What About Governor Walz?

It was a different Democratic National Convention.  There was much talk of "freedom," not something I usually hear Democrats talk about.  There were lots of American flags and much talk of "patriotism."  I'd say good for the Democrats if I thought that they were sincere about it.  And the focus seemed to be on "joy," apparently replacing Obama's "hope and change."  There were many attacks on Trump, and little discussion of policy, except for abortion.  But all that is for other posts.  Let's talk about the VP pick.

We know that Walz was a teacher, a football coach, and a man who spent over two decades in the National Guard.  But what does he believe?  What are his values?  We get some insight from his signing into law a bill regarding "Ethnic Studies Requirements."  The State's Department of Education fleshed out the details of the new law, which applies to all school districts within the state, beginning with the 2025-2026 school year.  Some have called this new law the most radical in the country.  (Note.  Much of the information for this post comes from an Op-Ed by Katherine Kersten, of the Center of the American Experiment, in the 8/22/24 Wall Street Journal.  Some information also came from an article in the National Review.)

First graders are to "identify examples of ethnicity, equality, liberation and systems of power...(and) to construct meanings for those terms."  Excuse me?  First graders?  Makes sense.  If you indoctrinate five year-olds, those ideas will become part of their worldview, and will be difficult to shake off.  You will have lifelong Democrats, possibly lifelong Marxists, as that appears to be the goal.

How about fourth graders?  I remember in elementary school (not sure of the grade) being told to trace a map of the United States, and then trying to correctly name the state for each outline.  Later on we learned countries and oceans of the world.  I actually have loved looking at maps, and atlases from different eras, ever since.  But that is so passe.  Now, fourth graders are to "identify the processes and impacts of colonization and examine how discrimination and the oppression of various racial and ethnic groups have produced resistance movements."  

What about high school?  Those students will be told to "develop an analysis of racial capitalism."  It was obvious that capitalism would come under attack, as this curriculum is Marxist based.  High school students would also be taught about "anti-Blackness," and "racialized hierarchies" based on "dominant European beauty standards."  With a little bit of luck, either white students will be hated by all minorities, and/or they will hate themselves.  Very healthy.

One of the individuals involved in developing this curriculum for the state is Brian Lozenski.  He is a founder of "Education for Liberation Minnesota," aka EdLibMN.  Mr. Lozenski's feelings about America can be summarized in an article that he wrote following the death of George Floyd.  He described the riots that followed as "mass uprisings against racialized state violence," leading to "the inevitable death...(of the) social order that prioritizes vulgar economics."  Again, clearly Marxist.  

It should come as a surprise to no one that America haters also tend to be Israel haters.  "Ethnic Studies explores the colonial roots of the dispossession of Palestinian land and the creation of Zionism."  The curriculum will discuss "the devastating impact of Israeli colonialism."  Also, "studying Israeli settler colonialism in comparison to US settler colonialism" will be a main focus of Ethnic Studies.  Less than two weeks after the massacre of October 7, Lozenski called for a "Student Walkout for Gaza."   

I am frequently asked by my non-Jewish friends why Jews overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.  Do I think that Democrat run states (Minnesota is not alone with these Ethnic Studies curricula) indoctrinating an entire generation of young people into hatred for Israel and the Jewish people will change the minds of my fellow Jews, many of whom I personally know?  Come this November's election results, we should know.  

Trump was recently heavily criticized for saying that "Any Jewish person that votes for Democrats hates their religion.  They hate everything about Israel and they should be ashamed of themselves because Israel will be destroyed."  I get the criticism.  I would have counseled him not to say that.  He also said "Any Jewish person who votes for a Democrat or votes for Biden should have their head examined."  I don't see that comment being significantly different from Biden telling a black audience during the 2020 race:  "if you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black."   

"Never Mind"

I watch most events that are of historical significance.  The two political party's presidential nominating conventions definitely qualify.  I did not watch every speech at either convention.  Prior to the opening hour of the DNC convention, I texted a friend (the subject of the first post on 8/4/24) and asked if he thought any of the speakers would condemn the pro-Hamas protesters outside the convention.  After reading Biden's late night speech, I texted him "never mind."

Here was President Biden:  "Those protesters out in the street, they have a point.  A lot of innocent people are being killed on both sides."  I wish the Democrats would stop it.  Stop talking about "both sides."  Hamas started this war.  Hamas targets civilians.  Hamas has made it clear that they do not even care about the civilians in Gaza.  They say dead Gazans are martyrs.  They say people die in war.  Yes, and even more do when Hamas terrorists hide themselves and their weapons in schools, hospitals and mosques.  These protesters do NOT have a point because all they do is blame Israel, and it's sickening.

Which of the protesters has a point?  "From the river to the sea Palestine will be free?"  The point of ending Israel?  "Israel commits genocide?"  That lie?  How about this protester, who was interviewed on Fox:  "Every Palestinian supports Hamas.  Not just me.  Every Palestinian."  Asked if he agreed with the October 7 attack, he replied:  "Yes I do.  What's wrong with October 7?  You tell me."  When the interviewer brought up that women and children were massacred, he replied with "bullshit."  Lovely.

Then, there was the protester walking around with a large Nazi flag.  Did he have a good point?  The Democrats continued to bring up the lie about Charlottesville (claiming that Trump said there were "very fine people" on both sides), a lie has been debunked even by Snopes.  Yet, it sure sounded like Biden had his Charlottesville moment.  Just don't expect the Democratic Party-Mainstream Media Complex to criticize him for it.  

But Biden is no longer running.  What about Harris?  When speaking about a pro-Hamas crowd on campuses, she said:  "I do understand their concerns and I will never attempt to stifle or silence young people from expressing their concerns."  When a student/protester accused Israel of genocide, Harris replied:  "I appreciate you raising the subject and I appreciate your leadership."  Only one side is sworn to the genocide of the other, and that is Hamas, vowing to kill all the Jews.  And Harris appreciates accusing Israel of genocide? 

But Harris appointed an Israeli born, American Jew (Ilan Goldenberg) to be the head of her Jewish outreach.  That's good, right?  This is a man who opposed moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Israel's capital city of Jerusalem.  That was something that President Trump did.  Goldenberg has supported US funding of the Palestinian Authority, something that President Trump cut, given the PA's support for terrorists who kill Jews.  He disagreed with President Trump's recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the strategic Golan Heights.  He supported the Iran nuclear deal.  And he felt that Trump was wrong to side with Israel over the Palestinians.  So, if you are a self-hating Jew, Goldenberg is your man, and Harris is your candidate.   

Remember Josh Shapiro, the Jewish Governor of Pennsylvania, who was in the running to be Harris' VP nominee.  (Never mind that Harris feared offending the Arab Muslims in Michigan and Minnesota had she picked a Jew.)  Here is what Shapiro had to say about the pro-Hamas protesters:  I think protesters absolutely have a right to have their voices be heard."  That is simply stating the obvious, although if similar speech was directed at blacks or any other minority, it would be condemned as "hate speech."  Here is more from Shapiro:  "They gotta follow the rules, but their voices should be heard and they should be encouraged to exercise their First Amendment rights.  Whether I agree with them or not is beside the point."  Attaboy, Josh.  "They should be encouraged" to voice their hateful rhetoric against Israel and the Jewish people.  You make me so proud. 

The Democrats have a problem.  They love accusing Republicans of not being moral.  But just how much moral compass does it take to condemn, not praise or encourage, the pro-Hamas, Israel-hating and Jew-hating protesters?  It appears to require a greater degree of moral compass than is possessed by today's Democrats. 

Kamala Harris and Israel

I was not happy that both VP Kamala Harris and Republican VP candidate J.D. Vance failed to attend the speech given by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to a joint meeting of Congress on July 24.  Harris' absence was more significant, as she would have jointly presided over the meeting with House Speaker Mike Johnson.  And, Harris is a nominee for president, not vice president.  Axios estimated that approximately half of the Democrats in Congress (the House and Senate) failed to attend the speech.  Shameful!  Israel is our major ally in the Middle East, and one of our best allies in the world, and is in a fight for its existence.  Yet all those Democrats couldn't be bothered to attend?  Well, Harris did have to speak at a sorority convention, which of course takes precedence over NOTHING!

Harris did meet with Netanyahu the next day, after which she spoke to the press from previously written remarks.  I will say, she has learned how to read her speeches without her previous unserious demeanor.  And without the ridiculous laughter.  Harris:  "I also expressed with the Prime Minister, my serious concern about the scale of human suffering in Gaza.  Including the death of far too many innocent civilians.  And I made clear my serious concern about the dire humanitarian situation there."

If she had bothered to attend Netanyahu's speech, she would have heard him say that Israel has allowed over 40,000 aid trucks to enter Gaza, delivering half a million tons of food.  According to Netanyahu, that amounts to over 3000 calories a day for every man, woman and child in Gaza.  Except, of course, that we don't know how much Hamas steals and gives to their own leaders and fighters.

Harris:  "The images of dead children, and desperate hungry people fleeing for safety...We cannot look away in the face of these tragedies.  We cannot allow ourselves to become numb to the suffering and I will not be silent."  If that's the best you've got, Madam VP, I wish you would shut up.  Yes, war is terrible.  Yes, images of dead children are especially heart wrenching.  But I think we can all be grateful that you were not leading the country during WWII.  I can only imagine how much you would have fretted over the deaths of Germans.  Would you have told Eisenhower to stand down, because too many Germans might die?  I won't even discuss the bombing of Dresden. 

After saying there was a deal on the table, Harris said this:  "It is time for this war to end.  And end in a way where Israel is secure, all the hostages are released, the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza ends, and the Palestinian people can exercise their right to freedom, dignity and self-determination."  Is it time for the war to end before Hamas is eradicated?  Or, do we let Hamas remain in power, even though they have promised to commit another October 7 type raid on Israel over and over and over again?  

How will you make sure Israel is secure, Madam VP?  How will you make sure all the hostages are released?  Did you ever talk about the suffering of Palestinians before October 7, having to live under the dictatorial rule of Hamas?  Because, in your speech you told Israel what it must do.  What must Hamas do?  It would have been nice if you said Hamas must lay down its arms and agree to an unconditional surrender.  But I guess not.  

With a rather strident tone, Harris admonished Netanyahu:  "It is time to get this deal done!"  And:  "To everyone who yearns for peace, I see you and I hear you...And ultimately, I remain committed to a path forward that can lead to a two state solution."  You think that the Israelis don't yearn for peace.  In their short 76 years since declaring independence, Israel has had to fight war after war after war.  Since this current war began on October 7, 2023, it is estimated that up to 100,000 Israelis have been displaced from their homes, some in the North (because of Hezbollah's missiles, thousands of which have been launched since October 8) and some in the South (since Hamas invaded Israel).  Where is your sympathy for that humanitarian crisis?  

Madam Vice President, either you are incredibly naive, or you believe that the bad guys of the world should be appeased.  Which is what Obama and Biden believe.  Maybe you ought to take a lesson from Winston Churchill.  Recall the Munich Agreement, when in 1938 British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain agreed that Germany could take over the Sudetenland.  In believing he had avoided war, Chamberlain returned to England and announced "peace for our time."  But Churchill knew better:  "You were given the choice between war and dishonor.  You chose dishonor, and you will have war."  Which is exactly what Biden's and your appeasement of Iran has accomplished.  War.   

Kamala Harris

Yes, I know she was anointed.  Biden had the right to run as the Democratic nominee by getting enough delegates following his primary victories.  But, following his disastrous debate performance, he was forced out.  Even the New York Times opined that he had to go.  My first thought was that the Democrats would have an open convention, as the the delegates previously bound to vote for Biden were now free to vote for whomever they might want.  I was interested in seeing who might jump in.  But the Democratic power brokers would have none of that.  They did not dare risk a contentious convention - not after seeing how unified the Republicans were at their convention.  

The Democrats could not even tolerate the usual floor vote at the convention, announcing in advance that the delegates had voted and Harris won.  I'm old enough to remember the talk of the "smoke filled backroom deals," when party bosses had a say as to who the nominees for president and vice president would be.  But today's Democrat Party is the party that is going to save our democracy.  Just don't ask them to participate in the democratic process.   And, of course, there's the money.  The $200 million Biden war chest that would pass to Harris because she was (would be) on the ticket with Biden.  

Yes, J.D. Vance had previously made a ridiculous comment about "childless cat ladies."  But does anyone seriously expect the Democratic Mainstream Media Complex to tell us about what Harris has previously said?  Let's take a look.  December, 2017, she expressed her irate concern about illegal immigrant children this way:  "How dare we speak Merry Christmas!" when these children are suffering.  On it's face, it may sound nice.  A concern for the kids.  But is it?  Some kids are suffering in various places around the world at all times.  Does that mean we should take all the joy out of life?  Dennis Prager says happiness is a moral imperative, as happy people make the world a better place.  But, if you prefer to be miserable, I would choose the meme my daughter sent to me:  "If you replace your morning coffee with green tea, you can lose up to 87% of what little joy you have left in life."

On various occasions, and on September 11, 2022, Harris said this:  "The border is secure."  Maybe that depends on what your definition of "secure" is.  But if you watch Fox TV, you would see the daily hordes crossing into our country from countries all around the world.  But she won't watch Fox.  And the border czar isn't interested in going to the border.  But just ignore this, or you might think that Harris is a liar - and we know that only Trump lies.   

August 16, 2019:  "We're not gonna treat people who are undocumented (who) cross the border, as criminals."  Well, except that federal law says it is a crime to enter into the U.S. without authorization.  But, hey, Biden doesn't care about the law either, as he has kept up with his student loan forgiveness plan even after the Supreme Court said he had no power to do so.  Democrats - the party that will protect democracy.  Remember?

Speaking of power.  On September 4, 2019, Harris said this:  "As President of the United States I am prepared to get rid of the filibuster to pass a green new deal."  Just curious, how does the President have the power to change the Senate's filibuster rule?

Harris likes to remind us that she was a prosecutor.  She's tough.  Well, not on illegal aliens.  Or on those arrested following the riots after George Floyd was killed by a police officer.  Here was Harris' post on Twitter:  "If you're able to, chip in now to the MN Freedom Fund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota."  She said the protesters would not stop, and they shouldn't stop.  Although, she did condemn the violence and looting.  I see.  So, on January 6, 2021, when Trump said the various things he said, and also said "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard," that didn't count?  Harris get a pass for supporting rioters by saying she condemns violence.  Did Trump get a pass for his support for the January 6 protesters, by saying to protest "peacefully and patriotically?"  Of course not.

And this tough prosecutor said this on September 22, 2020:  "It is wrongheaded thinking to think that the only way you're gonna get communities to be safe is to put more police officers on the street."  That's funny.  It is so lacking in common sense that it must have been meant as a joke.  Cities across the country tried this defunding the police nonsense, and then reversed course when crime spiked.  Crime on NYC subways got so bad that the Governor ordered National Guard troops to assist the police.  Right, who needs cops on the street.

Here is something that Harris said that should offend all Americans.  She was speaking at a Los Angeles mosque:  "We must have the courage  to object when they use that term, "radical Islamic terrorism," which ignores how Muslims have overwhelmingly been the greatest victims of terror."  Listen up, Madam VP, it was RADICAL ISLAMIST TERRORISTS who killed nearly 3000 Americans (and others) on September 11, 2001.  How dare you suggest otherwise!  In fact, law-abiding and America loving Muslims should have also been offended by that comment, because I would think that they would want to distance themselves from the radical Islamists.  And, if Muslims have been the greatest victims of terror, it has been at the hands of radical Islamists.   

What about Harris and Israel?  Please see the next post.  

"I don't view the Dems with the same fear as I do Trump."

So said a dear friend who is a reader of the blog.  I believe he is a registered independent, and describes himself as center-right.  I know he agrees with much of what follows - which is why I frequently said "I think you agree."  After an exchange of some texts, and upon seeing the above from him, I replied as follows:

"I almost don't know what to make of that.  The Left (Democrats) has ruined every institution that they have gained control over.  They ruined our education system, turning it into leftwing America hating and Israel hating and now Jew hating bastions of propaganda.  I think you agree.

They ruined the mainstream media, which only challenges power when it is exercised by Republicans.  They act as a mouthpiece for Democrats.  That is not healthy for our democracy.  I think you agree.

They ruined Hollywood, too, which is now just another leftwing propaganda machine.  I think you agree.

Much of our federal and state bureaucracies are infected with leftwing woke bullcrap and DEI.  I think you agree.

The Democrats have ceded American sovereignty to the drug cartels, in the hopes that all those illegals will become Democrats.  I think you agree.

The Democrats seek permanent power, as occurred in California.  End the filibuster, add states to get extra Senate seats, now the latest Supreme Court "reforms."  You know as well as I do that Biden would not be saying that SCOTUS is a threat to our democracy if all nine justices were leftwing.  I think you agree.

Support for Israel from the Democrats has been waning for some time.  I think you agree.

Leftwing DAs, defunding the police, have made many cities unsafe.  I think you agree.

But you fear Trump.  You and I did not like his words or deeds on January 6.  But, he didn't ask the military to keep him in power.  He left the White House without being thrown out.  The Left has always exaggerated what Trump would do.  Before he took office, they said he would start WWIII.  Just the opposite.  The Abraham Accords.  Russia did not invade Ukraine, as with Obama and Biden.  Hamas didn't attack Israel, as with Obama and Biden.  He didn't appease Iran.  He enforced sanctions so they wouldn't have money to support terrorism.  He killed Soleimani.  There is only peace through strength - from Washington to Kennedy to Reagan to Trump.  Appeasement brings war.  

He's not going to end NATO.  He may not support Ukraine the way you and I would like.  And I've said for decades that neither party watches out for the people's money.  You, my dear friend, are more concerned about a bunch of "what ifs" over "what is."

I am sure that I told you about the best phone call to talk radio that I ever heard.  A self described Jewish woman called (conservative talk radio host) Dennis Prager, and said her father loves Prager, always listens to his show, and always agrees with him.  Prager very knowingly asked:  how does he vote?  I was in my car, and before she could answer I blurted out:  Democrat, I'm sure.  Yep, Democrat.  You are that woman's father.  Your self identity is so ingrained in being a Democrat (I don't care how you're registered), in having a Democratic way of looking at the world, that you are unable to escape it.

As Rome is burning all around us, you will vote for the most radical presidential candidate in history, someone who just may help bring about the end of Israel, and the end of America as you and I have known it.  Because, Trump might start WWIII."

I gave my friend the opportunity to reply to any or all of the above, indicating I would post it as his rebuttal without further comment by me.  He declined.    

The Attempted Assassination Of Former President, And Current Presumptive Republican Nominee For President, Donald Trump

Some were not surprised.  After all, ever since riding the escalator down within Trump Tower in NYC on June 16, 2015, Trump has likely been the most persecuted person in U.S. history.  Type into the search bar of the web version of the blog:  "The Deposing of an American President," written on March 12, 2017.  That's right.  Less than 2 months into his presidential term, Democrats were looking for ways to get Trump out of office.  Because, you know, they care about democracy, as they constantly tell us.  Unless, the democratic vote results in a Donald Trump elected to the presidency, in which case he became an "illegitimate" president, and democracy be damned. 

I also suggest taking a look at my June 16, 2018 post, "The Left's Non-Stop Hate."  More recently, we know that the Democrats and President Biden have repeatedly called Trump a threat to our country and our democracy.  And, too often, there have been those who have equated Trump with Hitler.  What a disgusting comparison.  As one friend and reader texted me about the way he heard Biden's comments:  "I am so glad to hear that Donald J. Hitler, aka 'son of Satan' is okay."  Dark?  Yes.  Disturbing?  Yes.  But hard to miss his point.  

Here was Biden in January of this year:  "Whether democracy is still America's sacred cause is the most urgent question of our time...that's what the 2024 election is all about."  And this:  "Now these MAGA voices who know the truth about Trump on January 6th have abandoned the truth and abandoned democracy."  

In case there was any doubt, here was Biden's deputy campaign manager:  "Our campaign believes that it is a moral obligation that we paint the picture of the threat that Donald Trump and the Republican Party pose to America."  There it is - the Republican Party is a threat to America.  They've said it enough that many now believe it.  I am curious as to how referring to half of the country as a threat to the country is in any way unifying, as Biden assured us multiple times, that he would be.  (No, I am not, and have not, excused the bad things Trump has said.  But he was the one who was shot, so I'm looking at those who may have motivated this shooter.  And, if Trump's own words turn out to be the motivation for the shooting, I will report that.)

But, I digress.  What we do know is that the shooter was a 20 year old resident of Pennsylvania.  As of now, we do not have his motive for the shooting.  And I have repeatedly said, that when it comes to these political shootings (it's political by its very nature, even if politics was not the motive) we should always blame the shooter - the perpetrator.  We know that at age 17, the perpetrator made a small donation of $15.00 to a Democratic PAC.  At age 18 he registered to vote as a Republican.  He was also described as a loner, as many of these shooters often are.  

It has also been reported that bombs and/or bomb making material, were found in the shooter's home and vehicle.  We also know that there was a major security failure that allowed the shooter to take up a position with a rifle on the roof of a building about 150 yards from where Trump was speaking.  Why was that site left unsecured?  It was also reported that a police officer climbed up the side of the building, but retreated when the shooter pointed his rifle at the officer.  Shades of Uvalde.  I can understand ducking down, but why not raise your hand with your weapon over the top of the roof and start firing?  Even if the officer missed, the shots would have alerted the protective detail and they could have removed Trump from the stage.

I was very impressed by the agents surrounding former President Trump, shielding him with their own bodies.  And while the female agent also did the same, it was quite obvious that she was considerably shorter than Trump, making it difficult, if not impossible, for her to protect his head.  I heard or read that thanks to DEI, the Secret Service had a goal of having 30% women.  Not really the best idea.  But were there no tall women available to protect Trump?  

Sadly, a 50 year old man, Corey Comperatore, was killed by the shooter.  Corey used his body to shield his daughters, and in doing so suffered the fatal wound.  May G-d bless his soul, and his family, and may his memory forever be a blessing.  Two others were wounded and originally listed in critical condition.  Thankfully, they are both now described as being stable.  

Tonight, President Biden spoke to the nation from the oval office.  Biden:  "...while we may disagree, we are not enemies.  We are neighbors, we are friends, coworkers, citizens, and most importantly we are fellow Americans.  We must stand together."  Again, it is still unknown if any of the heated political rhetoric played a role in motivating the shooter.  And Biden's comments are 180 degrees away from his earlier statements.  Now let's see if he, and others, follow through with what he said.

Presidential Immunity - Part III (Let's Get Real)

In a July 2 Wall Street Journal editorial, reported online, they referred to something called the "Empirical SCOTUS" blog.  According to that site, 45.8% of the cases decided in the 2023-2024 term were unanimous.  Yes, I know.  Unanimous decisions often result from cases with less controversial issues.  Nevertheless, unanimity is unanimity.  And all nine justices agreed that states could not decide to keep Trump off the ballot.  And, all nine refused to give standing to pro-life doctors who wanted to sue the FDA and keep the abortion pill mifepristone off the market.

The paper notes that 22 cases were decided by a 6-3 decision; but only half of those were along ideological lines of 6 conservatives vs. 3 liberals.  Then, of course, there were the 8-1 decisions and 7-2 decisions.  So, let's get real with regards to the Democrats' self-professed panic mode.  They are the ones undermining the legitimacy of the Court for their own political ends.  

In dissent, Justice Sotomayor gave the most extreme possible examples of the abuse of presidential power, and then claimed a president could get away with it.  Such as a president ordering Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, or organizing a military coup.  Please.  Notwithstanding his protestations about the fairness of the 2020 election, Trump left office with doing no such thing as a military coup.

The New York Post's July 1 editorial had it right.  "The best course now would be for Smith to drop the (January 6) case altogether and for prosecutors, and their Democratic patrons, to swear off the use of further lawfare to take down political foes once and for all."  And:  "All that continuing this prosecution does is continue to sow division and weaken the nation's already shaky political institutions."  

What the Democrats and the left ignore are all the remedies still available to protect the country from a power hungry president.  A president can be impeached by the House, and if convicted by the Senate, is removed from office.  I fully acknowledge that those voting must be people of good will - but that's a problem with the Congress, not the presidency.  A president may also be removed from office by a vote of the people.  It's called an election.

And, in their July 2 editorial in their paper, the Wall street Journal noted:  "Another principle is that the burden is on the prosecutor to show that an official act doesn't deserve immunity."  They were referring to a quote from Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion:  "At a minimum, the President must therefore be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch."  An exception to every rule.  

In reply to Justice Sotomayor, the Chief Justice opined:  "As for the dissents, they strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today."  I am, curious, however, as to which of her fellow justices she believes would find that using Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival (no, I cannot imagine any president doing that) to be beyond prosecutorial reach.  I wish she had shown the courage to have named them.