Democrats can’t achieve their extremist goals with system our Founders created

May 24, 2022

A recent newspaper column did a wonderful job of illustrating the lengths to which the Left will go in trying to achieve its goals. The writer’s name is not important, because the writer is not the topic here. The topic is the dreadful thought process used by the writer in creating this misrepresentation of U.S. Senator Steve Daines’ comment. 

Such shenanigans are pretty common. The Left often does similar things to shift the focus away from actual issues.

The column began: “Sen. Steve Daines from Montana compared women to reptiles, pregnant sea turtles to be exact. No, seriously.”

Quoting Daines, the writer continued. “’Why do we have laws in place to protect the eggs of sea turtles, or the eggs of eagles?’ he thundered. ‘Because when you destroy an egg, you’re killing a pre-born baby sea turtle.’”

The writer then explains the process sea turtles follow to travel to the proper place to lay their eggs, where they will mature and hatch in 60 days. The writer then noted that women do not have to go through such a protracted process, as if that has anything to do with Daines’ point.

The writer exhibits several significant issues. First and foremost, he/she missed — or more likely, deliberately avoided — Daines’ point, then spent a lot of time writing about the wrong topic. 

Daines did not compare women to reptiles. He contrasted the degree to which turtle and other animal progeny are protected by law with the lack of that protection for not-yet-born human babies.

What Daines did do was pose the matter of why unborn sea turtles are protected by law from interference by people, but unborn children are not.

The writer most likely could not provide a sensible defense of the concern Daines’ brought up, so he/she spent time trying to focus readers’ attention away from that issue. The true purpose of this article was nothing more than to ridicule Daines’ defense of the unborn. Shameful.

                                                                   * * *

What we often find as tools of the Left are such things as outrage; claims of racism, white privilege, and/or white supremacy; defensiveness; and threats of protest or violence. These tactics are designed to affect the emotions of those on both sides of an issue, and they deliberately avoid using logic.

The white 18-year-old accused killer of 10 people at a mostly black retail outlet was termed a “racist.” That is totally appropriate in this case. He was also called a “white supremacist” by the President of the United States, and others.

What is a “white supremacist?”  “A person who believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races,” according to Merriam-Webster. And recent stories about the accused murderer show that he actually holds white supremacist views. 

No doubt he is not the only such person in the country. But is white supremacy really a threat? Or, is that just a Leftist effort to fire up their crowd by exaggerating a relatively small number of people into a real threat?

Calling someone a racist works. It often arouses negative emotions toward that person, as well as others who look like or hold similar beliefs as the targeted person. Throwing around the term “white supremacy” serves the same purpose.

Some of the far Left’s tactics are extremely radical, and some even un-American. That’s because they are unable to easily achieve their extremist goals using the system our Founders created. Because they can’t muster enough support to get their nation transforming goals accomplished through proper methods, they are forced to use other means.

They want to stack the Supreme Court with like-thinking justices so that the Court will support their agenda. The “stacking” process will put the current conservative — or non-activist — justices in the minority. They want to end the Senate filibuster so that the minority party — in this case, Republicans — will no longer have a way to protect the country from their radical ideas.

Speaking of the Supreme Court, when Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion regarding Roe v. Wade was improperly leaked, the Left immediately flew into a rage. They believed that if the Court voted to overturn this previous decision, it would mean the end of abortions in America. 

That’s wrong. It would not end abortion, it would merely move the decisions on abortion to the individual states, where it belongs, and away from the Supreme Court, where it does not belong.

Nevertheless, the Left then decided to try to “persuade” those justices who were expected to vote to overturn a faulty ruling to change their minds by having organized protests at their homes. 

It is highly improper to attempt to influence a Supreme Court justice or a judge in doing his/her job. But more importantly, it is against federal law. 

Yet, those with the authority and responsibility to enforce the laws against intimidating the justices, such as U. S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Department of Justice, have failed to do the job.

There is a great deal of failure to enforce laws these days. And that, too, is a feature of Leftist/“progressive” politics.  

How is Biden’s “Build Back Better” plan working out for you?

May 17, 2022

The administration of President Joe Biden continues to rack up mistake after mistake, leaving him with approval ratings well below 50 percent.

Earlier missteps include the debacle in rushing out of Afghanistan, leaving 183 people dead, including 13 American military personnel, abandoning thousands of Afghani allies and Americans trapped there, and leaving behind a fortune in military equipment, which is now in the hands of the Taliban. 

Then there is the situation at the southern border allowing tens of thousands of illegal immigrants to enter the country, and the federal government going after parents who dare to speak up about their children’s education.

As Russia announced its intention to invade Ukraine without provocation, and then did it, the United States twiddled its thumbs and gave only weak support to Ukraine. Now we find Russia destroying parts of that nation and killing civilians with abandon, and many countries are still buying their oil and gas from Russia. 

This obviously helps Russian President Vladimir Putin at a time when hurting him is in order. And the U.S., as a net exporter of energy, could have helped in this effort by supplanting Russia as the preferred provider of energy sources to those countries.

But Biden, as one of the first acts he performed after taking the oath of office, undid the acts of Donald Trump that made the U.S. a net exporter of energy after years of being dependent upon other countries.

The economy is still struggling, and the struggle is getting more difficult.  The Bureau of Economic Analysis estimated that real GDP declined at an annual rate of 1.4 percent for the first quarter of 2022. Columnist Cal Thomas wrote last week that “Today the inflation rate is 8.5 percent, up from 7.9 percent in February and the largest year-over-year rise since 1982.”

Thomas continued, “On Tuesday, President Biden was in Ohio to announce his plan to fight inflation. His remarks were like blaming your credit card for excessive spending.”

He also noted that Biden claimed that the deficit has been reduced by his administration, although the $30 trillion debt has not been reduced. This claim, Thomas said, “has been fact-checked by several news organizations and the Congressional Budget Office and found to be mostly untrue.”

“And just as with the current widespread inflation in prices of food, energy, and other essentials,” wrote Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Va., “lower-income households can be hit hardest by surging formula prices. The U.S. Surgeon General’s office estimates that families typically spend $1,200 to $1,500 on infant formula in the first year.”

Griffith noted that the acute formula shortage was not unexpected. “Out-of-stock rates have been climbing for months. Furthermore, the formula manufacturer Abbott Nutrition shut down its factory in Sturgis, Michigan, and recalled some of its products in February after reports of hospitalizations and deaths of infants. These actions reduced supply.”

Yet, “the Biden Administration appears to have been taken by surprise, just as it has with most of the other crises taking place under its watch,” he continued.

While mothers struggle to find formula available at their normal retail locations, pallets of baby formula are being sent to the Mexican border, according to a Facebook video posted by Rep. Kat Cammack, R-Fla.

“Empty shelves in America but full shelves at the border. Biden is sending pallets of baby formula to the border. This is what ‘America last’ looks like,” Cammack said. A photo she said was sent to her by a Border Patrol agent at the Ursula processing facility in Texas showed what the agent said was baby formula provided for illegal immigrants. The agent’s comment about this “disgusting” development was, “you will not believe this.”

And now that one social media platform is perhaps on its way to restoring uncensored speech, we have the federal government creating a department to focus on “disinformation” named the “Disinformation Governance Board” (DGB) within the Department of Homeland Security. Knowing whose administration created this and who will run the DGB makes one wonder if its name indicates it will be responsible for the creation and distribution of disinformation, or for finding and correcting disinformation.

Either way, this is not a proper function of a government agency in a country where speech — both favored speech and unfavored speech — is constitutionally protected.

What better way to overcome the freeing up of material posted on Twitter than to have a “respected” government agency labeling “unfavored speech” as “disinformation?”

Each of us is, and must be, responsible to collect ideas on matters of importance, consider all ideas, select those we believe and support them, without the “help” of the government, unless government actually helps by guaranteeing that all ideas are available to us.

As author and professor Jordan Peterson has said, “Free speech is not just another value. It’s the foundation of western civilization.”

And, how can the White House and the Department of Justice ignore the illegal mob rule attempts to intimidate Justices of the Supreme Court?

Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., commented, "I don't mean to be uncharitable but sometimes I think President Biden just doesn't eat enough fiber" … “after 14 months, nothing is built, nothing is back, and nothing is better.”

Will the United States Supreme Court correct a previous error?

 

May 10, 2022

The United States Supreme Court is currently reviewing a case that may reverse Roe v. Wade, which the History website explains “was a landmark legal decision issued on January 22, 1973, in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas statute banning abortion, effectively legalizing the procedure across the United States. The court held that a woman’s right to an abortion was implicit in the right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.”

The History website also explains that “In May 2022, the nation's highest court agreed to hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, regarding the constitutionality of a Mississippi law banning most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The case presents a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade.”

The news broke when a draft opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito was leaked to and published by Politico. This draft opinion, secretly and wrongly provided by someone associated with the Court, has started two huge reactions. 

One reaction is outrage that the decision beloved by abortion supporters may be reversed. The other is disgust and anger that the leak has damaged the integrity of the Court as never before in its history, and that it was done by someone on the inside.

"We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Alito wrote. “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives."

He also wrote that while defenders of Roe point to the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to justify the decision, they are mistaken, CNN reported.

“In the draft, Alito batted away arguments that other provisions of the Constitution dealing with privacy or liberty might be relied upon to uphold a right to an abortion,” the network’s story continued.

“That's because, according to Alito, while the Due Process Clause might guarantee some rights that aren't mentioned explicitly in [the] Constitution, such rights have to be ‘deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition. The right to abortion does not fall within this category,’ he said.”

Alito went on to say that Roe was "egregiously wrong" from the start and its reasoning is "exceptionally weak," CNN reported.

His conclusion was that the issue must be decided by the states, not the Supreme Court. "That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand," he wrote. "Our Nation's historical understanding of ordered liberty does not prevent the people's elected representatives from deciding how abortion should be regulated," he added.

Paul Stark, writing for Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (mccl.org) on Jan 20, 2017, provided three reasons why Roe was an improper ruling.

“First, and most importantly, the outcome of Roe is harmful and unjust. Why? The facts of embryology show that the human embryo or fetus (the being whose life is ended in abortion) is a distinct and living human organism at the earliest stages of development. ‘Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, a zygote,’ explains a leading embryology textbook. ‘This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.’"

“The second problem with Roe is that it is an epic constitutional mistake. Justice Harry Blackmun's majority opinion claimed that the ‘right of privacy’ found in the ‘liberty’ protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is ‘broad enough to encompass’ a fundamental right to abortion. There is no reason to think that's true.”

“Third, Roe is undemocratic. Roe and Doe v. Bolton together struck down the democratically decided abortion laws of all 50 states and replaced them with a nationwide policy of abortion-for-any-reason, whether the people like it or not. Of course, the Court may properly invalidate statutes that are inconsistent with the Constitution (which is the highest law). But Roe lacked any such justification.”

A National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) factsheet estimates that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, "18 states would protect unborn children immediately." This is due to laws implemented prior to the Roe ruling, or “trigger” laws that would go into effect upon Roe’s reversal, or both.

The NRLC also estimates that action to “allow abortion either through legislatively-enacted statute or a court ruling interpreting the state constitution to convey the right to abortion” would occur in 23 states. 

The leaked document predictably has liberals and conservatives blaming each other. PBS online said, “Republican members of Congress are suggesting a sinister left-wing plot to derail the outcome of the final decision. Liberals are alleging machinations from the right to lock the justices into their preliminary vote.”

Regardless of who leaked the opinion and why, this is a serious problem for the Court, which has been immune to such scurrilous behavior, thus far.

Chief Justice John Roberts called the act “absolutely appalling.” Appearing at the 11th Circuit Judicial Conference in Atlanta, Roberts said he hoped “one bad apple” would not affect “people’s perception” of the Court, adding that “the person” or “people” who leaked the document are “foolish” if they think it will affect the courts work.

Put abortion in the hands of the states, and punish the leaker accordingly.

Elon Musk buys Twitter, pledging to provide free speech for all

May 3, 2022

Another comment labeled it “racist” for Musk to own Twitter. And 16 “stars” of various types have said they will leave Twitter. Many of these are among those who said they were moving to Canada when Donald Trump was elected President.

On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” prior to Musk’s offer for Twitter being accepted, co-anchor Mika Brzezinski called his attempted takeover a "very dangerous precedent." On that same program, Business Insider columnist Linette Lopez’ column was mentioned, the title of which is, “Elon Musk's attempt to buy Twitter represents a chilling new threat: Billionaire trolls taking over social media."

Perhaps Lopez is unaware that the co-founder and former CEO of Twitter, Jack Dorsey, who is apparently not disliked or feared, is himself a billionaire, as is Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. 

Interesting that the Twitterites are so afraid of Musk opening their former platform to actual free speech — which Musk has declared he will do — as opposed to the “free speech” as determined and restricted by the Twitter Lefties.

On the brighter side of this event, it was reported on Facebook Messenger by “Chicks on the Right” that “Donald Trump Jr. and many other conservatives noticed they gained a massive number of new followers on Twitter shortly after Musk’s takeover of the company.” Apparently, when Twitter employees knew their work of hassling and censoring conservatives was done, they removed restrictions on these accounts, and hundreds of thousands of people desiring connections were able to connect.

The “Chicks” reported that “Trump Jr. gained 87,296 new followers by Tuesday and another 119,022 by Wednesday morning.” “Conservative radio host Dana Loesch gained 22,163 followers. Tucker Carlson gained more than 141,000. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene saw her followers grow by more than 130,000. Podcast host Joe Rogan’s follower count exploded by nearly 135,000 and Texas Senator Ted Cruz gained more than 112,000.”

Let's keep in mind that Musk has said he will open Twitter up to comments from all political elements, and will not censor any particular perspective, unlike the previous Twitter operators, who claimed to remove misinformation and disinformation while actually providing it.

Twitter permanently suspended still-President Donald Trump in early January of 2021. And in October of 2020, Twitter censored the New York Post. The Post is one of the oldest newspapers in the nation, founded by Alexander Hamilton in 1801. Twitter censored its exposés about Hunter Biden’s emails, baselessly charging that “hacked materials” were used. The Post story has been confirmed to have been accurate, not misinformation.

In a supportive comment about the Twitter sale that surprised many of us, former CEO Dorsey commented that "Twitter as a company has always been my sole issue and my biggest regret. It has been owned by Wall Street and the ad model. Taking it back from Wall Street is the correct first step."

In earlier comments, Musk has been outspoken about his desire to promote free speech on Twitter, saying that he is “against censorship that goes far beyond the law.”

He said, free speech is essential for a democracy. “Twitter has become kind of the de facto town square. So, it’s just really important that people have both the reality and the perception that they’re able to speak freely within the bounds of the law.”

According to UK’s The Guardian, Musk commented, “For Twitter to deserve public trust it must be politically neutral, which effectively means upsetting the far right and the far left equally.” 

And Musk has argued that his changes would affect all users. “Attacks are coming thick and fast, primarily from the left, which is no surprise,” he said. “However, I should be clear that the right will probably be a little unhappy, too. My goal is to maximize area under the curve of total human happiness, which means the [roughly] 80 percent of people in the middle.”

The First Amendment was first for a reason: because all of what follows depends upon what is in it. And, as African-American social reformer, abolitionist, orator, writer, and statesman Frederick Douglass said, “To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.”

This piece of common sense, and the founding principle of free speech, is poison to the success of the Left’s pursuit of socialist goals.

What the Left doesn’t know — or just doesn’t like — is that a free state depends upon the people having differing opinions about what is going on. But the goals of the Left are quite difficult to achieve when their arguments are forced to stand up against contrary opinions.

Only with a completely open dialogue can the American people be adequately informed to understand what is happening and make sound decisions about critical issues.

The Russian war with Ukraine has now entered its third month

April 26, 2022

On February 24th, the unprovoked invasion of a peaceful country began, after months of open preparations by the Russians, with little real action from the rest of the world to deter it. Yes, some sanctions were imposed, but they were fairly mild ones. Most other actions had more to do with preparing to defend NATO countries, in the event that they also came under attack.

Only after the invasion began did real assistance for Ukraine begin, and even now more could and should be done. Some of the most effective defensive weapons requested by Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenski have yet to be provided.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has claimed that his goal in attacking Ukraine was to “demilitarize” and “denazify” that nation, as if Ukraine was threat to Russia. He also fears Ukraine being admitted to NATO, something NATO had never expressed interest in, prior to the invasion.

Vlad the Invader, a former KGB officer, has wanted to restore Russia’s position in the world since becoming the country’s leader in 1999, it is said. The former communist Soviet Union’s collapse was completed in 1991, and Putin has previously stated the desire to rebuild the former Russian empire. 

This has left many with the idea that if the effort to conquer Ukraine succeeds, other nations that were once part of the former communist state will be targets for future action.

In his evil resolve to conquer Ukraine, Putin’s forces have murdered and injured thousands of innocent civilians, including hundreds of children, and destroyed hundreds of buildings, including medical facilities, civilian housing and other non-military targets.

As reported by the United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, a total of 2,435 civilians have been killed (844 males, 518 females, as well as 70 children and 1,036 adults whose sex is yet unknown). And, a total of 2,946 injured (407 males, 339 females, as well as 157 children and 2,041 adults whose sex is yet unknown).

The damage to the cities that have thus far been attacked is enormous and the innocent lives the Russians have wiped out is unforgiveable. Most have been unidentified and buried in mass graves, since the continued violence prevents having normal funerals for them. These actions truly constitute genocide. That Putin and his military personnel have committed war crimes and deserve the harshest punishment for them is inarguable. 

Most of the American people do not want the U.S. in another war, and almost none want to see another world war, so U.S. forces being involved is not going to happen. 

Even fewer people want a nuclear war. And Putin has made good use of rattling the nuclear weapons saber in a successful effort to use the fear of his resorting to nuclear weapons to control and reduce assistance to Ukraine’s defensive efforts.

Things the U.S. and other countries could have done prior to the invasion, or could do now, were and are being withheld or soft-pedaled so as to not further provoke Putin. But is the world so scared of Putin’s possible use of nuclear weapons that it will allow him do anything he pleases? Or, is there a line in the sand that will at some point spark a strong response?

At some point, some brave country or group of countries will have to step up and say, “Enough!” And through their might and determination put an end to the Russian terrorism. Whether Putin is willing to suffer the enormous damage Russia would experience in an enlarged war, even if he ultimately wins, is not known. So far, he has not been fazed by the broad disapproval for Russia’s actions in Ukraine.

There are two possible future prospects for Ukraine that are currently being discussed. One is continuing to help the brave and able Ukrainians defend themselves and ultimately defeat the Russians. The other is to work much harder to bring an end to the conflict through negotiations and a peace treaty.

By following the first of those choices, the war will continue, more people will be murdered, and more destruction will be delivered by the vicious Russian military. Success in this endeavor will take much broader and much stronger support from the U.S. and other countries than has been provided thus far. And some observers say that this struggle could last more than another year.

The second choice will save lives and property, but Putin will almost certainly demand that Ukraine cede some of its land to him, helping him in his plan to rebuild the former empire. Giving up Ukrainian land is something Zelenski has thus far refused to allow, or even discuss. And it is doubtful that giving in to Putin’s demands will discourage his dream of restoring the former Russian empire, and therefore we can expect more of the same murderous behavior by Russia, even if a treaty is reached.

And perhaps the greatest failure is that it will not deliver the harsh justice for the genocide that Putin and his Russian henchmen have caused that they so richly deserve.