Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (869557)	7/1/2015 12:19:51 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 1578081

Bent's next lovewin:

To: tejek who wrote (869557)	7/1/2015 12:23:52 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 1578081

The Left’s Hatred of July Fourth Explained July 1, 2015 Progressives have made an industry out of blaming America for all that’s wrong with the world and an expected by product of that sentiment is their disdain for the 4th of July. The left’s dislike for expressions of patriotism has been well documented, so I’ll just refer you to a recent article from the progressive site Salon… Those 4th of July fireworks spectaculars are causing huge spikes in dangerous air pollution The most important lesson you learn on the environment beat is that nearly everything we humans do has consequences, oftentimes dangerous ones. And according to a new study from scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, that includes celebrating our nation’s independence with fireworks displays, which cause levels of harmful particle pollution to spike significantly each July 4th. Millions of Americans are looking forward to hot dogs, hamburgers, glow sticks and fireworks this weekend but the left is trying to rain on the party. Why? Harvard University answered the question in a 2011 study you may have forgotten or perhaps never heard about from our objective friends in the media. I’ll let George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley explain… Harvard Study Finds Fourth of July Celebrations Help Turn People Into Republicans Harvard has released a study in its own unique way of celebrating the Fourth of July with America. Harvard Kennedy School Assistant Professor David Yanagizawa-Drott and Bocconi University Assistant Professor Andreas Madestam argue that Fourth of July celebrations tend to turn people into Republicans and help advance the GOP in elections. I would differ. I think Harvard studies tend to push people toward conservative candidates. The study suggests that Republicans benefit most from patriotic celebrations: “Fourth of July celebrations in the United States shape the nation’s political landscape by forming beliefs and increasing participation, primarily in favor of the Republican Party.” They go on to say that these celebrations dovetail with conservative causes and themes. They warn “there is a political congruence between the patriotism promoted on Fourth of July and the values associated with the Republican party. Fourth of July celebrations in Republican dominated counties may thus be more politically biased events that socialize children into Republicans.” Can you think of anything more horrifying for progressives than a Harvard Study which shows that patriotic displays turn people into Republicans? In the future, you might hear someone on the left declare that celebrating America’s independence is racist, a microaggression, hate speech, colonialist, or a cisnational symbol of patriarchy. Now you’ll know why. I hope you have a happy and safe July 4th with many, many friends. http://americanglob.com/2015/07/01/the-lefts-hatred-of-july-fourth-explained/

To: tejek who wrote (869557)	7/1/2015 12:29:09 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 1578081

The Dred Scotting of Religious Liberty [ SSM decision sim to Dred Scott dec. ] When Lincoln stopped believing in deference to the Supreme Court. By Jeffrey Lord – 6.30.1 Call it the Dred Scotting of religious liberty. Writing gay marriage into the Constitution as once there was a Supreme Court decision that attempted to write slavery into the Constitution. Make no mistake. Whatever else the five lawyers in black robes thought they were doing with their ruling on gay marriage, they have opened the door — many think the door was already open — for a full-blown assault on religious liberty. Who better to look to for a response to the Obergefell v. Hodges decision than the man who earned his marble statue on the Washington Mall by opposing the idea that the Dred Scott decision should be regarded as “settled law”? Substitute the Supreme Court’s ruling on gay marriage — which many Americans see as yet another assault on religious liberty — with the hotly controversial issue of the Court’s 1857 Dred Scott decision on slavery. Or the Court’s 1819 decision in McCulloch v. Maryland. The latter decision declared the Bank of the United States to be constitutional, the former was a deliberate attempt by Democrats on the bench to make slavery constitutional. In June of 1857, the year before he would challenge Illinois Democrat and incumbent Senator Stephen A. Douglas for a seat in the U.S. Senate, Abraham Lincoln addressed the subject of Dred Scott and whether decisions of the Supreme Court should be challenged. Lincoln, was, famously, a lawyer and a good one. He revered the law. And up until the Dred Scott decision, issued by the Court months earlier in March of 1857, Lincoln was unhesitating in his support of judicial decisions. But deliberately, willfully inserting slavery into the Constitution — not based on the law but on the pro-slavery sentiments of the Court’s members, notably including Chief Justice Roger Taney — was a bridge too far for Lincoln. In writing his opinion on the case Taney had quite specifically made his bias plain, saying that African-Americans “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” [ Justices establishing law on the entire nation based on the sentiments of the Justices. Sound familiar? ] Lincoln biographer David Herbert Donald writes of Lincoln’s reaction this way: “So blatant was the Chief Justice’s misreading of the law, so gross was his distortion of the documents fundamental to American liberty [meaning the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution], that Lincoln’s faith in an impartial, rational judiciary was shaken; never again did he give deference to the rulings of the Supreme Court.” Not only was Lincoln done with his faith in giving “deference” to the idea of “an impartial, rational judiciary,” he used his speech to tear into Douglas (whom he refers to always as “Judge Douglas” in reference to Douglas’s earlier title as a Justice on the Illinois Supreme Court) for Douglas’s hypocrisy on the issue. In the wake of Dred Scott Douglas was an enthusiastic supporter of the Court’s decision. Lincoln accused Douglas and Chief Justice Taney of, in Herbert’s words, “working, together with other Democrats, to extend and perpetuate slavery.” With the Dred Scott case decided and slavery now, supposedly, enshrined in the Constitution forever, Douglas wanted no one to tamper with it — much less try and undo it. Read more at http://spectator.org/articles/63293/dred-scotting-religious-liberty