were watching that vote closely to see if Sasse would dare cross Trump in a meaningful way or if his willingness to check the president was limited to snarky tweets.

We got our answer. So did the president, who rewarded Sasse last night. Critics accused Sasse at the time of having gone native in Washington, caring more about keeping his seat than keeping his principles about doing things by the book constitutionally. In hindsight it’s hard to read his vote any other way. It’s also a reminder, though, that Trump is more strategic towards some of his critics than he’s often given credit for. He held back on promoting a primary challenger to Sasse, doubtless in the hope that keeping him dangling would buy the Nebraskan’s silence whenever he’s tempted to criticize POTUS. It worked. It reminds me a bit of the (alleged) understanding between Trump and John Kelly: Kelly keeps his mouth about Trump so long as Trump is in office and Trump in turn has nothing but polite things to say about John Kelly. That’s the art of the deal. Sasse has learned.

Those who used to admire him are letting him have it today for agreeing to that deal:

For Sasse, the past several months have represented something akin to surrender in the war for the soul of modern conservatism. More significant than his voting record is the evolution in Sasse’s tone about Trump and his increasingly long periods of silence. He’s gone to apparent pains not to be perceived as a Never Trumper or to become a face of the Republican resistance, mostly by flying below the radar and not speaking out against the president on Fox News. His once prolific personal Twitter account has been dark since May. He rarely engages with reporters seeking comment on the story of the day in the corridors of the Capitol.

During the first year of the Trump presidency, Sasse was often snarky about Trump’s apostasies. His office has released fewer such statements to the press over time, increasingly avoiding the president by name unless it’s a compliment. Last year, Sasse blasted Trump’s tariffs as “dumb.” Back home during the August recess, he was quoted by small-town papers speaking in a more cautious and measured way about the trade war. Sasse also didn’t speak out after Trump tried to bring the Taliban to Camp David on the eve of the 9/11 anniversary, for example, nor as the president fired fellow hawk John Bolton.

It was almost exactly one year ago today that Sasse admitted he thought about leaving the Trump-era GOP every single morning. A very quiet year later, he has the official Trump endorsement. Tim Miller wonders how Sasse reckons with that:

I bet he tells himself that playing ball with Trump is, in its own strange way, the best thing he can do for Conservative Principles. If he goes the Amash route and turns his back on Trump, he’ll certainly be primaried and might very well lose. Result: A Trump stooge ends up taking Sasse’s seat in the Senate and suddenly there’s even less resistance to POTUS in the chamber than there was before. With Sasse there, at least Nebraska’s vote might *conceivably* be used to check Trump in a big spot when he needs checking.

Except … that big spot already came and went in the border-wall matter and Sasse voted Trump’s way. So what’s really the difference between having him and a more forthright Trump stooge in the seat? With Sasse you at least get some half-hearted rhetorical gestures towards limited government, I suppose.

It bears remembering today that Sasse’s entire “brand” as a politician is that he doesn’t like being in the Senate. He’s a scholar at heart, a guy who writes books about social problems like loneliness which legislation can’t easily reach. He chatters endlessly in pox-on-both-their-houses fashion about gridlock and petty partisanship in the chamber. He’s not relegated to a career as a lobbyist after his Senate career either: He has attractive options in academia available to him potentially. Why would he want a second term when he hasn’t seemed to enjoy his first term, has few options (or inclination, seemingly) to move major legislation in an era when Congress is dominated by party leadership, and has to reconcile himself to post-tea-party Trumpism as a governing model as the price for keeping his seat? The answer can only be pure prestige, I think. You sacrifice whatever you need to sacrifice to keep a Senate seat, period.

The post Wait, what? Trump endorses … Ben Sasse? appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group bs-300x153 Wait, what? Trump endorses … Ben Sasse? Trump The Blog republican Nebraska National John Kelly gop endorsement emergency Ben Sasse   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Video: Ben Sasse Gives Impassioned Floor Speech on the Left’s Abortion Extremism, Torches Gillibrand’s Absolutism

Westlake Legal Group BenSasseSenate-620x366 Video: Ben Sasse Gives Impassioned Floor Speech on the Left’s Abortion Extremism, Torches Gillibrand’s Absolutism washington D.C. progressives Pro-Life Politics planned parenthood North Carolina Nebraska Kirsten Gillibrand Front Page Stories Front Page Feminism Featured Story Featured Post elections democrats Culture & Faith Culture Conservatives Congress Campaigns Ben Sasse Allow Media Exception Abortion 2020 Elections 2020

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) speaks on the floor of the U.S. Senate – 6/21/19. Screen grab via Sasse’s You Tube channel.

In the aftermath of the Democratic party’s disturbing far leftward lurch on abortion this year, including supporting allowing babies who survive botched abortions to die, Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) took to the floor of the U.S. Senate Thursday to decry their position, and note how out of touch they’d become with the American people.

Noting that several of the Democratic candidates for president would be appearing this weekend at a Planned Parenthood forum in South Carolina, Sasse said that the Democratic party has become more extreme over the years on abortion, going from advocating for “safe, legal, and rare” to free abortions on demand, and comparing pro-lifers to racists and anti-Semitics:

And in fact, it’s actually worse than this – because the position of every senator running for the Democratic nomination, and at least one governor, is that a living, breathing baby who survives an abortion procedure can be left to die after birth. All seven senators running for the Democratic presidential nomination voted against the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act earlier this year, and Governor Bullock, of Montana, vetoed a state-level version of the bill, just before he entered the race. So as things currently stand, it’s entirely possible that the Democratic nominee for the highest office in our land in 2020 will be publicly agnostic about the moral status of post-abortion infanticide. Morally agnostic about post-abortion infanticide.

[…]

As Democrats’ abortion positions have become more extreme, they have not sought to even persuade fellow citizens with whom they disagree. Rather, they have become openly hostile to Americans who disagree on this great moral challenge. My colleague from New York, for instance, Senator Gillibrand — who will be attending this weekend’s forum in South Carolina — made her feelings clear earlier this month in an interview with the Des Moines Register. In promising that she would only appoint judges who would uphold Roe v. Wade, here’s what she said. Listen to this quote:

“I think there are some issues that have such moral clarity that we have as a society decided that the other side is not acceptable. Imagine saying that it’s okay to appoint a judge who’s racist or anti-Semitic or homophobic. . . .

This is not an issue where there is a fair other side. There is no moral equivalency when you come to racism, and I do not believe there is a moral equivalency when it comes to changing laws that deny women reproductive freedom.”

After pointing out how outside of the mainstream Gillibrand’s stance on abortion is, Sasse went on to talk about the racist origins of Planned Parenthood – specifically its founder Margaret Sanger, who was a eugenicist. Sasse noted that the ugly eugenics and racism of the abortion movement did not die out with Sanger, but is in fact still very much a part of it today:

We could also note that it’s in part because of this ugly history that black women in America are three and a half times more likely to have an abortion than white women. And in some parts of Senator Gillibrand’s home state, black children are actually more likely to be aborted than to be carried to term. Or we could point to the continued eugenic use of abortion. For example, to kill children who have non-life-threatening diseases. In the United States today, two-thirds of all babies in the womb who are found to have down syndrome are aborted. Two-thirds of all babies found to have down syndrome in the U.S. are now aborted. And in some parts of Europe the rate is pushing 100% and there are public ad campaigns in two nations in Europe to celebrate the fact that they’ve gotten rid of all of their down syndrome babies.

But instead of going point by point, I’ll just recommend that anyone who wants to better understand this disturbing history should read Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion in Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky last month, which came down late last month. I guess that, according to my Senate colleague, Justice Thomas is one of those racists – those notorious pro-life racists that are stalking America.

Life News HQ has the full transcript of the speech, which you can read here. You can also watch it below:

Sasse has a 100% rating with the National Right to Life, and 0% ratings with both Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America.

—————–
—Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter.–

The post Video: Ben Sasse Gives Impassioned Floor Speech on the Left’s Abortion Extremism, Torches Gillibrand’s Absolutism appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group BenSasseSenate-300x177 Video: Ben Sasse Gives Impassioned Floor Speech on the Left’s Abortion Extremism, Torches Gillibrand’s Absolutism washington D.C. progressives Pro-Life Politics planned parenthood North Carolina Nebraska Kirsten Gillibrand Front Page Stories Front Page Feminism Featured Story Featured Post elections democrats Culture & Faith Culture Conservatives Congress Campaigns Ben Sasse Allow Media Exception Abortion 2020 Elections 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Rep. Justin Amash After His Trump Impeachment Stance: Hero or Heel?

Westlake Legal Group Trump-vs-Amash-300x168 Rep. Justin Amash After His Trump Impeachment Stance: Hero or Heel? white house washington D.C. thomas massie The Hill The Atlantic Social Media Rand Paul President Trump Politics political correctness New House investigations of Trump Never Trumpers National Security Morning Briefing Mitch McConnell Matt Lewis And The News Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elections donald trump Daily Beast CNN Ben Sasse Allow Media Exception Academia 2019

he·ro
/ˈhirō/
noun
a person who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities.

heel
/hēl/
noun: heel; plural noun: heels

an inconsiderate or untrustworthy person.
“what kind of a heel do you think I am?”
(in professional wrestling) a wrestler who adopts a mean or unsympathetic persona in the ring.

Now that we have the basic definitions down….

I have been working on this piece in my mind since Rep. Justin Amash announced back on May 22nd that he would support the impeachment of President Trump after reading the full Mueller report.

Having met the man twice and talked to him briefly both times I have always found him an interesting politician to watch and have agreed with him on many things. So when Matt Lewis over at The Daily Beast wrote this piece on Saturday, Justin Amash for President: A Change Conservatives Can Believe In, I figured it was finally time to give my two cents about some serious issues I have about Amash’s analysis and his “brave” stance on coming out for impeachment.  (I will note that I produce Matt’s podcast Matt Lewis And The News.)

That Amash would post his opinion on the report should not surprise anyone who has followed him since his time in the Michigan House of Representatives. He has been excellent about posting his reasons for his votes and engaging people on their views. This was the case when I had a back and forth with him on Facebook about illegal immigration which I wrote about right here. Did Rep. Justin Amash Vote To Allow Illegals In San Francisco To Vote?

I take him at his word that he took the time to read the full Mueller report that is available. Being that he did not come out with a quick take right after the release like so many others did and waited a month before he released his opinion on Twitter, I believe that is a  reasonable assumption.

In his 20 tweet explanation, which you can find Right Here,  he goes through his reasoning.

Now to put this fully in context, let’s post what the Constitution says about impeachment in Section 4, Article 2 of the founding document.

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

What that means is that the founders were going to leave it up to future Congresses to determine what was the bar that we raise or lower for our executives and officers. In other words, there doesn’t need to be an actual crime committed but a political one would also suffice if the Congress has the guts to push it through. Even if an actual crime was committed as was the case with Bill Clinton’s lying under oath, the Senate decided that crime was not a big enough deal to remove a sitting President.

Amash, in his tweets above, lays out his best case for why, though an actual crime has not been committed, a political one has occurred, and thus Trump should be impeached.

In the scenario that is being pursued by Amash, the President essentially barked a lot and was told no or ignored and the issue was left at that. That amounts to a temper tantrum being thrown and nothing coming of it. The guilty pleas so far are on the people that plead that way for various reasons. Possibly that changes in the future but on the previous theory I laid out, Rep. Amash thinks that is enough. This is well within the power of the Congress that Justin Amash is part of right now to do so if they feel strongly about this.

Now, here is the part that I have been really thinking about lately and I’m not quite sure to make of this all. Matt’s piece above brought this again to the front of my mind and is the reason for finally writing this article.

From The Daily Beast story above…

Call it a protest vote if you want but Amash is one of very few politicians today that I could support in good conscience. And the good news is that—because he has already demonstrated his moral courage—he might just be crazy enough to do it!

The phrase “Moral Courage” has struck me along with something else. Rep. Amash at the end of last month held at a town hall meeting in his district stood for two hours and took questions — plus love and hate — from the assembled crowd.

According to The Atlantic, he said this at that gathering…

I’m a big believer in liberty and the Constitution. Nobody cares about liberty in Congress more than I do. One thing you see around the world is liberty cannot survive in a system where people hate each other and where there is no virtue. You can’t have a system like that. Our Founders and Framers talked about that. You have to have people who care about virtue and you have to have love.

Is Justin Amash the only one in Congress on the Republican side that has moral courage and loves liberty more than anyone else? Is he the only one that has a virtuous streak strong enough to say the hell with his political future over this stance?

Amash is the leader of the “House Liberty Caucus” that has 8 members including Rep. Amash. The others are…

Paul Gosar of Arizona
Morgan Griffith of Virginia
Thomas Massie of Kentucky
Warren Davidson of Ohio
Jim Jordan of Ohio
Scott Perry of Pennsylvania
Andy Biggs of Arizona

Surely one of these people also sees it the way that Rep. Amash does. According to Need To Impeach not one of these individuals who serve with Amash in the House and specifically in the Liberty Caucus see it as he does and declared this publicly.

Over on the Senate side, the two Senators who are most closely aligned with Rep. Amash’s view on most things are Sen. Rand Paul-KY and Sen. Ben Sasse-NE. I could find nothing on what Sen. Sasse has said about this but Sen. Paul came out against Amash and his view late last month. Rand Paul splits with Amash on Trump impeachment.

Does Justin Amash love liberty more than Rand Paul?

I know that seems like a bit of unfair question but the Representative from Michigan has put himself in this corner with his above comments on this.

The Democrats are using this situation to attempt to take down a Republican President as they have done with all others before so there is nothing mysterious there.

However, if Justin Amash is the only elected Republican who seems to think that impeachment is necessary among the likes of Rand Paul, Ben Sasse, and Thomas Massie, does that mean the others lack moral courage and not are not as in love with liberty as the Congressman from Michigan?

Or is it possible Amash is just dead wrong here?

Hero or Heel?

Let me know what you think in the places listed below or reach out to me at LaDuke@FTRRadio.com.

Check out my other post on Rachel Maddow Gets Blacklisted And Why CNN, MSNBC Always Get Beat In The Ratings and my podcast Bourbon On The Rocks plus like Bourbon On The Rocks on Facebook and follow me on the twitters at IRISHDUKE2 

The post Rep. Justin Amash After His Trump Impeachment Stance: Hero or Heel? appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Trump-vs-Amash-300x168 Rep. Justin Amash After His Trump Impeachment Stance: Hero or Heel? white house washington D.C. thomas massie The Hill The Atlantic Social Media Rand Paul President Trump Politics political correctness New House investigations of Trump Never Trumpers National Security Morning Briefing Mitch McConnell Matt Lewis And The News Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elections donald trump Daily Beast CNN Ben Sasse Allow Media Exception Academia 2019   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Ben Sasse Mocks the Anti-Catholic Bigotry of Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee

Westlake Legal Group AP_17304758212111-620x329 Ben Sasse Mocks the Anti-Catholic Bigotry of Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee third circuit republicans Politics peter phipps Pennsylvania pat leahey Nebraska Front Page Stories Featured Story democrats Courts Congress bob casey Ben Sasse anti-catholic Allow Media Exception

Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., right, accompanied by Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., left, speaks as Facebook’s General Counsel Colin Stretch, Twitter’s Acting General Counsel Sean Edgett, and Google’s Law Enforcement and Information Security Director Richard Salgado, testify during a Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Oct. 31, 2017, on more signs from tech companies of Russian election activity. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Of the many strange and wondrous things we’ve seen develop in American politics during the Age of Trump, perhaps one of the most terrifying is the decision by Senate Democrats to adopt blatant, in-your-face religious tests for executive branch and judicial nominees. By that, I mean that actually living something like a Christian life is openly declared to be inimical to service in the federal bureaucracy or judiciary.

The first person to be hit with it was Notre Dame law professor Amy Coney Barrett. Who can forget this remarkable performance by Dianne “I didn’t know my chauffeur was a Chinese spy” Feinstein.

When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you. And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for for years in this country.

Or the aptly named Dick Durbin.

“Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?”

Or Mazie Hirono (D-Mediocrity)

I think your article is very plain in your perspective about the role of religion for judges, and particularly with regard to Catholic judges.

(See .)

When Brian Buescher was being considered for a circuit court position he faced similar questions from the fiercely heterosexual Cory Booker and from Hirono:

In written questions sent to Mr. Buescher by committee members Dec. 5, Sen. Hirono stated that “the Knights of Columbus has taken a number of extreme positions. For example, it was reportedly one of the top contributors to California’s Proposition 8 campaign to ban same-sex marriage.”

Hirono then asked Buescher if he would quit the group if he was confirmed “to avoid any appearance of bias.”

Dear Lord, the Knights of Columbus? The most offensive thing about the Knights of Columbus is the feathered hats.

Corey “No, really, I am actually heterosexual” Booker also had a noteworthy addition:

Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) noted the nominee’s previously outspoken opposition to abortion and asked “why should a litigant in your courtroom expect to get a fair hearing from an impartial judge in a case involving abortion rights?”

(see Corey Booker And Mazie Hirono Attack Judicial Nominee For Being Catholic.)

Today, the target was Peter Phipps who is President Trump’s nominee to the Third Circuit. The Democrats already have their panties wadded over Phipps. He was just elevated to the federal bench last year and Democrat Senator Bob Casey objected to his nomination to the Third Circuit. With that as the backdrop, this is how it started:

“Judge Phipps, welcome back. I’m going to ask you a hard question. Are you now or have you ever been involved in the organization of a fish fry.”

For the rest, I’ll rely on the Free Beacon’s Nic Rowan.

Sasse’s joke referred to the Knights’s practice of throwing fish fries for Catholic churches on Fridays during Lent, a liturgical time of the year where Catholics typically abstain from meat. It is one of the many charitable actions in which the organization participates, including providing community service and charity drives for children. Phipps, like other judicial candidates before him, has faced scrutiny for his involvement in the organization from Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) and other Senate Democrats, who allege the organization is “extreme.”

Sasse used his question time at the hearing to sarcastically fillet Phipps for his Knights membership.

“So it’s much more the stuff of community service, love of neighbor, fish frys, and pool parties than some sort of Da Vinci Code stuff?” Sasse asked. “I just want to be clear that I understand this scary organization that you’re a member of.”

“That’s exactly right,” Phipps said. “It’s a charitable organization, it’s an organization that has social and recreational activities that many members of my family have really enjoyed and really benefited from.”

Phipps explained the history and work of the Knights, and Sasse warned Senate Democrats to reconsider the “new tradition” of attempting to impose religious tests on members of religious organizations like the Knights of Columbus. “We should ask them about their oath of office to the Constitution, and whether or not they can do that free from bias,” Sasse said.

One member of the Judiciary Committee, however, did not understand Sasse’s joke. After the Nebraska Senator finished his questions, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.) told Sasse that he “hates” to hear Sasse suggesting that there be a religious test on the Knights.

“What is Da Vinci? I don’t understand it,” he said. “And I’m a little bit annoyed as a member of the KofC.”

Kamala Harris showed the deleterious intellectual effects of sleeping with Willie Brown when she asked Phipps if he had to “”swear an oath” of allegiance to the Knights of Columbus. It was nearly like she was trying to use the old “dual loyalties” slur that has been directed an American Jews since the founding of Israel and Catholics forever but wasn’t really sure how to tie that to a civic organization.

This is an exceedingly sad state of affairs. It shows that the left is unwilling to be bound even by the rules that govern our Republic, much less by any sense of decency. It demonstrates why the Vichy Republicans, the accommodationists with the secular liberal state, are just as much a part of the problem as is Kamala Harris or Mazie Hirono. Phipps will be confirmed. And Sasse got a good dig in on the behavior of the left. But let’s no fool ourselves into thinking that they can be shamed in to acting as though they were American citizens. They can’t.

=========
=========
Like what you see? Then visit my story archive.

I’m on Facebook. Drop by and join the fun there.
=========
=========

The post Ben Sasse Mocks the Anti-Catholic Bigotry of Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group AP_17304758212111-300x159 Ben Sasse Mocks the Anti-Catholic Bigotry of Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee third circuit republicans Politics peter phipps Pennsylvania pat leahey Nebraska Front Page Stories Featured Story democrats Courts Congress bob casey Ben Sasse anti-catholic Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com