Scalia passes

SCOTUSblog: "First reactions on the passing of Justice Scalia."

The rise of Trumpism

Charles Murray has an excellent article about how the rise of Donald Trump is a reaction to the country's drift away from the American Creed:

Still, even that character is ultimately rooted in the American creed. When faith in that secular religion is held only by fragments of the American people, we will soon be just another nation—a very powerful one, a very rich one, still called the United States of America. But we will have detached ourselves from the bedrock that has made us unique in the history of the world.

He suggests there's been an anti-establishment backlash that has helped both Trump and Sanders:

There is nothing conservative about how they want to fix things. They want a now indifferent government to act on their behalf, big time. If Bernie Sanders were passionate about immigration, the rest of his ideology would have a lot more in common with Trumpism than conservatism does.

And this reminds me of an eye-opening statement from a Sanders supporter, heard on NPR's Morning Edition:

FOLKENFLIK: Drejza supports Sanders. But he has a backup.
DREJZA: If he doesn't get it, I might just want to blow up D.C. and vote for Trump – totally just vote for that fool Trump and just see if he could blow up D.C.

There are many facets to the anger in the electorate, but despair over the future is bubbling over.

Protect the Queen!

Here's the WashPost commentator Chris Cillizza before last night's Democratic debate:

Clinton will almost certainly be asked about the latest State investigation in the debate tonight. How she responds — and whether Sanders or the debate moderators push her on that response — could be a pivot point not just tonight but in the race more generally.

"Almost certainly?"  Oh, Chris.  Ye of great faith in the unbiased media.  Fox News: "FBI, foundation controversies missing from Clinton questioning at debate."

Gee, I wonder why this didn't come up last night?

The PBS moderators at Thursday night’s Democratic debate failed to ask former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton any questions about the Clinton Foundation, despite news earlier in the day that the State Department had sent it a subpoena for documents about its activities during her tenure in office.

Co-moderator Judy Woodruff happens to be a donor to the Clinton Foundation, and faced criticism from the PBS ombudsman in 2015 for giving to the Clintons.

When the Presidential debates start in earnest, I would hope the Republican candidate would start his opening remark by pointing out the inevitable conflict of interest(s) among the moderators.

No more Candy Crowleys.

Another "security review"

It's not an investigation that may lead to criminal charges - bite your tongue!

Hot Air: "Oh my: State Department IG subpoenaed the Clinton Foundation last fall."

There are now 3 investigations with ties to Hillary.

1.Clinton emails by State
2. Clinton emails by FBI
3. Clinton Foundation by State

— Chris Cillizza (@TheFix) February 11, 2016

Debt forever

Hit and Run: "Obama's Budget Promises an Olympian Mountain of Debt For Our Kids to Pay Off."

The worst part of Obama's budget—and the ways in which Republicans have conspired to increase spending just late last year—is that it attempts to normalize substantially increased spending levels as a percentage of GDP. Why exactly the government needs to be spending a higher percentage of GDP is not clear and I'm doubtful any member of either the GOP or the Democratic Party will ever bother clarifying the matter.

What I think is ironic about the effort to double the national debt again is that an ever-expanding portion of the federal budget will go towards interest payments on the national debt, feeding the coffers of those bad-old "big banks."  I've said this before but it bears repeating: between inviolate interest payments and untouchable entitlement spending, there's not going to be anything left for what we call the "government."

Elizabeth Warren is right: the game is rigged

The Hill: "Clinton likely to leave NH with same number of delegates as Sanders."

Extra - From Legal Insurrection.

How I hate the mainstream media

Ace: "In 2009, Hillary Clinton's Press Handler Philip Reines Demanded that Marc Ambinder Describe One of Her Speeches as "Muscular" In Exchange For an Early Transcript Of It."

This goes on with such predictable regularity but heaven forfend if we allow "Citizens United"-type of free speech.  Golly, I wonder who the New York Times will endorse this year.

I was told it was a "security review"

You know, like the Geek Squad running McAfee.  Guess not: "FBI Makes It Official: Hillary Rodham Clinton Is Under Investigation."

Feedback loop Rubio

WashPost: "Debate slip-up seems to halt Rubio’s momentum."

I didn't see the debate but I caught the cringeworthy "dispel the notion" performance and it just brought back all the concerns I have that Rubio is a lightweight.  Gee, maybe I need to give Christie a second look.

The only thing I know for sure is that I do not want Trump, mostly because I think he's completely flippant about a lot of important issues.  Oh, things are going to be "great" and "don't worry about it?"  No dice.  He'll get into a debate with Clinton, take a couple sharp jabs, then decide he doesn't want to run anymore.  That's how capricious he can be.

Gee, you girls are superficial

Says Gloria Steinem.  But at least she's sorry...sorry you misinterpreted her.

Day 4: Yeah, we ain't lookin'

Twitchy: "‘So bad at this’: Hillary’s defense of not releasing speech transcripts is predictable and ‘terrible’."

Yeah, Hillary isn't going to release the transcripts of her lucrative Goldman-Sachs speeches, just as certain people predicted.  The reason she's giving (now) is that she wants other people who gave private speeches to release their transcripts also.  Of course, there is no depth to how many such speeches would qualify, so therefore there will be no release.  Classic Clintonian.

Extra - Minuteman: "Another 'own goal' for Hillary."

It's football day!

Hit and Run: "Rams Stiff St. Louis, Leave City with $144 Million Bill - Even though the NFL team has left, taxpayers are still on the hook for stadium debt payments."

Day 3: Looking and looking

Bloomberg: "Clinton Campaign Has No Answer Yet on Releasing Speeches to Goldman - A spokesman says the campaign is still looking into release as Clinton comes under attack for her Wall Street ties."

They're, like, in this filing cabinet and we think Scruffy has the key but he's out on his fishing boat right now.  We'll have to see when he gets back.

Day 2: The great looking-in continues

Hot Air: "Why won’t Hillary release the transcripts of her Wall Street speeches?"

Hillary will never release these transcripts and she fervently hopes that the question never comes up again.  Do the American people deserve a "yes" or a "no"?  Well, forget it.

Update - NYT: "Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Resists Releasing Transcripts From Goldman Speeches"

In response to a question at Thursday night’s debate, Hillary Clinton said she would “look into” the possibility of releasing transcripts of her paid remarks to banking, corporate and financial services companies like Goldman Sachs.

But by Friday morning, it did not appear that much looking was underway.

Nope.

"I will look into it"

If you're a toddler, you know that "we'll see" really means "no."  My favorite question at the Sanders-Clinton debate in New Hampshire tonight was when Hillary was asked if she'll release the transcripts of all the speeches she's given, for huge bucks, to Goldman Sachs.

Basically, she said "no."  No you can't see them, America.

An American legend

Fox News: "Earth, Wind & Fire founder Maurice White dead at 74."

The very first album (not CD, but the black, round waxy kind) I ever purchased was "All n' All" by Earth, Wind & Fire.  I was absolutely blown away by the horn-heavy sound.

Another story: my Led Zeppelin-lovin' classmate once derisively said to me: "Who do you like, Earth Wind & Fire?"  And I incredulously responded: Yes.  Yes I do.

RIP Maurice.  You were the best.

I've underestimated this trend

Denver Post: "Americans spent more on legal pot last year than on Cheetos, Doritos."  Suddenly, the trend for state governments to legalize and tax pot makes so much sense.

Can't we just let it rest for a day?

That day being Super Bowl Sunday?  American Spectator: "No Justice, No Football - Here come the shutdown demonstrators to this Sunday’s Super Bowl."

It gets worse, Iowa

This just in.  Observer: "BREAKING: Hillary Clinton Put Spies’ Lives at Risk."

I can confirm that the FoxNews report, which lacks any specifics about exactly what was compromised, is accurate. And what was actually in those Top Secret emails found on Hillary’s “unclassified” personal bathroom server was colossally damaging to our national security and has put lives at risk.

Discussions with Intelligence Community officials have revealed that Ms. Clinton’s “unclassified” emails included Holy Grail items of American espionage such as the true names of Central Intelligence Agency intelligence officers serving overseas under cover. Worse, some of those exposed are serving under non-official cover. 

But...but...markings!

Something to think about, Iowa

Hugh Hewitt: "Hillary's emails disqualify her from the Presidency"

Just ask yourself what we would give to know what the Russian or Chinese foreign secretary was reading and sending every day in real time. That's what our enemies had for four years. Thanks, Hillary. Even the president was sending her emails the enemies of the United States were reading.

So she deleted 30,000 emails without anyone reviewing them. Now we have absolute confirmation that among those her clean up squad missed are documents of such sensitivity that the government can't release a word of them.

Keep in mind that it is the State Department that has classified these emails as "Top Secret" and this morning it was reported that the nature of the top secret classification is operational intelligence that put lives at risk.  Yet Hillary keeps repeating the mantra that this is an "interagency" dispute.  The State Department disagrees with the State Department?

Oh but the "markings."  Grandma can't figure out anything without the markings.

Extra - From Instapundit.