It’s a loss in one way but not in another

The Donald has ended the shutdown and the MSM is crowing that he’s lost bigtime.

There are two entirely separate conclusions to draw – the first is what he already probably knew so to run this risk seems strange:

1. The logical but partly naive view

The Donald was banking on decency from the Democrats, that they might care for the Federal workers as he seems to.

They don’t, they care only for power, for the global agenda and for bringing him down – therefore they were perfectly happy for the workers they supposedly fight for being unpaid over winter.

The EU wants war in this country, the Muslims consider us theirs already

#??Why is the UK’s Tory Government together with the UK’s supposedly loyal Opposition Labour hell-bent on bonding Britain to the EU with which it runs a humungous trade deficit (they sell more to us than we do to them) when we run surpluses with the USA and the Commonwealth? [Robert Kimball]

# Lord Bew, Trimble’s adviser for the Good Friday Agreement: “There is one great problem with the backstop: it does not protect the GFA. People do not have democratic control. [It] is a top-down imposition on how NI matters will be handled.” [Tom McTague]

# Exactly what we Brexiteers have been arguing all along. It is May’s deal which breaks the GFA. Leaving on WTO terms and/or agreeing an FTA does not. [Derrick Berthelsen]

Brexit – an American perspective

From Vox:

The existence of the monarchy is often simply considered to be a quaint tourist attraction, but it has real constitutional consequences. Sovereignty is often said to reside in Parliament, but that is intellectual laziness. The sovereignty of the United Kingdom resides in “the Crown in Parliament”.

There is not US-style separation of powers in Britain. The supreme judicial function used to reside with the Law Lords sitting on the wool sack, who would sit in the House of Lords alongside all the other hereditary and non-hereditary aristocracy. The analogous position would be for Roberts, Ginsberg, Kavanaugh et al to be sitting senators with a vote on legislation in addition to being judges ruling on cases brought before them regarding that legislation. The Law Lords were replaced with a Supreme Court by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, who also excluded the hereditary aristocracy.

The hereditary aristocracy functioned to represent interests in a similar way to US senators prior to the 17th amendment. By allowing only the non-hereditary aristocracy to vote in the House of Lords, Blair turned the chamber into a pension system for failed elected politicians and government flunkies that carried water for the establishment.

Imagine Lord Eric Cantor, Lord John Boehner, Lord Paul Ryan, Lord Eric Holder, Lady Lois Lerner, and the future Lord Robert Mueller being appointed senators for life after they had been removed from their previous positions.

Fortunately, the Parliament Act of 1949 precludes the House of Lords from preventing the passage of budget legislation and also enables the House of Commons to force the passage of legislation in support of the official manifesto upon which the governing party was elected.

And so on at the end of the link.