“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. 

The Biden-Trump debate was certainly an eye-opening experience

July 2, 2024

Last week we saw what Republicans, conservatives and those who don’t favor Joe Biden winning the election in November have been saying for a good while. The debate between President Joe Biden and former-President Donald Trump was such a stark demonstration of Biden’s troubled mental state that his Democrat supporters and media supporters are now saying publicly that he should drop out as the Democrat candidate.

The televised debate showed that the deceivers are those in the media, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, and others who accused Biden critics of presenting false evidence of his mental decline by editing videos to show him losing his train of thought, mis-speaking, and wandering around aimlessly.

There for everyone to see on live TV — not just in this country, but across the globe — was Biden revealing his troubled mental state, and showing everyone not just why he must not be re-elected, but also the danger he currently poses as President of the United States.

Biden supporters in the media immediately reacted to his poor performance, with the following comments from some of them.

A former Obama adviser, one who knows Biden close up, Van Jones, who now is a CNN political commentator spoke from a personal viewpoint. "I just want to speak from my heart," Jones said. "I love that guy. That’s a good man. He loves his country. He’s doing the best that he can, but he had a test to meet tonight to restore confidence of the country and of the base. And he failed to do that. And there’s a lot of people who are going to want to see him consider taking a different course now."

Addressing what happens next, Jones said, "We’re still far from our convention, and there is time for this party to figure out a different way forward, if he will allow us to do that. But that was not what we needed from Joe Biden, and it’s personally painful for a lot of people. It’s not just panic, it’s pain of what we saw tonight." 

Columnist Thomas Friedman, who is reportedly a close friend of the President, wrote a column bearing the headline, "Joe Biden Is a Good Man and a Good President. He Must Bow Out of the Race."

"I watched the Biden-Trump debate alone in a Lisbon hotel room, and it made me weep. I cannot remember a more heartbreaking moment in American presidential campaign politics in my lifetime — precisely because of what it revealed: Joe Biden, a good man and a good president, has no business running for re-election," he wrote. 

"The Biden family and political team must gather quickly and have the hardest of conversations with the president, a conversation of love and clarity and resolve," Friedman continued. "To give America the greatest shot possible of deterring the Trump threat in November, the president has to come forward and declare that he will not be running for re-election and is releasing all of his delegates for the Democratic National Convention."

MSNBC’s Joy Reid had the following reaction: "The people who were texting with me were very concerned about President Biden seeming extremely feeble, seeming extremely weak. Joe Biden’s job was to reassure them tonight. His job was to calm his party, to make them feel that, ‘Yes, I can do this. I have four more years in me. I have the ability and the stamina and the strength to do four more' … He did not do that. He did the opposite of that."

The New York Times, an avid supporter of the Democrats and Joe Biden, published the position of its editorial board on Biden’s performance. "President Biden has repeatedly and rightfully described the stakes in this November’s presidential election as nothing less than the future of American democracy," the editorial said. "Mr. Biden has said that he is the candidate with the best chance of taking on this threat of tyranny and defeating it. His argument rests largely on the fact that he beat Mr. Trump in 2020. That is no longer a sufficient rationale for why Mr. Biden should be the Democratic nominee this year."

The Times is correct about the critical stakes in this year’s election. However, it has the matter of who is the threat to the country upside-down. It is Biden and the Democrats that represent tyranny and a threat to the future of our country, not Trump and the Republicans. 

The Democrats and socialists are who want to change history by pushing Critical Race Theory, and the 1619 Project. It is they that promote changing the names of buildings, streets and military bases with the “wrong” name from our history. It is they that want to pack the Supreme Court with liberal/socialist justices who will make law from the bench, and protect their one-party rule.

It is Trump and the Republicans who are, and who have been for years, fighting to sustain the America that our Founders created, which in its original form has led the world in so many good ways for so long. It is those on the right who want to protect the freedoms and independence provided to each of us in the Constitution.