Are they defending democracy? Or, eliminating democratic principles?

October 8, 2024

Many of those on the left have been observed using the term “democracy” when talking about the United States of America. And some activities, and some individuals are often termed “threats to our democracy.”

Of course, our nation does operate on democratic principles. Our Founding Fathers came here from other countries, and were familiar with how things were done in other countries. Some countries may have been democracies while others may not have been. They developed our system to avoid the problems they witnessed in other countries. 

The first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution — the Bill of Rights — exist for that very purpose. And, notably, the first of those amendments is the one guaranteeing us freedom of speech and other things. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Despite this very clear statement, from day one of our republic there have been efforts to limit free speech, and many of those actions were exercised by those in the federal government.

And that effort continues today, as those who are objective and have been paying attention have witnessed. During COVID, and on controversial subjects, speech is frequently limited by the news media and social media, and yet again, by some of those working in and for our government.

When you are trying to control a nation, people being able to say whatever they are thinking is not a good thing. Some ideas that do not agree with the status quo are out there for the public to consider. And the controllers cannot prosper under those conditions.

To combat these alternative ideas, they are labeled as false, misleading, disinformation, misinformation, etc., and are removed, or requested to be removed, from communication vehicles and thrown into the trashcan.

Last month John Kerry, former Secretary of State and former Special Presidential Envoy for Climate in the Biden administration, took part in a World Economic Forum panel discussion on Green Energy. Near the end of the event an audience member asked what could be done about the disinformation being heard surrounding the climate change fracas.

"You know there's a lot of discussion now about how you curb those entities in order to guarantee that you're going to have some accountability on facts, etc.,” Kerry said. “But look, if people only go to one source, and the source they go to is sick, and, you know, has an agenda, and they're putting out disinformation, our First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just, you know, hammer it out of existence,” he continued.  

“So, what we need is to win the ground, win the right to govern, by hopefully winning enough votes that you're free to be able to implement change."

"The dislike of and anguish over social media is just growing and growing. It is part of our problem, particularly in democracies, in terms of building consensus around any issue. It's really hard to govern today. The referees we used to have to determine what is a fact and what isn't a fact have kind of been eviscerated, to a certain degree. And people go and self-select where they go for their news, for their information. And then you get into a vicious cycle," Kerry said.

In another comment, Kerry remarked, "Democracies around the world now are struggling with the absence of a sort of truth arbiter, and there’s no one who defines what facts really are."

So, our First Amendment gets in the way of people like Kerry being able to easily shove their ideas down our throats with no opposition. It is a major block to combating other ideas, which they label as “misinformation.”

They want the government to be the “truth arbiter” and define what the facts are. And they need the Democrats/socialists to win the presidency and both houses of Congress so that they will have the power to rid the nation of the First Amendment that allows challenges to their chosen course of action.

The reason for this is that Kerry and his comrades believe they know all that is needed, and that climate change is going to end humanity and all plant and animal life on Earth. And they know exactly what is needed to prevent that. 

Other opinions — even those of scientists or science professors — are “disinformation,” and must be prevented from becoming public knowledge.

However, it ought to be obvious to any thinking individual that what Kerry and others are trying to do is precisely why there is a First Amendment, and why that amendment is the very first one in our guaranteed Bill of Rights. 

Without free speech government can do whatever it pleases, and anyone expressing a contrary opinion is subject to criminal charges, even death.

The Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution are designed to limit what the government can do, so that the United States of America will not become just one more oppressive totalitarian state.

What exactly is carbon dioxide, and why is it such a problem?

October 1, 2024

First it was “global warming,” and now it is “climate change.” It is caused, we are told, by too much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. CO2 is one-part carbon and two-parts oxygen. It is the carbon that is the problem.

“Carbon is a planetary paradox,” according to Arizona State University’s ASU News. “As the foundation for DNA, carbon is essential for all life on Earth. Yet, as part of the compound carbon dioxide, too much of it has built up in our air, threatening life on Earth as well.

“Today, carbon-based fuels power our very way of life. They support the global economy, transport networks and energy infrastructures. Addressing our carbon problem is, in a word, complex.

“Fortunately, it’s also a problem we can solve together.

“At Arizona State University, researchers explore many ways to reduce atmospheric carbon. And by working alongside industry, government, nonprofits and communities, they’re seeking solutions that are good not just for the planet but also human well-being.

“Experts from fields across ASU share how we can start to bring these systems into harmony and build a healthier world for ourselves and our children.

Why is carbon dioxide a problem?

“Our planet has an elegant system to recycle carbon. After making its way through plants, animals, soil, rock and ocean, it goes into the atmosphere — mainly as carbon dioxide — where it begins its journey again. But if Earth is so great at recycling carbon, how did we end up with too much in the atmosphere?

“Around 200 years ago, a key disturbance unbalanced this cycle. People found they could extract oil and coal — two forms of carbon called fossil fuels — and burn them for energy.

“In short time, our way of life came to depend on carbon-based fuel. Many of today’s amenities, like long-distance travel, buying food grown far away and lighting our homes, rely on this fuel.

“But these innovations have a hidden cost. As we burn fossil fuels, we release carbon back into the air, bypassing a natural process that would have taken thousands of years.

“From pre-industrial times to 2021, humans have added an extra 1.69 trillion metric tons to the atmosphere, and scientists estimate we added around 37 billion metric tons in 2022 alone.

“CO2 naturally traps heat, so all that extra CO2 increases Earth’s average temperature. This has noticeably affected our climate and weather patterns. These changes increase flood and fire risk, threaten crops and food security, endanger vulnerable species, expose us to new diseases, and force people to leave their homelands.”

So, that amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is a problem. What besides CO2 is Earth’s atmosphere made of? While the list of components has 16 gases, it primarily consists of four gases: nitrogen, oxygen, argon, and carbon dioxide.

The function provided by each of these is described thusly by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): “Nitrogen dilutes oxygen and prevents rapid burning at the Earth's surface. Living things need it to make proteins. Oxygen is used by all living things and is essential for respiration. It is also necessary for combustion (burning). 

“Argon is used in light bulbs, in double-pane windows, and to preserve museum objects such as the original Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Plants use carbon dioxide to make oxygen. Carbon dioxide also acts as a blanket that prevents the escape of heat into outer space.”

Because CO2 absorbs heat, it is blamed for contributing to the “greenhouse effect,” “global warming,” or “climate change.”

However, the NOAA website from July 2024 tells us that the proportion of these four gases is approximately as follows: nitrogen = 78 percent; oxygen = 20.9 percent; argon = 0.9 percent; carbon dioxide = 0.04 percent.

So, with all that extra CO2 from fossil fuel use, only 4 in 10,000 atmospheric particles are CO2.

As the NOAA said, “Plants use carbon dioxide to make oxygen.” So, plants “eat” CO2 and emit oxygen. That’s a good thing, right?

In Australia, China and nations in Africa, drylands are turning greener. Why? Because of the increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

“The primary reason, most recent studies conclude, is the 50-percent rise in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere since preindustrial times,” according to Yale Environment 360, published by the Yale University School of the Environment.

David McGee, an associate professor in the MIT Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, is quoted on MIT’s Climate Portal saying that today’s CO2 levels are actually “nothing special.” “In the past, carbon dioxide levels have been much higher than they are today and much lower than they are today.”

And Earth’s temperatures have been both much higher and much lower than they are today.

Conceivably, the comparatively minor temperature and CO2 increases that have been witnessed recently are not so important in the context of those changes over many decades and centuries.

Perhaps these increases are not really the serious problem the climate crisis faction wants us to believe they are. And maybe if we make changes to how we do things, those changes should be less radical than those proposed.

Harris is the absolute worst choice to lead this country

September 24, 2024

As the 2024 presidential election draws nearer, Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democrat nominee, continues to avoid nearly every opportunity to tell voters about the specifics of her plan for what she will do, and how.

She has gained a reputation for some rather radical positions, including: wanting to abolish ICE, open the southern border, defund the police, release violent offenders, eliminate middle-class tax cuts, ban fracking and end fossil fuel use, confiscate guns from lawful owners, take away private health care plans, and provide taxpayer funded transgender surgeries for illegal aliens.

During a recent campaign stop in Moon Township, Pennsylvania, a reporter asked her: “And can you give us a sense of what other policies you want to unveil moving forward?"

In answering that question, she said, "Sure, well, I mean, you just look at it in terms of what we are talking about, for example, around children and the child tax credit and extending the EITC [Earned Income Tax Credit]." She did not answer the question. She then babbled on about the EITC, and in the process made false statements about it.

Late last month Harris told CNN's Dana Bash in her first sit-down interview since becoming the Democrat’s candidate through a non-democratic process that the Biden-Harris administration has done "good work" on the economy, but "there's more to do." She completely ignored the high level of inflation that developed during her tenure as VP.

Asked about her changing position on important issues, she said, "I think the most important and most significant aspect of my policy perspective and decisions is my values have not changed." Again, she avoided answering the question and failed to explain why she changed positions after becoming a candidate.

On immigration, Harris noted her prosecutorial record as attorney general of California saying she has long cared about border security, even though under her watch as “border czar,” the border has effectively become wide open, allowing in roughly 10 million illegal aliens.

Her priority on day one if elected will be to "strengthen and support the middle class," she said. Again, she did not take the opportunity to explain exactly how she plans to do that.

Harris seems to be following the lead of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, who famously said about a piece of legislation, “We have to pass it to find out what is in it.” Harris’ message: “Elect me to find out what I plan to do.”

Harris claims to be a Second Amendment advocate. She says she wants some “common sense” measures to keep everyone safe.

“I’m a gun owner,” she said in a friendly interview with Oprah Winfrey. “If someone breaks in my house, they’re getting shot.” Ooops! “Sorry. I probably should not have said that. [Cackling] My staff will deal with that later. [Cackling]” 

However, as a prosecutor in California in 2007, Harris outlined her view of why she could violate the Fourth Amendment. She said she would search the homes of gun owners. “Just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn’t mean that we’re not going to walk into that home to check and see if you are being responsible and safe,” she said. 

And Harris said back in 2020: “These stand-your-ground laws … have often, often and frequently, been used as an excuse, if not a cover, for people motivated by race and racial profiling.” Seriously?

And even this year, while she claims she’s “not taking anybody’s guns away,” Harris still supports a mandatory buyback plan for so-called “assault rifles.” That is a disguise for what it really is: gun confiscation. “We need an assault weapons ban,” she said. 

While claiming that Bidenomics and other policies have been wonderfully successful these nearly four years, she says she will fix everything on day one. What needs to be fixed in this wonderfully successful administration? How will she fix it?

She cites words Trump used that are the same words Hitler used. So, Trump is like Hitler because they have sometimes used some of the same terms. But Harris isn’t like Hitler because some of her preferences are similar to Hitler’s?

So many of her supporters say they will vote for her because they “like her.” She refuses to give details on her plans if elected, but they will vote for her, anyway.

And let’s look at a broader picture: which side is more radical, the left or the right? Well, how many attempts to assassinate Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have we seen?

If you like the high prices on most everything; the millions of illegal aliens, gotaways and terror watch-list persons running free and committing crimes; our once-great energy status that existed before Biden-Harris; the coming higher taxes and increased regulations; our constitutional republic being torn apart, then vote on November 5 for the woman who spurns interviews and tough questions, refuses to publish her positions and policies, and promises to fix all the things her present administration brought on the American people over the last four years.

She does not understand or care about America, and will take us down the road to socialism. 

The United States of America: Is it a democracy, or not?

September 17, 2024

An article on the Analyzing America website goes into a good bit of detail about America’s status as a democracy. Much of that article follows.

“A CNN reporter addressed Trump supporters calling the U.S. a republic as an ‘attack on democracy,’ sparking a debate on the country’s governance. 

Historian Anne Applebaum emphasized America as a democratic nation, attributing doubts to Trump’s influence and narrative. 

“The discussion delved into the constitutional definition of a republic, historical views on democracy, and the distinction between forms of governance. 

“‘America is a democracy. It was founded as a democracy,’ Applebaum said.

‘I’ve heard a lot of conspiracy theories. I hear a lot of things out on the road, but to hear Americans, people who would describe themselves as patriots, say that America is not a democracy, that stopped me in my tracks,’ CNN’s Donie O’Sullivan said.

“‘You are hearing people say America is not a democracy because there are people around Trump who want them to be saying that, who’ve been planting that narrative,’ Applebaum said.

“‘Honestly, the word ‘democracy’ and the word ‘republic’ have often been used interchangeably,’ Applebaum said. ‘There isn’t a meaningful difference between them.’

“‘If they can convince people that we don’t have a democracy, then it’s okay that Trump is attacking democracy, because it doesn’t really matter,’ Applebaum added. 

“‘There is, of course, a legitimate debate discussion to be had on what form of democracy we have here in the United States, direct democracy, representative democracy, in fact, constitutional republic, which you heard people mentioned in that piece, that is a form of democracy. But look, this is not actually a debate about government, about democracy, it’s an attack on democracy,’ O’Sullivan said. ‘People have heard the warnings that Trump is a danger to democracy, and therefore you have people trying to convince others that, well, the United States isn’t a democracy in the first place, and therefore Trump can’t be a threat.’”

The reality is that the U.S. is not now, and has never been, a pure democracy.

A democracy is a political system that focuses on universal equality, where the people select their rulers by a majority vote at the polls. Essentially, a 50.1 percent majority can decide what goes and what does not, and the 49.9 percent minority is at the mercy of the majority. These rulers have absolute power, and they may make whatever laws they want by a majority vote among themselves.

Similarly, a republic is a form of government more focused on individual liberty, and is ruled by representatives of the citizenry on the principle that sovereignty is with the people, not just the government. However, exactly who is considered in the category of “the people” is not a hard and fast thing that may be misused.

Our Founders saw potential problems with both of those systems in their pure form. According to Colonial Williamsburg online, a “democratic government, they feared, might dissolve into anarchy. A republican system, conversely, invited an aristocracy to rise.”

So, they decided to go with neither in its pure form, and instead designed a system which combined features of each of them, and which is superior to both: a constitutional republic.

In a constitutional republic the people also select their rulers by a majority vote at the polls. But these rulers are restricted in what they can do and how they must do it by the U.S. Constitution.

So, while the nation observes democratic principles, referring to it as a democracy is inaccurate. And criticizing those who refer to it as a republic is out of bounds, because it actually is a republic, the government of which is controlled by a constitution.

However, by criticizing those identifying the country as a republic, their effort to sell the democracy angle is somewhat advanced.

Many of those who call the country a democracy know that the term is not accurate, but wish it was. They prefer a democracy to the constitutional republic we now have.

Efforts have been underway for many years to subvert our constitutional republic and turn it into a democracy. This would provide the left the control over the rest of us that they have been so desperately seeking.

By continuing to do this, these people obscure the true system of our government. It is their hope that most Americans will go along with this mis-identification and come to regard America as a democracy. 

In doing this, the door for America to become a totalitarian state is opened, and the effort to put into the dustbin of history a government system superior to any yet devised is well underway.

All great nations eventually fall, sometimes because of actions of other nations, but also sometimes from factions within it. If that is allowed to happen to the United States of America, the likelihood of there ever being another like it is virtually nil.

Should this effort succeed, it will be due in large part to the failure of our culture, particularly the family, the education system, and the no-longer-neutral or honorable news media.

We must strongly oppose this subversive effort.

Harris changes positions to attract votes and avoids interviews

September 10, 2024

It has frequently been pointed out how the Biden-Harris administration has messed up so much during its tenure, and that Vice President Kamala Harris, as a candidate for president, has said so often that if elected she will fix things. A comment often follows, asking why she doesn’t fix things now, since she is in power.

Some of the problems she wants to fix to encourage votes in November are items that she previously supported. Among those areas, we find these flip-flops:

**On illegal Immigration, Harris wrote in 2020 that “Trump’s border wall is a complete waste of taxpayer money and won’t make us any safer.” She further called it “un-American.” As “border czar” she did nothing to control the influx of illegal aliens. However, she now has endorsed spending hundreds of millions of dollars on construction of a wall, according to The Daily Signal.

**She also campaigned against oil and natural gas fracking, saying in 2020, “There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking.” Very recently, however, she said, “What I have seen is that we can grow and we can increase a thriving clean energy economy without banning fracking,”

**And while during the Biden-Harris administration a regulation came from the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation that mandates electric vehicle sales in the United States, her view on that, too, has changed. Her campaign recently announced that she “does not support an electric vehicle mandate.”

**As a U.S. senator from California, Harris favored government-run healthcare by co-sponsoring the Medicare for All legislation. But, once again, that is not her current position.

But while back-tracking on previous positions to seem less radical, Harris supports other policies that are radical and harmful.

During the anti-police riots following the death of George Floyd in 2020, Harris supported defunding the police. “This whole movement is about rightly saying, we need to take a look at these budgets and figure out whether it reflects the right priorities,” she said, praising Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti for cutting $150 million from the LAPD budget.

Harris favors assisting more than 4 million people over four years to combat the country’s unaffordable housing crisis by providing an average of $25,000 to all first-time homebuyers. Quite a price tag: $100 billion.

“Shark Tank” star and O’Leary Ventures chairman Kevin O’Leary has criticized this "crazy notion," on the Fox Business program, “Kudlow.” 

He argued that "$25,000 free helicopter money is insane" and will "never happen." "Think about it. You have a shortage. You then flush more helicopter money from the sky. You cause inflation because if you're the seller of a house and you've got 15 bids and you know that person has just received $25,000, you up your price 25,000, the price just went up," he stressed.

He added that the country has "massive supply" problems and "punitive" regulatory policies must be addressed to "get more supply on the market."

O’Leary also criticized Harris’ proposed solution to rising rental costs, which is to impose price controls. Calling it a “Soviet-style pricing" fix, he said, "There’s a huge problem with that."

"Here's what happens to the price control building,” he continued. “No CapEx [Capital Expenditures], no maintenance. It starts to fall apart. There's no incentive for the landowner or the person who built the building to ever spend another dime on it. They just slowly crumble." Price controls distort markets, cause inflation, and reduce supply, he said.

In what may well be the craziest of these ideas, Harris proposes to raise taxes. In her campaign for president, she supports all the tax increases President Biden proposed in the White House fiscal year 2025 budget. First, she wants to raise the corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 28 percent, increasing costs on businesses, which leads to higher prices.

But the wildest idea to impose a 25 percent tax on unrealized capital gains for people with over $100 million in wealth. Currently, taxpayers pay taxes on the growth in the value of their assets when they are sold, and money is in hand. "Of all the suggestions I’ve heard on taxation, I find that the most offensive," O’Leary said, calling it “un-American.”

"Let's say our business went from being worth 10 million to 20 million over five years. Where am I going to come up with $3 or $4 million cash that I don't even have, that I never had? I mean when you really start thinking pragmatically about these ideas, you understand how bad they are," he said, adding that it "makes no sense whatsoever."

Like many Democrats, Harris does not like the Second Amendment. As the district attorney for San Francisco she supported restrictions on individual gun rights, and in the 2019 campaign supported a “mandatory buyback program” for the government to confiscate firearms.

As Harris still has not done interviews or released a list of her policies, some of these may be dropped and others added. 

We may not know what policies will become part of the campaign, but we can feel confident that there will be more restrictions and pain on the American people, and they will strengthen the radical left’s control over us. 

Watching Kamala Harris today, Karl Marx would be proud.

Zuckerberg shines the light on the control of information

September 3, 2024

Last week, confirmation of a long-held notion of an organized effort to control the information available to the public — which opponents and “fact-checkers” labeled as “false” and “conspiracy theories” — came to light.

A story, attributed to Thomson/Reuters, appeared on Newsmax.com, saying that “Meta Platforms CEO Mark Zuckerberg said senior officials in the [Biden-Harris] administration had pressured his social media company to censor COVID-19 content during the pandemic, adding that he would push back if this were to happen again.”

This revelation came to light in a letter from Zuckerberg to the House Judiciary Committee. He expressed regret for not speaking up about this earlier, and he also expressed regret about some decisions made by Meta Platforms’ applications Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp about removing certain content that had been identified.

In addition to COVID-19 content, information relating to the Hunter Biden laptop that was available ahead of the 2020 election was labeled “Russian disinformation,” and as a result was widely unavailable to the public. Undoubtedly, this same thing happened to other pieces of information.

Zuckerberg deserves some credit for admitting what was suspected for so long. Too bad it took him years to get to this point. 

In the letter, he also said he would “not make any contributions to support electoral infrastructure in this year's presidential election so as to ‘not play a role one way or another’ in the November vote.”

The White House has responded to this revelation with a statement to Fox News in which it did not admit to or deny Zuckerberg’s charge of the administration applying pressure on Meta.

Zuckerberg wrote, "I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret we were not more outspoken about it.” “I also think we made some choices that, with the benefit of hindsight and new information, we wouldn't make today."

The House Judiciary Committee called Zuckerberg’s admission of Facebook’s censoring of Americans a “big win for free speech.”

This revelation increases the likelihood that some, or perhaps a lot, of the other suspected instances of censoring were also not “conspiracy theories” or “false” information.

It supports the allegations of wide-spread dishonesty in the handling of important information, and that some in our country are willing to play dirty.

The concept of free speech as guaranteed to Americans by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects unpopular speech, and even offensive speech. What is unpopular and/or offensive to one group may well be quite important to another group. 

Without a variety of ideas being freely circulated, how can Americans possibly work their way to a valid understanding of things, so that they can make informed decisions about issues, particularly things as critical as election choices?

And while what Meta and other information sources did may not be against the law, the case that was cited and other similar instances of blocking information certainly is against the spirit of the First Amendment.

What these platforms did certainly interferes with the very reason that our Founders made the amendment protecting free speech the first of the ten amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. They understood that the people must have all the available information they need and are entitled to, good or bad, popular or unpopular, offensive or not. 

However, such action by elements of our federal, state and local governments definitely is illegal. And Zuckerberg’s message about the Biden-Harris administration’s efforts to censor speech ought to anger all of us.

The country is now experiencing a dangerous attack on integrity, honor and honesty. Dishonesty in politics is not new. But it has grown greatly over recent years, and is even more of a problem than ever.

How many newspapers and magazines, TV and radio networks and stations, and internet sites have dishonestly censored ideas that do not match their preferred political ideas? How many in our public education systems are there not to teach the young the things they need to become productive adults, but to indoctrinate them with anti-American ideas?

This lack of honor and integrity is a characteristic of many in the faction that is desperately working to defeat Donald Trump in his effort to be re-elected as President. He is a great threat to their goal of achieving eternal control of the country. This is a goal they cannot achieve through honest means, because this radical socialist/communist goal does not have the necessary support of the electorate. Therefore, their working motto is, “we will win, and we will use any method available to achieve that goal.” 

People with integrity know that they must win honorably and honestly, and if they lose, it must be the result of an honorable and honest effort. That is the American way.

This revelation illustrates what happens when the Constitution and our laws are not followed. Imagine the chaos if the Democrats’ desires to pack the Supreme Court, do away with the Senate filibuster, continue the open-border policy, move control of elections from the states to the federal government, and other radical changes to the country’s operating procedure are put into effect.

Democrats struggle to establish an effective campaign theme

August 27, 2024

After replacing President Joe Biden as the front-runner for the Democrat nomination for president in a curiously undemocratic way, Vice President Kamala Harris has spent the last month avoiding the press, giving no interviews, holding no press conferences, and did not even post her agenda on the campaign website.

A little over a week ago, however, her campaign did publish several proposals to “lower costs for American families.” Prior to that, she had also not introduced any initiatives, or defended current Biden administration initiatives.

These proposals include: a call for a federal law against price-gouging; more government control over prescription drug prices; extending financial assistance to people shopping for health insurance; subsidizing the construction and purchase of housing; reinstating a COVID-era cash stipend for families with children.

These will increase federal spending over the next 10 years by an estimated $2 trillion, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Also, Harris plans to pay for this government over-reach with a hike in corporate taxes to 28 percent, which would cover only about half the spending. It will also have a negative effect on businesses, increasing their costs, leading to higher prices to make up for the additional taxes paid.

Taking another shot at business, Harris has accused food companies of “price gouging,” saying that price controls are needed to bring down prices and check corporate greed. She, of course, knows full well that the wonderful creation of her and Joe’s administration — Bidenomics — is responsible for the higher prices on food and virtually everything else people need and want.

Bidenomics-caused inflation has kicked up costs generally by around 19 percent, and food prices are up even more, about 21 percent.

For their part, those in the food industry use logic to explain the high prices. With higher prices for labor and raw materials, higher prices on their products are the result, and significant profit margins are needed to finance new product development. Only common sense here.

Even The Washington Post editorial board criticized Harris' proposed method in an opinion piece before the convention. The board called it a "populist gimmick," saying that the nation is in need of "serious economic ideas." 

Other elements of misplaced blame were present in last week’s Democratic National Convention. Speakers at the event repeatedly falsely blamed former President and Republican candidate Donald Trump for several things. One of those is the previously mentioned cause of rising prices.

Both President Joe Biden and VP candidate Tim Walz accused Trump of planning a nationwide ban on abortion. Illinois Sen. Tammy Duckworth, warned that Trump would ban in vitro fertilization. “Trump’s anti-woman crusade has put other Americans’ right to have their own families at risk, because if they win, Republicans will not stop at banning abortion. They will come for IVF next.”

An informed person would know that Trump has suggested he might support a ban after 15 or 16 weeks, and more recently that abortion should be left up to the states. And in February expressed his support for IVF.

As reported by The Daily Caller, “Many speakers condemned Project 2025, an initiative led by The Heritage Foundation in partnership with over 100 other conservative organizations. The project, a policy blueprint for a future conservative presidential administration, offered to work with any political campaign open to supporting those policies. Heritage and its allies launched the project in April 2023, before Trump had won the Republican nomination. And while many Project 2025 staff had worked in Trump’s administration, the project did not consult with Trump or any other Republican candidate in drafting the document.

“Even so, Democrats repeatedly introduced Project 2025 at the convention as ‘Trump’s plan.’

“Michigan state Democrat Sen. Mallory McMorrow presented Project 2025 as ‘the Republican blueprint for a second Trump term.’ She went on to claim that Project 2025 aims ‘to turn Donald Trump into a dictator.’”

However, Project 2025 has not been adopted either by Trump or the Republican Party.

They also continued spouting the fairy tale that Trump and Republicans ban books. “Shutting down the Department of Education, banning our books — none of that will prepare our kids for the future,” former first lady Michelle Obama screamed on Tuesday.

However, removing books that are inappropriate for young children from their school libraries is not banning books. Even Obama and other Democrats should be capable of understanding that very significant difference. 

With two weak candidates, Harris and Walz, on the ticket, the Democrats have a steep mountain to climb. Both through the years have demonstrated an affection for criminals, illegal aliens, rioters, government control, gun control, and other things more associated with socialism and Marxism.

Perhaps they understand that enormous challenge, and are neck deep in desperation. Thus, exaggeration, lying and creating falsities has taken control of the Democrat campaign.

The Democrats accuse Trump of “going backwards.” However, by moving back to what Trump did, we actually are moving the country forward, away from the catastrophe this Democrat administration created that actually did move us backward.

America would be so much better off if a few thousand DC Democrats loved their country like Harry Truman did, instead of trying to change it.

The idea, “go woke, go broke” is one we are seeing more frequently

August 20, 2024

The current mentality that is gaining acceptance considers so much of our culture and history as false or troublesome and in need of replacement, and is succeeding to a dangerous degree. 

Commonly known as being “woke,” the beliefs it supports are things like white people are automatically and always oppressors and non-white people are always oppressed, that historical things and people that are viewed as bad by the “woke” should be removed or destroyed, that what has been traditionally taught as American History is false, and so on.

In trying to calm things down, people frequently join the parade in removing and changing things so that they are less upsetting to those who find them offensive. In some cases, this might be acceptable.

This movement has caused a lot of confusion and emotional distress. And there is at least one area where this is very dangerous and must be stopped. That is in the military forces of the United States of America.

Those who are or have been in our military, or are otherwise familiar with it and its nature, understand how dangerous this is. Even so, some in higher positions have been infected with this idea to the degree that they are imposing changes to how our military operates in order to smooth things out.

However, in smoothing things out, they are making the military less well equipped and weaker to the point that it is less able to do the only thing it exists to do: Defend the country and its interests, protect us from threats and invaders, and eliminate anyone who seeks to harm the USA.

In 2015 a Marine Corps study showed that gender-integrated combat formations — those with both men and women in combat — did not move as quickly or shoot as accurately as men-only units, and that women were twice as likely to suffer combat injuries. The Secretary of the Navy at the time, Ray Maybus, rejected the study because it did not meet the Obama/Biden administration’s political agenda.

However, that same year Defense Secretary Ashton Carter imposed “gender-neutral” operational standards so that female service members could meet the qualifications for combat positions. When it turned out that women were scoring lower than men, the standards were abandoned, and despite their lower performance on qualifying tests, women were, and presumably still are, allowed to be in combat units.

In 2016 Maybus ordered a change in Navy job titles, doing away with titles like “corpsman” and replacing them with gender-neutral titles. However, the enlisted sailors strongly objected, preferring the historic titles from previous decades, and the Navy reversed that change. As “wokeness” continues to infect the military, this change may be, and perhaps has been, reinstituted.

In 2021, the Navy began using a training video explaining the importance of using the correct pronouns. In order to not upset some sailors, inclusive language is now required, such as saying “hey everybody” rather than “hey guys.”

Outside of the military and in the country generally has been promotion of the idea that America is actually a country where racism and white privilege abound. This flawed concept has crept into the military, where men and women service personnel are required to sit through indoctrination programs. These sessions push the Marxist-based idea of critical race theory, DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion), and other similar ideas.

However, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told the House Armed Services Committee: “We do not teach critical race theory, we don’t embrace critical theory, and I think that’s a spurious conversation.”

Others in the Pentagon argue that critical race theory actually is being taught, and that charge is supported by abundant evidence.

Even if CRT was a valid aspect of America, taking up the time of military members with these indoctrination sessions is at odds with the duties and responsibilities of our military services. And the reported billions of dollars of costs associated with these new ideas is a dangerous use of military funds, which should be used for national security and military readiness purposes only.

As the late conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh frequently said, the role of the military is to “kill people and break things” in defense of our country. It is precisely the most improper place to indulge in promoting social issues.

Whether our military forces are all white, black, Asian, or Hispanic, or all male or female or some mixture of all of those, it must be the absolute best equipped, most highly trained, and most efficient military possible.

You might expect that, of all people, those in leadership of the Defense Department would understand that. However, many of those in top positions have apparently abandoned their sworn duty and common sense. Fortunately, the rank and file personnel under their leadership — the ones that put their lives on the line and live or die from their policies — do understand the true purpose they must fulfill.

We must quit playing games and focus only on the mission of the nation’s military forces. With the existing threats to our national security, we cannot allow our service personnel to be required to worry about using the proper pronouns, and other idiotic ideas that weaken our security.

A Harris administration will move the country down the wrong road

August 13, 2024

The following is said to have been written in 1954 and attributed to a former judge from California named Keith M. Alber, who at the time was 85 years-old. In the piece, Alber wrote that he was a law student, and in a political science class there was a half-page outline in a textbook on “a few steps to overturn a democracy.”

The steps he mentioned are: Divide the nation philosophically; Foment racial strife; Cause distrust of police authority; Swarm the nation’s borders indiscriminately and unconstitutionally; Engender the military strength to weaken it; Overburden citizens with more unfair taxation; Encourage civil rioting and discourage accountability for all crime; Control all balloting; Control all media.

“What was printed in 1954 as a possible diabolic nightmare has become an emerging reality,” he wrote. “I hope that Americans will unite enough to pen a good finish.”

This article was found on Facebook, posted by several people. And that is all that is needed for the Democrats, socialists and Marxists to automatically write off the ideas expressed in the article, saying that because of its origin, it’s useless.

But the ideas expressed are worth considering, because even Vice President Kamala Harris and New York Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez sometimes make sense.

Is our nation philosophically, politically divided? Absolutely. Are we witnessing racial strife where all white people are considered oppressors? No question. Do some people distrust police authority so much that they want to defund them? Yep. Are our borders indiscriminately and unconstitutionally being opened up to whoever wants to cross them, including criminals, drug traffickers and child traffickers? Unquestionably.

Has our military been weakened by considerations of gender, equity and inclusion instead of merit? Yes! Are taxes an unfair burden on many/most Americans? Yes. Have we seen a frightening increase of civil rioting with those involved in the riots not being held to account? No question! Are important ballots much less secure than in the past because of mailed ballots, unguarded submission bins and other factors? Yes. Is the news media primarily the spokesperson for one political side? Yes.

So, is it a matter of an actual effort to transform America that we are seeing? Or is it merely a matter of people holding ideas that are at odds with our founding principles? Actually, it is both.

Harris criticizes Donald Trump’s campaign to “make America great again” as going backward, and wants to move “forward.” But Trump wants to restore the much better country we had before the Biden/Harris administration came along. We had energy independence, hardly any inflation and prices were much lower, a much more secure border, a world with fewer international conflicts, a lower tax burden, etc.

But despite her recent politically motivated flip-flops, Harris is trying to move even further toward a socialist/Marxist nation that features the things she has embraced for decades.

Her past and present positions include these: As San Francisco district attorney in 2004 she declined to seek the death penalty for a gang member who had killed a police officer. In 2014, as state attorney general she supported the idea that the death penalty was unconstitutional.

Harris was one of the first Democrats to support Senator Bernie Sanders' 2017 Medicare for All bill to provide government-run medical insurance for every American, doing away with private health insurance.

She supports the radical Green New Deal and introduced a climate equity bill. She opposed fracking and has called for federal legal action against the fossil fuel industry. And, she has outlined a climate plan for net-zero CO2 emissions by 2045.

As a presidential candidate she promised to use executive action to enact stricter gun control. She has supported more regulation of gun manufacturers, mandatory background checks, tightening loopholes and a ban on “assault weapons.” She said she was open to the idea of a mandatory buyback, compelling owners of “assault weapons” to forfeit them.

Harris has pledged to offer a path to citizenship to the millions of undocumented immigrants living in the US, supported decriminalizing border crossings by illegal aliens, and wants to provide taxpayer-funded healthcare for those crossing the US border illegally.

Further, she has drawn parallels between the Ku Klux Klan and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, which is responsible for securing the borders.

Her pick for running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, in championing gun control, compared available weapons to those he carried in combat. He didn’t do combat. He signed into law a bill that allows abortion up to the moment of birth. In 2023, Walz signed into law the Trans Refuge Act, making Minnesota a refuge for children to flee to so they can be chemically or physically mutilated. 

More and more, the dystopian world of George Orwell’s classic novel “Nineteen Eighty-Four” is developing in the United States of America. And the brilliant work of our Founders to look at the world’s nations under government control and create a system that puts the people in charge is being abandoned. Why? Because some do not understand their country, and are falling victim to others who do understand it, but think they can do better with one of the other systems. 

The new attack on Trump is as weak as previous attacks on him

August 6, 2024

Donald Trump’s enemies have gone to great lengths to prevent him from being elected for a second term as our President. He has been charged with crimes, one of which was, according to several respected legal authorities, based on some of the weakest and most politically motivated factors they have ever seen. 

That charge was based upon a misdemeanor on which the statute of limitations had expired, but which a “persecutor” finagled to combine it with federal statutes in order to create a “crime.”

Another charge — the mishandling of federal records— is one for which someone else who clearly has mishandled records has not been charged. That person is our current President, Joe Biden. And it has been ruled that this prosecutor was improperly appointed, thereby damaging the case.

More recently Trump has been linked to Project 2025, a road map to modify the functions of the federal government produced by the Heritage Foundation. Trump, however, some time ago distanced himself from it. 

“I know nothing about Project 2025. I have not seen it, have no idea who is in charge of it, and, unlike our very well received Republican Platform, had nothing to do with it,” Trump commented on social media. “The Radical Left Democrats are having a field day, however, trying to hook me into whatever policies are stated or said.”

Apparently, however, some of Trump’s associates have been involved in Project 2025. But that does not mean that Trump is involved, or even a supporter.

At a press conference recently, his first solo presser of the year, Biden asked, “Do you think democracy is under siege based on Project 2025? Do you think [Trump] means what he says when he says he’s going to do away with the civil service, eliminate the Department of Education? … We’ve never been here before.”

“Folks, Project 2025 is the biggest attack on our system of government and on our personal freedom that’s ever been proposed in the history of this country,” Biden said, alleging that Project 2025 “is run and paid for by Trump people” and is “a blueprint for a second Trump.”

He said it would unleash a “nightmare” on the country if Trump is elected and implements it. “Another four years of Donald Trump is deadly serious. Project 2025 is deadly serious,” Biden said, saying it is a threat to American values.

“It’s bone-chilling. It’s un-American. It’s dangerous for our democracy,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY. “It lays groundwork for a national abortion ban, defunding law enforcement, empowering Big Oil, and silencing his opponents.”

These two have expressed the fear that Trump might reinstate the good situation that Biden himself trashed as soon as he took office.

None of the attacks on Trump and Project 2025 should surprise anyone. It is a common political strategy to attack the opponent’s positions. Those attacks are always strong, even to the point of exaggeration. And quite often, outright untruths.

For a different view on the project, here is some of what the Washington Examiner had to say: “The campaign strategy is in step with broader messaging on the threat to democracy that Democrats say Trump poses. But Project 2025 has only recently gained widespread awareness.”

“The 900-page framework was first introduced in April 2023 and includes bolstering executive branch power while dismantling some federal agencies, as well as vetting government employees on their loyalty before being hired,” the Examiner story continues.

It then quotes Rep. Joe Neguse, D-CO, as saying, “Project 2025, as I’m sure you know and Americans are learning each and every day, is a pernicious, dangerous point that Republicans have been very clear they intend to implement if given the opportunity.” Neguse, the assistant Democrat leader in the House, added that, “It will impact every aspect of American life.”

Given the substantial and frequently detrimental changes to our original system over the years, particularly by recent administrations, and also those planned by current Democrats, the country needs substantial changes to get back to where it was when the nation was at its best.

A small, efficient and not excessively expensive government was the original design, and that is what we need to get back to as soon as possible. Project 2025 may have some debatable aspects, but it takes effective steps in that direction.

Naturally, that idea is at odds with the current liberal motives to fundamentally transform the United States of America into just one more unimaginative, less free, and less successful country that is on the path to a horrid one world government, or a world planned by the socialist and Marxist elites.

In short, what Project 2025 and the Trump organization want to achieve is to restore so much of the country’s original and better aspects. But the “progressive” opposition portrays that     as if their conservative opponents want to wreck the country.

However, in evaluating this wild and crazy situation, we should think about what C.S. Lewis once said: “When the whole world is running towards a cliff, he who is running in the opposite direction appears to have lost his mind.”

Trump and Project 2025 are trying to stop those running toward the cliff.

Biden yields to party’s demands and withdraws from the race

July 30, 2024

In convincing President Joe Biden to abandon his fierce determination to run for a second term, the Democrats demonstrated how they work to “save our democracy” by using a highly undemocratic method to persuade him to step aside, and to choose his replacement. This left Democrat voters wondering what happened to their ability to select who will be their party’s candidate.

This action prompted many to say that if the party believes Biden cannot adequately serve another term, he is therefore fit to complete his current term. And the idea of replacing him as president is still being bandied about.

After convincing Biden to step aside, they next undemocratically anointed Vice President Kamala Harris as the new candidate, at Biden’s urging.

And now Harris has her honeymoon period to see if she can sway the voters to her side. Early indications are that she is successfully proceeding down that path. Time will tell, as the anti-Harris movement gears up.

Vowing to work his final few months as the president, Biden outlines his effort to make changes affecting the U.S. Supreme Court through an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This amendment is a serious matter, as it makes significant changes to the Court as originally established. Biden’s plan includes proposals for legislation to impose term limits for the justices and an ethics code with an enforcement feature, according to sources.

He is also reportedly considering calling for a constitutional amendment to eliminate broad immunity for presidents and other constitutional officeholders, which could have a negative effect on how people perform in those positions, knowing that their best efforts may not be protected.

In considering Harris for this critically important job, her performance in previous positions is important. 

“When she ran for San Francisco district attorney in 2003, she beat incumbent Terence Hallinan in a nonpartisan runoff by running to his right, attacking Hallinan for not being tough enough on crime, while also courting the police union, with whom Hallinan had run afoul,” Politico reported.

“Yet when the Los Angeles Times profiled her a year into her term it referred to Harris not as a tough-on-crime crusader but as being “in the vanguard of progressive reformers who say that California’s criminal justice system is in dire need of drastic change,” the Politico story continued. Her desires at the time included defunding the police. As a prosecutor, she was criminal friendly, and unconcerned about their victims.

Having served as San Francisco's district attorney, and then as California's attorney general, Harris opposed the death penalty for harsh crimes, but took a hard line against banks over home foreclosures. She also prosecuted parents of children who skipped school, but declined the death penalty of a man who had killed a police officer.

While her record in California has earned her the “soft on crime” descriptor, she prefers “smart on crime.” Apparently, this has to do with her penchant for politically motivated policies. Citing her policy contradictions, some critics call her a “shapeshifter” whose ideology is flexible. They say she is someone willing to change her mind quickly as the political moment requires.

Seeking the presidential nomination in 2020, she supported two major progressive legislative building blocks: the radical Green New Deal and the tremendously expensive and socialistic Medicare for All. 

She is somewhat wishy-washy in supporting Israel in the war in Gaza. Harris has been “pushing for a more sympathetic policy toward Palestinians,” according to Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.).

Harris has few if any restrictions on abortion rights. “She has been the most effective voice when it comes to abortion justice … health-care justice, student debt cancellation, the racial wealth gap,” said Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.).

And as a U.S. Senator she is regarded as the most left-radical of all, even more so than Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist.

Her most notable and most catastrophic role is as our “Border Czar.” Suddenly, Democrats and the liberal media are jumping up and down in denial of her having that title.

However, Biden said that Harris was “leading the effort to coordinate with Mexico and other Northern Triangle nations to address issues such as the surge of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border” in a March 24, 2021 video.

According to Politico, Biden had made Harris the "point person on immigration issues." 

"Biden tasks Harris with 'stemming the migration' on southern border," NBC News reported. A headline from the Associated Press read, "Biden taps VP Harris to lead response to border challenges."

While her official title regarding her responsibilities at the border may not have been “Border Czar,” she was clearly placed in charge of the border and its issues. And the millions who have crossed into the country illegally, and the deaths and other harm done to Americans are certainly connected directly to her.

Other favorites ideas of hers are: eliminate fracking, decriminalize illegal immigration, free healthcare for illegal immigrants, student loan cancellation, eliminate private healthcare, infanticide, oppose school choice, oppose Title IX, defund the police, dismantle ICE, support sanctuary cities, nationwide gun registration, and oppose parental rights.

Harris remains relatively unknown to most Americans.  However, if elected she will be a worse president than Joe Biden.

“That Was the Week That Was,” and this time it’s not satire

July 23, 2024

“That Was the Week That Was,” also known as “TWTWTW” or “TW3,” was a satirical television comedy program that aired on BBC Television in 1962 and 1963, and an American version aired on NBC in 1964 and 1965. 

What we have just witnessed was a highly notable week, not unlike those featured on TW3, in terms of their attracting attention. But these are notable not for their satirical value but for their serious nature and impending results.

The first of those is that as the Republican National Convention grew nearer, Donald Trump ended the weeks of speculation about who his running mate would be by selecting J.D. Vance, a U.S. Senator from Ohio.

Vance, who has been in the Senate less than two years, is a bit of a controversial choice. A Marine Corps veteran who turns 40 next month, he “would be the third-youngest U.S. vice president if elected. He has a history of hard-line positions on issues such as abortion. And he has a reputation for hot rhetoric,” NBC News reported. Interestingly, not so long ago he was not a fan of Trump. 

His relative youth among the most prominent likely candidates is a notable move toward younger leadership.

Next, while many Americans, Democrats — including some highly prominent Democrats — thought Joe Biden should withdraw from the race, he stubbornly refused to step aside, although recent reports had said he was discussing that with his family. 

Then, on Sunday afternoon on X, formerly Twitter, Biden said that he will not be a candidate for reelection: “It has been the greatest honor of my life to serve as your President. And while it has been my intention to seek reelection, I believe that it is in the best interest of my party and the country for me to stand down and to focus solely on fulfilling my duties as President for the remainder of my term.”

Without Biden on the ticket, the Democrats have a serious problem: finding a replacement who has the necessary appeal to gain broad support.

Although she was endorsed by Biden, Kamala Harris’ performance as VP does not support her candidacy. As the so-called “Border Czar, she did nothing about the millions of illegals allowed into the country, and the resulting deaths of many Americans from illegal drugs, and criminal activities. And her penchant for cackling and word salads do not invite support. 

Next, a technology outage affected millions across the globe last Friday, leading to speculation that a cyber-attack had occurred. Instead, this event was blamed on a faulty software update by cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, a firm that provides software to thousands of companies worldwide.

CrowdStrike said the problem occurred when it deployed a software update for its security product, Falcon Sensor. Microsoft Windows computers crashed when trying to install the update. 

The outage grounded flights, knocked media outlets offline, disrupted hospitals, banks, hotels, manufacturers, stock markets and government offices. This calamity should focus everyone’s attention on the instability of a digitized world where so many users must rely on a relative few providers.

Completing the list is the most serious of the group: The attempted assassination of a former President of the United States, at a campaign rally.

While the attempt failed to kill Trump, leaving him with a fairly non-serious injury, one attendee was killed and two others were seriously wounded. And the question on most everyone’s mind is, how did a gunman manage to get into what should have been a highly secured event under control of the U.S. Secret Service (SS)? And exactly who is primarily responsible for this atrocious failure?

The broad answer to that question is that the SS is responsible. It was an event where it had the duty to protect a former president, and was therefore in charge.

And yet a young gunman was able to get on top of a nearby building — that should have been manned by or at least under surveillance of the SS or some designee of the SS — long enough in advance of the event to have been noticed and reported by witnesses. Yet warnings of this individual’s presence were either not effectively communicated, or were ignored.

It is widely accepted that there were at least two shooters present. A thorough audio investigation of the gunshots showed that there were at least three different weapons fired. The first three shots were fired by the 20-year-old gunman, and the first one hit Trump’s ear. Next were several shots from another gunman who at this point has not been identified.

The third weapon to be fired was that of a SS sniper who shot and killed the 20-year-old shooter.

U.S. Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle has avoided questioning about the matter, and those few comments she has made indicate that she has no clue what was going on, and what protections should have been in place. Perhaps she, too, will step aside, or be removed and replaced with someone competent.

This episode is yet one more dramatic failure of the Biden/Harris administration, which includes dangerous the border crisis, the catastrophic Afghanistan withdrawal, record high inflation, a national energy crisis, our falling reputation among other countries, among others.

The reaction from nearly everyone has been appropriate so far

July 16, 2024

Donald Trump’s recent crazy trial filled with questionable legal actions, and the classified documents charge that was filed against Trump, while Biden’s documents crimes have not been charged, is curious. They support the idea that Trump’s enemies will go to great lengths to prevent him from being elected for a second term as our president.

And then last Saturday gunfire erupts at a Trump rally in Pennsylvania. Trump is injured, one spectator is dead, and two others are injured. And the shooter is shot and killed by the Secret Service.

Was this one more effort to prevent Trump from being re-elected? So far, there has been no motive established. It could have been politically motivated, or it could have been just one more idiot wanting to kill some people. However, it appears to have been an effort to assassinate Donald Trump. He was hit by the first shot, although, blessedly, it only grazed his ear. Had the bullet’s trajectory been an inch to the right, it would likely have killed him.

The reaction from nearly everyone is just as it should be: This should not have happened in America, and good wishes were expressed for Trump. This attitude comes not only from Trump supporters, but from many Democrats such as President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and former House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, and California Gov. Gavin Newsome.

Biden, who called Trump and talked with him, said in a nationally televised statement “Look, there’s no place in America for this kind of violence. It’s sick. It’s sick. It’s one of the reasons why we have to unite this country. We cannot allow for this to be happening. We cannot be like this. We cannot condone this.”

Of course, this is not the first time a president has been shot at. Trump became the seventh American president or former president to have been shot at and killed or wounded. Four were killed: Abraham Lincoln, James A. Garfield, William McKinley, and John F. Kennedy. And three were wounded: Theodore Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, and Donald Trump. 

Six were Republicans, and only Roosevelt and Trump were not in office when they were shot. And there have been other attempts to assassinate presidents, but fortunately, they failed.

We are currently in an extremely politically divided time. And the division is very bitter. The battle between Biden and Trump is particularly rough. And we find that Trump’s opponents frequently use personal attacks, rather than criticisms of the policies he supports for the country.

Vice President Kamala Harris condemned Trump for being a leader who “incites hate.” “Someone who vilifies immigrants, who promotes xenophobia, who stokes hate and who incites fear should never again have the chance to stand behind a microphone. And never again have the chance to stand behind the seal of the president of the United States of America,” she said. And one more, for good measure: “Donald Trump wants to turn our democracy into a dictatorship,”

While Speaker of the House, Pelosi said that the Trump administration is an "existential threat to our democracy."

“He is the greatest threat to our democracy in our history”: said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.

Biden himself has said, “Trump’s assault on democracy isn’t just part of his past … It’s what he is promising for the future.” And, “This election, your freedom, your democracy, America itself is at stake now, folks.” And earlier this week, he said, “We’re done talking about the debate. It’s time to put Trump in a bullseye.” Hmmm. Interesting.

Former Trump Attorney General William Barr, who had his disagreements with Trump, actually took Trump’s side on this issue. He said that "the Democrats have to stop their grossly irresponsible talk about Trump being an existential threat to democracy. He is not." 

Saying that America is a “democracy” is a favorite Democrat tactic. America is not, never has been, and was never intended to be a democracy. It is a constitutional republic that subscribes to democratic principles, but is designed so that public authority is derived entirely from the people, not a select group.

Do Democrats believe that old adage that if something is repeated often enough, people will believe it? And once they believe it, their party can rule the country for eternity?

Also, while both sides do get personal in campaigns, and while there may be some benefit for doing that, what serves the country best is to leave the juvenile personal attacks behind, and deal with ideas and policies. What is good for the country must be the main consideration of both political parties, always. Even Biden has called for a return to civility.

But most important: While the Secret Service did a wonderful job protecting Trump after shots were fired, it needs to explain why a gunman was able to get on the roof of that nearby building. And why did the authorities not do something about that when told that someone was there? 

This gigantic failure resulted in the death of an innocent observer, and could have been the death of a former president.

Many Americans do not understand the purpose of the Supreme Court

July 9, 2024

In the recently ended term of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court rendered some decisions that have a lot of people upset. They believe that their political/ideological perspective should be the way of life for all. And when the Court’s rulings do not follow that line of thinking, the Court has made a terrible and unforgiveable mistake.

The reaction of some of these people is that one or more of the justices should be impeached, and/or the Court must be packed with additional justices who hold political/ideological beliefs that align with theirs, and will rule accordingly, resulting in politically satisfying decisions.

This position is far removed from the original intent and purpose of the Court. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the law. Its job is to ensure the promise of equal justice under the law and it also functions as guardian and interpreter of the U.S. Constitution.

Here is information from Justia online regarding the function of the Supreme Court: “Article III of the U.S. Constitution outlines the scope of judicial power. Under Section 2, the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts may hear cases arising under the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties made under their authority, among other matters. 

“With a few exceptions, the Supreme Court is limited to appellate jurisdiction, reviewing cases previously heard by other courts. Federal courts may hear only actual, ongoing cases or controversies, which means that someone bringing a claim must have ‘standing’ to sue. In general, they must have suffered a concrete injury for which a court can provide an effective remedy.

“One of the most important and frequently exercised powers of federal courts does not appear in the text of Article III. This is the power of judicial review. Barely a decade into its history, the Supreme Court asserted in Marbury v. Madison that it holds the power to determine whether a legislative or executive action is constitutional. Many of the most famous Supreme Court decisions have relied implicitly on the notion that the Court is the ultimate interpreter of the founding document.

“On the other hand, the Court has developed a doctrine of judicial restraint in the area of ‘political questions.’ The six factors outlined in Baker v. Carr largely define this doctrine, which is based on the idea that courts should remain aloof from politics. Thus, a federal court should decline to hear a case that presents an issue heavily laden with political implications.”

Now, those who disagree with the Court’s recent decision on presidential immunity, and other similarly unpopular decisions, will claim that the immunity issue is rife with political implications. But the important factor is that the decision protects the actions of presidents of any and all political persuasions, not one in particular. These days, nearly everything has political implications, but that was not the issue of the immunity decision. It was a question of Constitutional intent regarding the actions of presidents while in office.

The judicial branch, of which the U.S. Supreme Court is a part, is the only one of the three branches of our government in which no one is elected. The president and vice president in the executive branch are elected, and the members of the two houses of the Congress are elected in the legislative branch.

Those seeking one of those positions run for president/vice president, the Senate or the House of Representatives on a platform of things they support and oppose. But future federal judges and justices do not campaign for, or run for a seat on a court, let alone have a platform of things they support and oppose that they will exercise if selected for a seat. Judges and justices are expected to be politically and ideologically neutral. The law is supposed to be applied without prejudice or preference.

Those chosen for a seat in a federal court are there not to please Republicans, Democrats, or any group. They are there to interpret the Constitution and laws of the nation as they were written and intended to be understood without political bias or interest.

Imagine if the Democrats were somehow able to gain total control of the government. How would the non-Democrats feel about their country, if they were forced to live under the dictates of the Democrats, many of whose rules they would strongly dislike, and which might have serious negative effects on them? 

And then, what if in a few years the Republicans somehow managed to take control, and force their ideas on the country. How would the non-Republicans like that?

That is the reason the federal court system, and indeed, all of our courts, must be politically neutral and maintain America’s pledge and history of being the one place on the planet that guarantees its people fairness and the greatest amount of personal freedom in the history of mankind.

And each of us must take a deep breath whenever the Supreme Court, or any court, makes a ruling with which we disagree, and move on. And if a change is desired, we must make those changes through the proper processes, and not through brute force.