monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

It has become quite clear in Europe that the governments of the Western countries are the neo -Nazis. They are the one stopping free speech, they are the ones jailing citizens for political views. They are the ones forcing multiculture when it is a huge failure on their citizens.

To call the people that oppose them fascist is a huge lie they insist has it basis in fact when it clearly has not.

I don't say it is "a crime" nor do I suggest such.

But I do think that it is a diplomatic "crisis". We'll know more on Thursday.

Review your earlier posts. I believe you rather clearly suggested they were. However, I accept your explanation. If it's a crisis. it's a small one … a tempest in a teapot.

Any answers to that? Trump is clearly right and the law is on his side. The real laws, not this crap that Democrats try to pass off.
https://madworldnews.com/mueller-screws-trump-letter/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

The latter is seen differently in our Federal Foreign Office: "We have asked the US side for clarification and whether the interview has actually been done the way as published".

I still think that with his announcement to strengthen "other conservatives" in Europe, the new US ambassador shows that he sees himself less as an ambassador than as an agitator of the ideological Trump system.

Equivalent statements by foreign Ambassadors are rather common here. Perhaps we have thicker skins.

Ah well, Sergey Kislyak, I remember.

Kislyak was the Russian Ambassador to the U.S. His name got dragged into American politics by Democrats looking for conspiracies in ordinary, routine meetings, one of which involved then Senator Jeff Sessions. The media tempest was mostly phony stuff about nothing, and the Russian Ambassador did nothing wrong.

I'm surprised that no one has addressed the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of the Colorado baker who refused to create a wedding cake for two men.

I suspect it's because the blog and opinion writers on the left haven't had time to weigh in yet and so our progressive friends are waiting for their talking points to be issued.

Let me help them out: First and foremost, the decision will be repeatedly described as narrow, that it didn't really settle the underlying issue of whether religious rights can, in some cases, trump anti-gay discrimination laws.

The Opinion written by Justice Kennedy will be touted as a victory, or, at least, really good news, because in it, it will be claimed, he telegraphed that any future consideration, by the Court, of the underlying issue will have a very different result.

Justices Kagan and Breyer have not turned; they are not traitors. their siding with the conservative majority was a strategic move designed to preserve their influence with that bloc in the event that a more important case on this matter comes before them.

In the first instance this is largely true and in the second, it could be. As for Kagan and Breyer's reasoning for siding with the conservatives, it could be as simple as their agreeing with them on the law and refusing to put ideology ahead of their own narrow responsibilies (Imagine that!) Of course it could also be that, to some extent, they were playing Court politics (It happens folks) and decided that there was more to be gained by joining the conservatives in a decision that was justified by the facts and didn't really move the ball one way or the other.

Despite what liberal pundits are likely to opine, this still is a very important decision. Conservative pundits may not agree with me, but I don't care. I don't need them to tell me what it means.

It is important for two reasons:

#1: With this decision, the Court (including half of the liberal justices) clearly recognized and rebuked what we all know to be the case: blatant intolerance and hostility within many government institutions throughout the nation toward religious views, and to be more precise, Christian religious views. With this decision, the Court has served warning that it will not tolerate such an abuse of power.

#2: When I heard the decision was 7-2 in favor of the baker, I din't need to be told who the dissenters were. Once again Justices Ginzburg and Sotomayor have revealed themselves as ideologues who are more than willing to fashion flimsy legal justifications for their ideological based votes. The more they do this the less credibility they have with the public and their fellow justices. It seems Kagan and Breyer are not so ideologically bound.

I'm sure there will be those who will feel as if the conservative justices were too timid and took the easy way out: righting an individual injustice, but avoiding imposing a potentially major social and legal change.

I'm conflicted on this. I don't see the underlying issue as being as clearly defined as do many on both the right and the left, and as such, I prefer to see it addressed locally by the representatives of the people, with the judiciary (including the USC) as a backstop if, one way or the other, they go too far.

IMO, this is the way the USC should operate and if I want to see this when there is a liberal bloc in control, I'm not comfortable arguing for something different when conservatives hold sway. However, I am sympathetic to the notion that this is an essentially conservative view and that there is almost no chance that a future, controlling bloc of liberal judicial activists will apply it to their decision making, and so perhaps, in the long run, the best approach is to go full bore, lay down a long series of conservative paving blocks and make it that much more difficult for the next liberal Court to make sweeping, serious changes to the fabric of society.

The next liberal Court will not be content with stasis, no matter how little this consevative Court does, so perhaps it is smart to occupy them with remedial rather than transformative action.

Quite remarkable isn't it.

I've tried to find out, when and where an ambassador to the USA explicitly interfered with the internal affairs of her/his host country.
As far as I could find out, normally such posts have been used to clarify their country's interests, build diplomatic bridges and resolve conflicts.
Leaving aside this "Russian affair", could you name those "equivalent statements by foreign Ambassadors" since they "are rather common" over there.

You are raising a straw man here. My point is that such statements to the Media of his/her home country by ambassadors here are very common indeed and, in my view, they don't constitute interference in the domestic affairs of the host country, in this case the U.S.

I've missed you and a few others who posted here on this thread as well.

On your post: well said. Agree to my sorrow.

The interview was published "exclusiv" by Breitbart London (that's Breitbart.com's Europe edition), written by the Breitbart London Journalist Chris Tomlinson.

Asking George to provide any kind of sourced facts is like whistling in the wind. You get nothing from him cause he's got nothing that I have seen besides his own opinions.

Buy some crying towels, support capitalism.

I was going to with "No cake for you" Soup Nazi style since the Left is going to drag Nazis into this somehow. Organized religion considers homosexuality a abhorrent condition. You want freedom of religion? Then let people put works into their faith.

There are plenty of bakeries.

Sorry to break the news to you; but, not all organized religions share this view.

Why is it that when the eighties talk about freedom of religion it always seems to mean that they always use so called freedom of religion as a way to deprive people of their rights and legitimize discriminatory treatmemt?