OlDawg

Give those columns some more of the little blue pill to stiffen ‘em up.

Wow! Chinese steel?

I won’t lie. I shop for certain items at Walmart. Not groceries. Typically, things like birdseed, fake Advil, shampoo, soap, fake Lysol, and stuff like that. Sometimes, I purchase car stuff. I double-check AutoZone to make sure my veteran’s discount won’t beat Walmart’s price. Basically, I buy stuff that is disposable, or I don’t expect to last long anyway. Some people live in an area where Walmart is their only grocery store around.

I think it’s a little of both. The ‘big boys’ may have originally eaten some of the tariffs. Then, they finally had to raise prices. So, we paid at least some of the tariffs via higher prices. I remember Walmart finally having to raise their prices on a lot of their goods since they get a bunch from China, and other foreign countries. As an aside, I spent a great deal of my youth in Bentonville, AR because my mom grew up there, and half my family still lives in the area. Sam Walton never stocked a foreign product in his original store. Everything was American made or grown. He’s probably turning over in his grave nowadays.

Sounds good to me as well. Of course, the companies that are lowering prices back down to ‘near pre-tariff levels’ are using their big, fat tariff rebate checks they received—that we payed for—to lower their currently raised prices on a small number of select items. Good marketing for them though. Just something to remember.

I squeak when I walk. I blame it on my shoes.

Walmart isn't lowering prices out of the goodness of their hearts. They're losing market share to Kroger again as the new Kroger CEO knows WallyWorld inside and out. He's the one who built them into what they are now. The new grocery wars should help us all as they battle it out. [Hidden Content] Incidentally, I bought Kroger stock almost 10 years ago at a little less than $20. It's done nothing but go up since. Nice, safe play in a defensive stock that's tripled in value during that time. I don't think people know how big Kroger really is, and what stores are actually Kroger. IMHO, Kroger branded items are some of the best around. I like many of them better than the name brands. Plus, they own their own dairy farms that supply their dairy products direct. Add in their gas rewards program (or you can choose grocery coupons), and you can do pretty well. One of the secrets--if you're going to frequent a place that has gift cards that are sold at Kroger--is to buy them with no upcharge, and get Kroger's 4x fuel points for buying what you're going to use anyway, and save up to $1/gal on your gas. Easy way to load up on fuel points quick. A $25 gift card to Subway--or wherever--gets you 100 fuel points, or .10/gal off on gas up to 35 gallons. Every 100 points is .10/gal off up to $1/gal. If you're a Top Tier gas buyer only--not needed unless your car is really exotic--Kroger gas follows EPA standards as far as quality. Just put in a bottle of Techron at every oil change if you have any qualms. You'll still save a bunch, and your engine will probably be better off with the occasional Techron anyway.

I’m anxious to see what Kade Dieudonne can do at the Varsity level. He’s another young RB in Simon’s mold in the making. Looks to be a baller. [Hidden Content]

No Lufkin?

Nurse at UTMB Galveston refuses to treat patients if Fox News is on in the room. [Hidden Content]

Kavanaugh did not rule the EO was unconstitutional. Kavanaugh ruled it violated a previous Statute, and that Statute could be modified. But, the EO couldn’t take effect due to the Statute—not because of the Constitution or any Amendment. Justice Kavanaugh disagreed with the majority’s constitutional holding, but he concluded that Trump’s executive order violated a federal statute, 8 U.S.C. §1401(a). “Congress could—consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment—amend §1401(a) or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country. But Congress has not yet done so.” [Hidden Content] So, effectively, the ruling was 6-3 to deny the implementation of the EO. But, not because of the Constitution in Kavanaugh’s decision.

You should check out George Washington.

Interesting piece of trivia: SCOTUS Judge Barrett has 2 adopted children from Haiti that are considered U.S. citizens under current law. If citizenship requirements were different, they would have to become naturalized citizens, and wouldn’t automatically become ‘direct’ U.S. citizens by adoption. If you follow through with this scenario, you could actually have a child of illegal immigrants be born in the U.S., automatically be a U.S. citizen, become of age, adopt children from another country that were under 16 years old, and all of them would be considered U.S. citizens the same as anyone born here by native, legal U.S. parents whose family tree had been born here and lived in America for generations. But, none of them would have been born by U.S. citizen parents. File that in the crazy but true files.

Yes. People are too lazy to read the actual opinions. That’s part of our problems. They eat what the press opinions feed them. The press wants to simplify, and the liberal press wants to make it seem like it was a slam dunk decision. It was far from a slam dunk decision. It was—in essence—4/4/1, with the 1 going with the majority for different reasons than the EO being unconstitutional. Kavanaugh said straight up the EO didn’t violate the 14th. It violated a previous statute by Congress.

I was thinking more along the lines of 'Manchurian Candidates.' Terrorists don't have to be citizens. Although, it could be argued that some members of our current government are already terrorists.

It was basically 5-4 on the Birthright Citizenship via the 14th. Kavanaugh said birthright citizenship didn't come from the 14th, but from a previous Law passed by Congress, and that made the EO illegal. So, he was in the minority opinion (4) along with Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas on that issue. He left an avenue in his split decision that would have allowed Congress to pass another Law defining citizenship without needing an Amendment because--in his view--the 14th didn't grant automatic birthright citizenship.

Wouldn’t find me betting against you.

Incidentally, this is the second very major decision Roberts has been a disappointment on IMHO. First, he twisted like a contortionist to make sure Obamacare was considered legal, and allowed to be implemented. Now, he fails to see the functional flaws in this decision. Two decisions that have the greatest impact on every single person on U.S. soil or territory--legal, transient, illegal or not--he has shown himself to be anything BUT a conservative. They are probably the two biggest decisions from the SCOTUS during his tenure. The only one comparable would be Roe v Wade overturned.

Yep. I'd enjoy hearing some insight after listening to the BU coach interview with Stepp. He seemed like he has the temperament to really help the program over there.

What happened to your "The Constitution is a living document, and changes with the times" argument? (That was one of the funniest things to me. Liberal/Progressives--who typically argue the Constitution is a living document--wanted to maintain an originalist stance, and vice versa for the originalist/textualists. The typical stances were almost flipped.) This was never going to fly as an EO, and it shouldn't be handled in that manner. Too important a question, and it should require a high bar to change. The arguments were fascinating. I think they opened a lot of people's eyes to issues they hadn't thought about. I don't agree with the interpretation. But, the--basically 5 to 4--decision shows it was a question that needed to be addressed. The Administration made a mistake in trying to push it through an EO. If they'd passed something through Congress, it may have been a different outcome. By going the EO route, they basically sealed the outcome from the start. Now, the SCOTUS ruling has made it all but impossible to change. Immigration, Visa, and entry laws can be addressed, but, they--and the enforcement--will change with Admins. It will be a similar issue to if it was addressed via an EO. The Administration DID receive a win for immigration control by being able to deny entry asylum unless on our soil. But, it will just mean illegal entry will try to pick up again. They also won on the issue of Temporary Protected Status actually being 'Temporary.' Maybe there can be a way to limit certain benefits going to underage citizens of illegal immigrants/students/temporary visitors that wouldn't rely on the citizenship question of the minor, since that's a major way illegal immigrants are receiving benefits they aren't due, and is the main draw for illegal immigration.

Well spoken young man.

Got my mag in the mail today in La Porte.

Are these the same advisors who listened to the Gulf States, and other world leaders (who haven't been directly threatened with 'Death to America' chants for the last 47 years) that warned of a global recession because their countries/States were in a crunch and don't know the full capabilities of America's military? Or, were they the political advisors that warned him about losing an election--and going through another ridiculous and wasteful impeachment process--because of high gas prices, and an unpopular war that he didn't get full buy-in from the public before beginning? I'm not a war hawk in general. But, I am as it concerns the Iranian regime. If it was important enough to go in, it's important enough to finish. Just because you eliminate some senior leadership of a group that has never honored an agreement in their history doesn't mean their acolytes will honor an agreement any differently. That's a fool's errand. Sorry. I've always been hopeful this current blockade method along with military action would work. But, I just don't see it. Many others with direct experience share my view. I daresay, it's about 50/50, with more of the former military and intel personnel with experience agreeing with me. The politicos probably do not agree as they're concerned about different things. Without regime change, you'll never confirm there's no nuclear threat as you'll never receive total access, and THAT was the primary driver.

Never said it was. I said it was based on first-hand experience. What have you got? While you’re at it, tell me where I’ve been wrong so far. My posts on this issue have been consistent from the very beginning. They remain so.

Your point?