Could the current political divide spell the end of the U.S

May 13, 2025

Douglas Murray is a British author, political commentator, cultural critic, and journalist, and his columns have appeared in a long list of publications, including the New York Post and National Review. 

Back in 2018 he created a video in which he said that “Europe is committing suicide.” He went on to explain that there were two major causes of Europe’s impending downfall.

The first, he said, “is the mass movement of peoples into Europe.” This process had been going on for a long time, “but sped up massively in the migration crisis of 2015, when more than a million migrants poured into Europe from the Middle East, North Africa and East Asia.”

The second major cause, which he said was equally significant, was “that Europe lost faith in itself — its beliefs, its traditions and even its very legitimacy.”

Given the current state of affairs here in the United States, Murray’s comments might also describe the suicidal tendencies we have here.

Our challenges have been going on since before the date that Murray first mentioned about Europe, 2015. And, like the European experience, they have increased markedly in recent years.

Like the European countries, the U.S. has seen a tremendous influx of people from other countries. Millions came across our open borders unvetted during the Biden administration. There were some good people, looking for a better life and escaping oppression. But there were thousands, or perhaps millions, who were drug and child traffickers, murderers, rapists, robbers and terrorists.

Over the last few decades the U.S., like Europe, has seen a gradual abandonment of its once strong history and culture.

We have seen persons in many areas forsake their solemn duties, favoring ideals that are not American ideals, and are dangerous to our future. 

Attorneys general and district attorneys refuse to prosecute many types of crimes. Mayors and municipal council members open their doors to illegal aliens, and protect them from being properly deported.

Many of the people we call educators put their professional integrity on the shelf and fail to present their students with a proper background of their country. They have done an equally bad job of teaching crucial basic concepts, like fundamental math, reading and writing. 

And many parents have likewise failed to teach their children about becoming a good American, respecting the law, the rights of others, and basic human behavior.

News organizations and journalists often see no problem with presenting “news” according to their political ideals, rather than abiding by journalistic principles.

Some medical professionals support and assist people in becoming the opposite gender, even children. And some in public education assist children in doing that, and hide that from their parents.

Members of Congress, Republican and Democrat, have recently been heard using what we used to call “cuss words” in their comments on the floor of the chambers. This sort of language, which is profane, is nearly always considered inappropriate, especially for formal settings like public appearances, media appearances, and public activities. 

And the frequency of violence in protests from groups with an ax to grind is shocking. What they are unable to achieve through persuasion with their ideas they try to achieve through force and violence.

Many of these activities are illegal, and all are certainly subversive to the established principles, values and culture of our country.

Politically, we have lost much ground. Many of us remember when Republicans and Democrats got along with each other, despite having different ideas about how to keep the country great, and even to improve it.

The current political discourse reflects the wide gulf in philosophy. One side wants to restore things while the other wants to change everything. The two sides talk to each other in sharp, cutting terms, rarely finding agreement on anything.

Roger Kimball, editor of The New Criterion, sees efforts to restore the previous state of things. He said that following the unsuccessful attempt to assassinate Donald Trump at a campaign rally last year there has been talk of restoration of the values and environment of the past. And that has picked up speed since Trump’s election and inauguration.

In a speech at Hillsdale College’s Blake Center for Faith and Freedom shortly after Trump took office in January, Kimball said, “We always hear about the ‘peaceful transfer of power’ when a new president takes office.

“The usual procedure is for the old crowd to vacate their positions while the new crowd slides in to take their places. The institutions remain inviolate. Nothing essential changes.”

But, he noted, Trump was not elected to preserve the upside-down status quo, but to make badly needed changes. Given the existing political divide as this process gets under way, there is fairly broad satisfaction on Trump’s side, but great fear and resistance on the other.

Whether the suicide that Murray talked about occurring in Europe will be the ultimate conclusion for America remains to be seen. Those who understand and appreciate the original unique design, individual freedom and other benefits of the American system are working hard to see that the shining city on the hill survives this attempted revolution.

America’s strengths are being weakened from the inside and dying

December 3, 2024

A major problem in America today is the abandonment of its traditions. The two-parent family is no longer the dominant feature it once was. The idea of citizenship, love of country, is less obvious these days. So many things have changed, as the culture of America devolves.

And one of the greatest of those is the honor and integrity that once accompanied some of our professions.

People in education too often no longer embrace and abide by traditional concepts and values. They often change what is done in classrooms without notifying parents, or going through official processes. Too often, schools teach what to think, rather than how to think, pushing certain concepts while hiding others.

News journalism once was a clear-cut process of reporting to the public what actually happened in news-worthy events. It didn’t hide relevant information. When reporting on a political topic, it did not take sides. And opinions were not expressed in news stories. The ideals of free speech and objectivity were respected and obeyed.

Yes, there is a place for opinions in journalism, but opinions must be clearly labeled, and not sneaked into news reporting to advance a particular point of view.

That sensible, honorable rule no longer exists for far too many people claiming to be journalists. News is largely no longer the process of keeping the people informed. Far too often news organizations are not providers of needed information, but sources of inducement to a particular way of thinking.

During the COVID frenzy lots of things were labeled as misinformation or false information, and were hidden from the public. However, many things that were labeled and withheld proved to be true and beneficial, and things presented as truth were found to be false.

Among topics where the opinions were hidden from the public were problems with the mRNA vaccine, the source of the COVID virus, and the issue of facemask use and uselessness.

The greatest and most harmful journalistic failures were in the realm of politics. Among those items, in addition to COVID censorship, were opposition to the Hunter Biden laptop story, the Steele dossier fiasco, and the Russian disinformation mess known as Russia Gate.

Social media sites also frequently banned certain pieces of information, claiming they were false. Sometimes this action, even though improper in a nation supporting free speech, was due to honest beliefs that the information was truly harmful. Other times — likely in the majority of cases — it was a politically motivated action, designed to prevent the spread of information contrary to the preferred narrative.

Neither of those are justification for the denial and restriction of the free expression of ideas guaranteed to us by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Even unpopular speech is defended by the free speech guarantee.

Workers at newspapers, magazines, radio and television stations and networks were also guilty of banning certain ideas.

Individuals yielding to political philosophy was often the problem. But there is a much deeper problem. Whereas some so-called journalists allowed political ideals into their work, because they hoped to convince the public more than they wanted to hold to their career integrity, others did the same thing for a different reason: they were trained that way, and believed they were acting appropriately.

There is a broad movement in academia away from the notion of objectivity. Jonathan Turley, a law professor at the George Washington University Law School and legal authority, addressed this in his new book, The Indispensable Right, dealing with the right to free speech guaranteed to us by the U.S. Constitution.

Turley wrote, “In journalism schools, professors now denounce objectivity’s place as the ‘supreme deity’ of American journalism.” One professor, Stanford’s Ted Glasser “has called for an end of objectivity in journalism as too constraining for reporters in seeking ‘social justice,’” he wrote.

This infection has spread from the classroom into the newsroom, as graduates enter the workforce, and join in with those who prefer political success to professional honor and personal integrity.

Speaking of this new view of journalism Turley wrote: “Reporters must serve as active interpreters in framing the news to convey what they view as the truth, including the suppression of opposing views on issues like climate change, the pandemic, or gender identity.” 

“In 2023, former Washington Post executive editor Leonard Downie, Jr. and former CBS News president Andrew Heyward released the results of their interviews with over seventy-five media leaders and concluded that objectivity is now considered reactionary and harmful,” Turley wrote, adding that “Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor in chief at the San Francisco Chronicle, said it plainly: ‘Objectivity has got to go.’” 

In his book, Turley follows up the discussion of the infection of journalistic principles with a similar infection of the field of law and interpretation of the Constitution and legal concepts.

In this context, the ideas and circumstances that brought about legal principles based upon the forces at work at the time they were implemented can now be ignored because “things have changed.” Laws and Constitutional principles can be changed at the whim of individuals rather than through established and necessary processes.

This line of thinking will not protect the freedoms Americans treasure and depend upon.

“Our democracy” works well as it was designed. Leave it alone!

October 29, 2024

The liberal faction in America has an annoying tendency to want to change everything that gets in the way of its drive for total control of the country that will last forever. 

This tendency includes such radical actions as packing the Supreme Court with liberal justices who will essentially ignore the basis for our laws and Constitution and ignore existing laws and the terms of the Constitution and substitute their political preferences, without going through required processes to make such changes.

They also would like to abolish the Senate filibuster that has played such an important part in preventing bad measures from getting easily passed in that body. 

The filibuster promotes compromise and protects the minority party’s voice and function. It also protects purposeful debate, which is the intended purpose of the Senate. And it provides a safeguard against political extremism and corporate influence.

And they want to abolish the Electoral College. Criticism of this element of the government includes that it is not a mechanism of direct democracy, or as a voice of the people, since it replaces the popular vote result with a different process. But the United States of America is not, and has never been a direct democracy. It is also called a weapon of slavery. But that has been effectively proven wrong. 

The Founders deliberately created the Electoral College as a mechanism of federalism. Federalism recognizes the states as important elements of the nation with a degree of control over what does and does not happen.

“Doing away with the Electoral College would breach our fidelity to the spirit of the Constitution, a document expressly written to thwart the excesses of majoritarianism,” in the opinion of John Samples, Vice President of the Cato Institute.

“First, we must keep in mind the likely effects of direct popular election of the president,” Samples wrote. “We would probably see elections dominated by the most populous regions of the country or by several large metropolitan areas.”

“Second, the Electoral College makes sure that the states count in presidential elections. As such, it is an important part of our federalist system — a system worth preserving. Historically, federalism is central to our grand constitutional effort to restrain power,” he wrote, “but even in our own time we have found that devolving power to the states leads to important policy innovations,” such as welfare reform.

Another opinion on the Electoral College’s importance comes from Allen Guelzo and James Hulme in, of all places, The Washington Post. “Abolishing the electoral college now might satisfy an irritated yearning for direct democracy, but it would also mean dismantling federalism. After that, there would be no sense in having a Senate (which, after all, represents the interests of the states), and further along, no sense even in having states, except as administrative departments of the central government. 

“Those who wish to abolish the electoral college ought to go the distance, and do away with the entire federal system and perhaps even retire the Constitution, since the federalism it was designed to embody would have disappeared.”

By the way, replacing the Constitution is a goal of more than a few of the political left in the country.

“Without the electoral college, there would be no effective brake on the number of ‘viable’ presidential candidates,” Guelzo and Hulme add. “Abolish it, and it would not be difficult to imagine a scenario where, in a field of a dozen micro-candidates, the ‘winner’ only needs 10 percent of the vote, and represents less than 5 percent of the electorate. And presidents elected with smaller and smaller pluralities will only aggravate the sense that an elected president is governing without a real electoral mandate.”

The number of people who do not understand the function of the Electoral College and its value to the nation is shockingly enormous. It has provided a high degree of stability in our presidential elections, and therefore must be left alone.

Guelzo and Hulme added that while the Electoral College appears to be an inefficient process to many, “the Founders were not interested in efficiency; they were interested in securing ‘the blessings of liberty.’ The Electoral College is, in the end, not a bad device for securing that.”

Recently, there has been much attention focused on and many references to “our democracy.” And there is so much finger-pointing at former President Donald Trump, and other Republicans and conservatives, accusing them of trying to harm or destroy the democracy. 

What is truly interesting, however, is how determined the liberal Democrats and Marxists are to dismantle our democratic processes piece by piece. A bright future for them is a country which they will control in perpetuity.

The references listed earlier — stacking the Supreme Court, ending the Senate filibuster, and abolishing the Electoral College — as well as making the District of Columbia and some US territories into states, are nothing more than mechanisms to alter our democratic republic, with its guarantees of personal freedom and high degree of state independence, and turn it into a direct democracy.

Converting our current very successful system into one where government has absolute control is not an improvement for the people. Only for some people.

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 meaning of laws or the Constitution should not be changed on a whim

June 4, 2024

Why is it that those on the left — liberals, socialists, Marxists, “progressives” — think that the ideas expressed in our laws and the Constitution are just suggestions, and their interpretation by judges and others in positions of authority can vary with the wind?

Do they really believe that words mean whatever anyone wants them to mean at any given time as political fervor and social preferences dictate? 

Well, yes, many of them believe that whatever their political motivation is at any moment is enough to justify changing the meaning of a law or a feature of our Constitution that was written years, decades, or even centuries ago.

Those written words were just ideas of the moment, they suggest, and everyone knows that ideas and circumstances change as time progresses. Therefore, the meaning of laws and the Constitution must be flexible enough to be understood as they want to understand them at any point in time.

And they want to get rid of anyone in any position who believes the contrary: that laws and the Constitution mean what they meant when they were created, and will continue to hold that meaning until they are properly changed by the appropriate processes.

In order to get the world organized to their liking, the leftists want to remove anyone from their official position that doesn’t follow the popular ideological line. Supreme Court Justices, for example, who follow the law and Constitution as written. They are “originalists,” or “judicial conservatives.”

Like umpires and referees, judges, justices, magistrates, etc., must not take sides in their work. They must not change the rules of the game during the game. They have the duty to apply the laws and terms of the Constitution as they were intended when created, without applying political or ideological bias. 

That point is frequently missed by some observers who instead want their personal beliefs to prevail in such matters, despite what the intent of the measure in question may be.

But the interpretations of our Constitution and existing law must be based upon the circumstances that prevailed at the time they were created, and that those circumstances were why these laws and Constitutional provisions were created to begin with.

If the original circumstances that were the basis of a law or a feature of the Constitution no longer exist, if things have changed substantially, then the law can be repealed, or the Constitution can be amended as needed. But until those actions take place, the laws and Constitution must be followed as written, and as intended. The leftists prefer to consider the U.S. Constitution a “living document,” the meanings of which ebb and flow with the tide of time.

This concept was dealt with in an article by United States Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch titled, “Why Originalism Is the Best Approach to the Constitution.” 

In this article, he addresses some specific instances. However, we will focus on the primary meaning: “Originalism teaches only that the Constitution’s original meaning is fixed; meanwhile, of course, new applications of that meaning will arise with new developments and new technologies.”

“Whether it’s the Constitution’s prohibition on torture, its protection of speech, or its restrictions on searches, the meaning remains constant even as new applications arise.”

And then, the crux of the debate: “Living constitutionalists often complain we can’t know the original understanding because the document’s too old and cryptic. Hardly. We figure out the original meaning of old and difficult texts all the time. Just ask any English professor who teaches Shakespeare or Beowulf.”

And he then describes the leftists’ preferred solution to the disagreement: “For when it comes to the social and political questions of the day they care most about, many living constitutionalists would prefer to have philosopher-king judges swoop down from their marble palace to ordain answers rather than allow the people and their representatives to discuss, debate, and resolve them. You could even say the real complaint here is with our democracy.”

In common parlance, they want the documents to say whatever they prefer them to say at any given moment. And those meanings can change with a new breath.

“Suppose originalism does lead to a result you happen to dislike in this or that case. So what,” Gorsuch asks? “The ‘judicial Power’ of Article III of the Constitution isn’t a promise of all good things. Letting dangerous and obviously guilty criminals who have gravely injured their victims go free just because an officer forgot to secure a warrant or because the prosecutor neglected to bring a witness to trial for confrontation seems like a bad idea to plenty of people.

“But do you really want judges to revise the Constitution to avoid those ‘bad’ results? Or do you believe that judges should enforce the law’s protections equally for everyone, regardless of how inefficient or unpopular or old the law might be? Regardless of who benefits today — the criminal or the police; the business or the employee; immigrants or ICE?”

Originalism focuses on process, not substance. The originalist concept protects the country from renegade “jurists” who will do whatever improves their political/ideological position. This is not what America is about.

America’s future is threatened by those who want to change everything

April 9, 2024

The future of the United States of America may be less secure than at any time since its inception. The country that has provided so much for so long, and has set a standard that no other country in the world has ever matched, is now seen by a large faction as no longer good enough.

What made America so great? Many things. A tripartite government with no single branch more powerful than the others. Each branch has the ability to respond to the actions of the other branches in our system of checks and balances. 

We don’t have a ruler; no king/queen, emperor or czar. Our leaders are our employees — they work for us! And the President, Vice President and members of Congress are selected at the ballot box by the eligible voters, who choose from candidates that they have participated in choosing. Judges and Supreme Court Justices are nominated by the President and approved by the Congress, and others are simply hired as employees.

Our system provides vast amounts of personal freedom, with a Bill of Rights that guarantees us the freedom for important things, like speech, the press, religion, peaceable assembly, redress of grievances, security in our homes, fairness in legal matters, national defense.

So long as what we do does not violate a constitutional principal or sensible laws, we may do as we please. We can buy whatever house, car, appliances, clothing, entertainment, or personal items we choose.

Our Constitution provided the greatest degree of personal freedom in the history of human beings, but it is being replaced by restrictions on virtually every conceivable area of life. This is not new, of course, but has taken a dose of amphetamines in recent years.

Personal freedom, once a hallmark of the nation, is seen by this dissatisfied faction as a threat to the future. And the secret to a positive future in the mind of these people is a life that is much more controlled, with the bureaucracy having much more authority over the people.

Many restrictions exist on what we can and cannot do with our property, what kinds of things we can and cannot purchase. We are told there are legitimate reasons for these limitations. that is true, up to a point. But the number of federal, state and local regulations is huge, and cumbersome.

And many of the regulations are made by unelected bureaucrats, and are not approved by Congress, but nonetheless have the force of law.

The Code of Federal Regulation has 50 subsections where the government has seen fit to issue regulations that control what we can do, and how it must be done. One example of this was discussed by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) on its website.

A NAM survey last summer found that “U.S. manufacturers’ concerns over federal regulations have reached a six-year high as nearly 100 new major regulations — from 30 federal agencies and offices — threaten jobs and investment.”

Ohio Manufacturers’ Association President Ryan Augsburger noted that “In the next year, the Biden administration plans to issue even more regulations — approximately 3,200, including about 280 ‘major rules’ and 1,326 ‘significant rules.’”

Augsburger wrote that “More than 63 percent of manufacturers are spending more than 2,000 hours per year complying with federal regulations, diverting resources that would otherwise go towards employee compensation, new hires and additional investment in U.S. facilities,” citing the NAM’s Q2 2023 Manufacturers’ Outlook Survey.

He then listed examples of the cost of these burdensome regulations:

** The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed particulate matter rule, which is expected to cost “up to $197.4 billion in U.S. economic activity and endanger as many as 973,900 current U.S. jobs”;

** The Securities and Exchange Commission’s proposed climate-disclosure requirement, which the NAM recently advocated against in testimony before the House; and

** The Federal Trade Commission’s proposal to ban noncompete agreements, which 70 percent of manufacturers use to safeguard their intellectual property.

Negative consequences such as these are not limited to manufacturing; they occur in virtually every area of work.

Our government is too big, too controlling and spends too much. Our national debt is $34.6 trillion. That comes to just under $103,000 for every person in the country.

Is it possible that this large faction of Americans desiring to impose restrictions on our freedoms actually has a plan for a better country in mind? Well, yes, they have a plan. But it is not a plan to make America better. 

Their plan is for a larger, more restrictive government, and much less personal freedom for the people. It is very much opposed to the concept that our Founders had in mind, and for which they created our governmental system. They and their plan are un-American and anti-American.

This continued degradation of the brilliant system we inherited must be reversed, or before much longer America as it was designed will no longer exist. Our freedoms must be restored and protected. And our government must be returned to its intended limited status.

Democrats are still in support of soft-on-crime laws and policies

March 7, 2023

The Left’s movement toward soft-on-crime policies and laws continues. And this time the foolishness occurred in the Nation’s Capital. 

As reported by the New York Post, the District of Columbia Council “passed its Revised Criminal Code Act over Mayor Muriel Bowser’s veto [recently], a late but very welcome Christmas present for offenders ranging from petty crooks to carjackers and rapists. The new law guts mandatory-minimum sentencing and eliminates ‘three strikes’ provisions. Repeat offenders will have a lot less jail time to worry about from now on.”

In addition to the DC Mayor, this law drew a lot of negative comment. Among the critics was House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer (R-Ky) who delivered remarks on the House floor in support of House Joint Resolution 26, which disapproves of the District of Columbia’s Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022.

“There is a crime crisis in Americans’ capital city,” he began. “According to the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, carjackings in the District have increased by 76 percent compared to this time last year. Total property crime is up 24 percent. And homicides are up 17 percent. In fact, D.C. is currently on track to have the most homicides since 1995,” Comer said.

“But the radical D.C. Council has enacted legislation that will turn this crime crisis into a catastrophe. The D.C. Council’s progressive soft-on-crime legislation eliminates almost all of the mandatory minimum sentencing requirements for violent crimes while drastically reducing the maximum penalties allowable to the courts.

“These changes embolden criminals to run rampant throughout the District of Columbia. The Act also grants the right to jury trial to now include most misdemeanor offenses,” which he said would “overload an already crowded D.C. court system.”

“All Americans should feel safe in their capital city. But they don’t because of D.C. Democrats’ leniency toward criminals at the expense of Americans’ safety,” the Chairman said.

Commenting on sex criminals getting out of jail after serving only part of their sentences, Denise Krepp, an advisory neighborhood commissioner, told local station WUSA9 that, “I don’t think the DC Council should be helping rapists get out of prison early. It’s crazy.”

However, in a surprise move, President Joe Biden agreed with the Republican-led House and the DC Mayor, and disagreed with the DC Council and Democrats in Congress.

As reported by CNN, Biden’s position against the Council’s law “set off howls of objections from progressives and DC residents, who said the president is letting Congress step on the ability of Washington’s citizens to govern themselves.”

“Rep. Pramila Jayapal, a Washington Democrat, is ‘deeply disappointed’ in Biden’s decision,” the CNN story said.

“This is simple: the District of Columbia must be allowed to govern itself. Democrats’ commitment to home rule should apply regardless of the substance of the local legislation,” Jayapal said in a statement to the network. “This is why the Congressional Progressive Caucus and its members have endorsed D.C. statehood, with every CPC member cosponsoring D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton’s bill in the 117th Congress. Statehood is the only way to protect the 700,000 residents of the District from this kind of interference, we will continue to champion this cause.”

In response to criticism from Jayapal and others, Biden tweeted: “I support D.C. Statehood and home-rule – but I don’t support some of the changes D.C. Council put forward over the Mayor’s objections – such as lowering penalties for carjackings. If the Senate votes to overturn what D.C. Council did – I’ll sign it.”

In addition to easing up on criminals and criminal activity, the Democrats are yet again trying to make changes in the country’s fundamental structure. Packing the Supreme Court, doing away with the Electoral College, and bringing more liberal areas into the country as states are all on the list of how to gain permanent power over the country.

The District of Columbia is not a state for a reason. A good reason. As History.com explains, “The U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17) instructed that the seat of government be a ‘District (not exceeding ten miles square)’ over which Congress would ‘exercise exclusive legislation.’ James Madison spelled out the reason for the arrangement, explaining that maintaining an isolated district would prevent any state from holding too much power by being home to the national government.”

The situation in the District of Columbia is not new. So, if residents feel that strongly about governing themselves, they are free to move to a city in a state where that is the way things are done. There are places not far from DC where that situation exists.

But Madison’s very sensible and non-partisan strategy is getting in the way of the Democrat’s plan to rule forever.

By way of its design, our government works for the people, not the other way around. The people elect the President, Vice President and members of the Congress, and their taxes pay government employees. The Constitution guides the government and its elected and non-elected employees on how the country must be operated.

This system has worked with little alteration for over two hundred years. Democrats should leave it alone and learn to live within the existing system, the freest and most sensible system ever.

One political party is working very hard to change America

November 8, 2022

Candidate Joe Biden claimed all through the campaign that he would unite the country and that he would be president for all of America. Uniting the country at this time in its history, when it is so heavily divided, is a tall task. But that’s what he said he would do. And given his decades in political office, he surely knew that what he was promising was a very, very, very difficult task.

So how is he doing after nearly two years into his first, and hopefully last, term? Let us take a look at some of the Unifier-in-Chief’s comments.

“Equality and democracy are under assault,” Biden charged in one speech. Trump and his supporters are a menace to our system of government, its international standing, and our very way of life, because they “promote authoritarian leaders and they fan the flames of political violence.” They “are determined to take this country backwards,” he said.

Biden charged in a prime-time address that the “extreme ideology” of Donald Trump and his supporters “threatens the very foundation of our republic.”

“MAGA Republicans are semi-fascists,” he said. Interestingly, fascism is a product of the Left, the far Left, around the world, not the Right. 

Benito Mussolini was an Italian politician and journalist who founded and led the National Fascist Party. Mussolini defined fascism as: “Everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” Centralized state power. There are private entities in fascists states, but they are subordinate to the power of the centralized state. This does not sound like Republicans.

Biden also stressed the need to “stand up against” political violence, saying, “we don’t settle our differences in America with a riot … or a hammer,” alluding to the attack on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul.

Remember the violence following the killing of George Floyd in cities across the nation, with burning government buildings, and other things? That violence was not done by Republicans, and those in positions of authority, mayors and governors, who sat back and watched it happen were also not Republicans.

He condemned Republicans who deny the results of the 2020 election, saying “American democracy is under attack” because Trump believes the election was stolen. But, so did Hillary Clinton, of the 2016 election that she lost. And Stacey Abrams of the gubernatorial election in Georgia, which she lost, and never conceded. By the way, both women are Democrats.

Biden was pandering to a mostly black audience when he said they are going to “put y’all back in chains.” And, “you ain’t black” if you weren’t going to vote for him.

“We’re at a serious moment in our nation’s history. The MAGA Republicans don’t just threaten our personal rights and economic security. They are a threat to our very democracy,” Biden said. "They refuse to accept the will of the people. They embrace — embrace — political violence. They don’t believe in democracy. This is why, in this moment, those of you who love this country, Democrats, independents, main-stream Republicans — we must be stronger, more determined and more committed to saving America, than the MAGA Republicans are to destroying America.”

This is an especially interesting comment, as it is the Democrats who want to destroy America by stacking or eliminating the Supreme Court; eliminating the Electoral College, the Constitutional method of electing the President; eliminating the Senate filibuster that protects the rights of the minority party. It is the Democrats who are working to achieve a federal takeover of presidential elections, now controlled by the states.

And, by the way, America is not a democracy. It is a republic that operates under democratic principles. No doubt that Biden would prefer a pure democracy, so that once Democrats gained control, they could change the government to guarantee their continued control.

Furthermore, Republicans are, by their opposition to the Left’s radical plans, working to protect and save our country as designed, our “democracy,” not destroy it.

Biden’s administration ignored the response to a leaked Supreme Court draft opinion that corrected an error in the decades-old Roe v. Wade decision. He initially refused to condemn the leak of the draft opinion or protesters’ illegal targeting of constitutionally conservative justices’ homes. And, House Democrats stalled a recent bill to provide police protection to justices’ families.

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot — a Democrat — tweeted after the leak: “To my friends in the LGBTQ+ community — the Supreme Court is coming for us next. This moment has to be a call to arms.” Then, there’s Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s, also a Democrat, warning in March 2020 about high-court abortion rulings: “I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.” 

In the last two years under Democrat — “progressive” — control, America has lost its energy independence, is suffering under the highest inflation in 40 years, has seen historic increases in crime and the coddling of criminals, and dangerous and deadly levels of illegal immigration at the uncontrolled southern border.

If everyone votes for Republicans in this election, our country will not be harmed, because it is the Democrats whose agenda is to fundamentally change the United States of America.

We desperately need leaders that can think beyond stage one

September 6, 2022

Nearly 20 years ago the brilliant Thomas Sowell — author, economist, political commentator, and social theorist — released a book titled, “Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One.” This applies to the immediate reaction to some idea to improve a situation, leading to action being taken without first asking, “and then, what will happen?” And then asking that question after each proposed next step.

Sowell gives an example: A state government decides it will help the state to raise taxes on businesses. The immediate result is more revenue for the state. And that is good, the government says. However, over the course of time, those affected businesses might move bits and pieces of their companies to another state, or new businesses may choose another state to place a new factory or operation. 

Over the course of time, the state will lose revenue because businesses will go to other states to avoid the higher taxes.

Had the state government indulged in thinking about what might happen after it raised taxes on business, they might have been able to foresee these very negative consequences. Higher taxes discourage business, therefore while in the short-term revenues will be larger, in the longer term, companies will see that doing business in the state will be more difficult, and some, maybe many, will leave. The state then suffers a loss of tax income, and lost jobs.

Finding examples of how this has worked is not difficult. Such examples are often the result of decisions made on emotion, because they seem to be great ideas to achieve desirable ends, and they feel good. The reality is usually very different.

Here is one example. The question being asked is, “How can we stop the mistreatment of civilians by police?” Well, if police departments have less money to operate on, they will have to do things differently, and the changes will benefit the public, as fewer officers will make fewer horrible mistakes against the public.

We can use social workers to respond to some calls, instead of armed officers. We can tell officers not to arrest people for minor crimes, lessening the number of police/public interactions, and lowering the number of people in jails and those having court proceedings.

Today, we see quite plainly how these efforts have failed. This solution has resulted in police officers quitting and retiring in large numbers. Finding new recruits is difficult, as potential recruits see what has happened, and want no part of a situation that makes them targets. 

Prosecutors do not prosecute all crimes anymore, and many persons charged with a crime are released without even paying a bond. These people are not discouraged or prevented from committing more crimes. Meanwhile, crime is doing well, rising to historic highs in some states and cities.

Another example is that the climate activists tell us that we have got to stop burning fossil fuels and reduce CO2 emissions. One thing we can do, they say, is to stop or substantially slow the production of coal, oil and natural gas in the United States. President Joe Biden, not the sharpest tool in the shed, did this on his first days in office. 

The result was that America’s recently regained position as energy independent and a net exporter of energy came to an end. And now we have to purchase some energy that had been coming from domestic sources from foreign countries, raising the cost of gasoline and other fuels, and helping a foreign country’s economy. The oil we buy from some of them is dirtier than our oil. 

Also, other countries that could be purchasing energy from us, and helping our economy, are instead buying Russian energy, which helps Russia’s economy, and that helps it fight its unprovoked war against Ukraine.

These results could fairly easily have been predicted with a bit of intelligent thought. And, in fact, these results were predicted by those who went beyond stage one and saw where these rash decisions would take us. Too bad Biden and his advisors did not consider the possible results of their plan. Or maybe they just don’t care.

So much of what the political left does or wants to do to “make America better” sounds good, or looks good on paper. But in reality, they often want to undo elements of our country that have worked well for more than 200 years, and the proposed solutions themselves cause problems that are often as bad or worse than the situation they sought to improve.

They don’t seem to understand that making changes to systems that have been in effect for a long time, and are deeply integrated in our way of life, need to be done thoughtfully, and that most of them must gradually evolve to replace existing systems, and not be implemented too quickly, causing chaos.

This is particularly true with climate matters. Clean energy sources like wind and solar power have not evolved nearly enough to take the place of fossil fuels. That will take many years. In fact, the reality is that we may never be able to not rely to some degree on fossil fuels.

Changing how America works for partisan benefit is un-American

August 23, 2022

The American left believes that the Republicans are “radical,” and “dangerous.”

“In America, in the face of what the Supreme Court and the radical right wing are trying to do to the fundamental rights of every American, we, the coalition of the sane, owe something better to our children and our grandchildren. We need to win and we need to keep our promises to the people who elected us,” said Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker at a Democratic brunch.

MSNBC host Joy Reid contributed her opinion, calling Republicans "dangerous," back on Election Night 2020. 

Responding to Rachel Maddow’s comment about Republicans “fear mongering” Loudoun County school board members over getting vaccinated, wearing masks, and “made-up stuff about racial indoctrination," Reid said, “For Democrats to really fight that, they would have to be willing to say what you have said on your show, I think we’ve all said a version of it, you have to be willing to vocalize that these Republicans are dangerous."

Another MSNBC face, Tiffany Cross, suggested that “civil war” was just around the corner. 

“You have millions of people tuning into a propaganda network every night,” Cross said. “As if that were not bad enough, that’s an extremist network itself, you have these fringe pop-up outlets from OANN to Newsmax. Then you have the social media component. The train has left the station. There is no dealing with the rhetoric. At this point, we need serious conversations around preparing for actual violence. People keep saying a Civil War is coming. I would say the Civil War is here.”

So, according to these three sources, one an elected Democrat and the other two TV journalists, Republicans are radicals who are trying to change the country into something it has never been, and should not become.

People who are doing such things are acting against the best interests of the country. Could they not be classified as “un-American?” 

Well, if un-American behavior and beliefs are the subject, there is much more of that than these few examples.

Citing Molotov cocktails at pregnancy centers, rampant crime in major cities, and an open border, Republican National Committee spokeswoman Emma Vaughn suggested that we “Call out the left on their threatening hyperbole, then we will talk.”

There’s more. Democrats want to make major changes to aspects of Constitutional standards, such as junking the 233-year-old Electoral College; ending the 180-year-old Senate filibuster and the 150-year-old, nine-person Supreme Court. They also advocate bringing in two more states and ending 60 years of a 50-state nation.

The New York Times published an opinion piece essentially calling for the U.S. Constitution to be jettisoned. And Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tore up the State of the Union address on national TV. She also set up the January 6 Committee that strongly resembled a trial where the prosecution selected the judge and defense attorneys, and was the only side in the questioning of witnesses.

We saw illegal protests outside the homes of some Supreme Court Justices ignored by the Justice Department. Democrats favor defunding the police and “progressive” prosecutors give criminals more consideration than their victims.

And then there is the Time magazine piece in which author Molly Ball gloated over how Democrats had won the 2020 election by essentially rigging it. “That classic article by Molly Ball in February of 2021 where she gushed, she was giddy outlining what she called a conspiracy to change radically the voting laws, to inject four or 500 million dollars to alter the way we voted for centuries so that 70 percent of the votes would not be cast on Election Day, even as the rejection rate would decline by a magnitude of seven or eight,” Victor Davis Hanson explained.

Republicans did not call parents of school children “domestic terrorists” for expressing concerns about controversial on-goings in their classrooms, or fail to control the southern border.

Dangerous rhetoric from the left led to an assassination attempt on a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, and a shooting at a Congressional baseball practice, 

The left is so fired up that it even criticizes a well-known liberal Democrat attorney. Alan Dershowitz is a self-proclaimed liberal Democrat who voted against Donald Trump. Yet many Democrats/liberals condemn him for his defense of Trump’s situations. They either don’t understand what is actually going on, or they don’t care. The radical left apparently believes that if it reflects positively on Trump, it must be a sin or a crime.

But what Dershowitz did is what any good, honest lawyer would and should have done: defend a person’s constitutional and legal rights, without political bias. That is also what the Supreme Court’s originalist justices did in the Roe v. Wade matter: they acted on the standards enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

It’s easy to toss around terms to denigrate others, and there is a tendency among like-thinkers to accept these things without question.

But when the subject is that one political group is un-American, the evidence is heavily against the liberals/Democrats.

They are the ones who want to change the country to make controlling the country easier. They are the ones who are acting against the country.

Democrats are upset by recent decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court

“Conservative” justices are not political conservatives. They are Constitutional conservatives, originalists. The conservative view of the Constitution is that it means today and forever what it meant to the Framers when they wrote the Constitution.

Liberal/activist justices do not view the Constitution the same way as the originalists. They see the Constitution as a “living” document, the meaning of which changes with time and our culture.

This essentially means that we don’t really have a Constitution if its meaning can be determined differently at any time, depending upon the views of nine unelected justices.

The late and brilliant Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia had it right: “The Constitution is not a living organism. It’s a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn’t say what it doesn’t say.”

If the principles of the Constitution should ever turn out to be wrong, or hurtful, it can be changed through a process of amending it. But it should not — must not — be ignored or changed with the fickle winds of social “needs” or “wants.” The faithful allegiance of the conservatives/originalists is the great obstacle the left cannot conquer.

What so many do not understand, or prefer to ignore, is that what the Supreme Court did regarding Roe v. Wade was merely to undo a previous wrong action by the Court. It did not deny women a Constitutional right. There is no Constitutional right to abortion. Freedom of speech, religion, and the press, and the right to due process are among those specifically mentioned in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. But the word “abortion” does not appear in the document, and stretching the meaning of privacy to include abortion was a gross error 49 years ago.

The Court’s action simply returned the decision about if there can be legal abortions and what the rules are regarding abortion to the states, where it belongs.

The concept of federalism, upon which the United States of America is based, holds that the states have certain authority over how they do things, and are not always at the mercy of the federal government. Laws on abortion, if there are such laws, belong in the states, not the federal government.

The radicals among the Democrats and liberals are ready to totally rebuild the United States so that their un-American ideas can become the norm.

They want to do crazy things to shove their ideas down the throats of every American. Such things as:

* Packing the Supreme Court with activist/liberal justices so that they can push their ideas through the legal system 

* Getting rid of the Senate filibuster that protects the rights of the minority so that their majority can easily have its way 

* Making the District of Columbia and/or Puerto Rico a state, so that they will have additional electoral power; 

* And even trashing the Electoral College, which protects the smaller and less populated states against the tyranny of a few states with large populations

These are some of their radical solutions to their inability to convince a majority of Americans to support those ideas.

Two recent decisions by the Court last Thursday provided fodder for more Court criticizing, one on the “Remain in Mexico” policy, and the other on the EPA’s actions.

The latter focuses on the fundamental structure of our government as established in the Constitution. That structure established three branches of government: the legislative, executive and judicial branches. Each one has its specific function, and the Constitution imposes a separation of powers, meaning that each branch must not stray into the given area of another branch.

The legislative branch makes the nation’s laws. The executive branch has the power to enforce or carry out those laws. The judicial branch has the power to apply and interpret the laws.

In recent decades the departments of the executive branch have taken on power, making rules with the power of law. But laws are to be made by the legislative branch, not the executive branch. The EPA ruling puts the brakes on the executive branch’s straying into the legislative branch’s area.

Justice Elena Kagan, in a dissent from the majority opinion, paints a picture of environmental catastrophe if the EPA is not allowed to continue its growing control of things that produce pollution.

Accusing the conservative/originalist justices of making themselves the "decision maker on climate policy," she wrote, "Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change."

Well of course not. The justices are not supposed to know about climate change, or any other such topic. They are supposed to know about and rule on laws and the Constitution.

How wonderful and helpful it would be if people would understand that our government is never going to do only those things that everyone agrees on, because there is little or nothing that everyone agrees on. The government is charged to do things that benefit the people as a whole, not any specific segment.

How nice it would be if we all understood what a wonderful, if imperfect, place America is, and how fortunate we all are to be able to live here.

Having a “living” Constitution is having no Constitution

One of the serious challenges to America’s future is the tendency to interpret the U.S. Constitution and our laws liberally. That is, to understand something written years, decades or centuries ago using the current fluid understanding of how things “ought to be.” 

This concept of a “living” Constitution completely discards the reasoning that occurred when the document was created, and substitutes today’s “preferences” for the principles as understood, intended and written.

Strict interpretation of the language of the Constitution, interpreted through knowledge of how things were during the creation of the document and how the Founders thought, is essential to the nation keeping the magnificent principles with which it was designed. This is known as “originalism,” or maintaining the original intent of the Constitution and laws.

A good example of why that is important is in the meaning of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which reads: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

There are two elements under debate, the first being the meaning of the term “militia.” Today, the term often applies to formal military organizations similar to the National Guard. Thus, the anti-Second Amendment folks suggest that only such organizations are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms. But when the Constitution was being written, the militia consisted of private citizens who could be called together to act in defense against an attack. It was not the army, nor even a formal organization. 

The other issue is that the anti-Second Amendment folks say it does not give anyone the right to own any weapon they want. People often say that the Founders had no way to imagine the existence of so-called “assault weapons.” And that is true. However, the Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. There are two different concepts: Keeping arms means to own and have arms, while bearing arms means they may be carried by the people.

It also does not distinguish between the types of arms people may keep and bear. There were knives and swords, etc., and there were hand-held muskets, long rifles, and cannons. The 2nd Amendment doesn’t say to keep and bear muskets and swords, it says to keep and bear arms, meaning whatever arms were available. People were not prohibited from owning a cannon if they chose, to drag it along behind them or tie it to their horse if they wanted. Muskets, long rifles and cannons were the “assault weapons” of their time, and they were precisely what the Amendment guaranteed the right to keep and to bear.

They also try to persuade us that the purpose was to guarantee the right to keep and bear arms for hunting and home defense, but the main threat generating this right was the potential for a threat from an armed enemy, foreign or domestic.

The idea of a “living Constitution” essentially renders the Constitution to mean what a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices says it means at any given time. Today, it may mean something, and next year it may mean something else. That, of course, means the Constitution means nothing, if what it means is subject to the aspirations of a few people at any given time.

The Founders were smart guys. They had seen various types of government be tried, and fall short. Sometimes falling very short. So, they devised a different idea. And the document designed to govern this nation was comprised of broad principles, one of which was great personal freedom, which would last in perpetuity.

Those principles may not be changed on a whim, or because one or more people in a position of power decides to change one or more of the principles.

Thus, if sufficient reasoning and support for changing some portion of the Constitution exists, there is a process for doing that, and that process involves much more than the personal opinions of jurists. The Constitution may be amended, but through a rigorous process.

The National Archives describes this process: “The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention.”

This process was designed to be a difficult one, in order to prevent quirky, impulsive changes to suit some circumstance, which may be fleeting, and change after a time. It was designed to prevent what too many justices of the United States Supreme Court and judges like to do: make law and change the Constitution from the bench.

Under this process, the Constitution will remain what it was designed to be: a standard for the nation that does not change with the tide or the direction and speed of the wind, unless there is a good reason for it and a substantial amount of support for it.

Politics control the nomination process for Supreme Court Justices

President Joe Biden’s Supreme Court nominee brings to the fore several issues. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has served as a federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since 2021. Prior to that, she was a district judge on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia from 2013 to 2021, and was vice chair of the United States Sentencing Commission from 2010 to 2014.

She is expected to be confirmed by the Democrat majority in the Senate Judiciary Committee and in the full Senate, maintaining the current liberal and conservative numbers on the Court.

She has been criticized for her record of letting sex offenders off with sentences well below the recommendations of prosecutors and sentencing guidelines. She defended her actions in the confirmation hearing. That prompted Alabama Republican Attorney General Steve Marshall to comment that such actions raise concerns about her being soft on crime. 

She refused to answer the simple question from Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-TN, of what is the definition of the word “woman?” Jackson said that she could not define the term. “You can’t,” Blackburn asked? “Not in this context. I’m not a biologist,” Jackson said. 

The same Democrats who so enthusiastically defend this African American woman’s nomination opposed another African American woman nominee several years ago.

Jackson refused to condemn the radical idea of packing the Court to establish an ideological or political majority. Some Supreme Court Justices and other officials have condemned this as dangerous to the ideal of justice, because of the political influence it would inject into judicial matters.

She has embraced radical philosophies, like critical race theory. She was asked about it by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-TX: “Do you think that’s an accurate way of viewing society and the world we live in?”

“Senator, I don’t think so, but I’ve never studied critical race theory, and I’ve never used it,” Jackson responded.

Cruz then said, “you gave a speech in April of 2015 at the University of Chicago in which you described the job you do as a judge.” Cruz then quoted part of her speech: “Sentencing is just plain interesting … because it melds together myriad types of law, criminal law, of course … constitutional law, critical race theory.”

Among those issues is also the controversial one of judicial philosophy, which appears to be a factor in some of the issues noted previously. Jackson appears to be an activist judge, not an originalist. Judicial activism is a dangerous thing for the law and for America.

What is judicial activism? “Judicial activism occurs when judges abandon their responsibility to interpret the Constitution and instead decide cases to advance their preferred policies,” according to the Britannica website.

The other side of that is the conservative, or originalist, philosophy. Originalism holds that the Constitution means what it meant when it was written and passed. If there are good reasons to change some things, it must be done through amendments, not by the actions of judges.

The 11th Chief Justice of the United States, from 1930 to 1941, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, offered the idea that “the Constitution is what the judges say it is.”

This statement is absurd on its face. If words mean only what the reader thinks they mean, or what he or she wants them to mean, the world would turn upside-down.

The Framers of the Constitution carefully wrote that document to address important concepts. They are broad principles. They were not written based upon the minute details of that time, but intended to last into the future. 

If the originalist interpretation leads to unpopular or undesirable things, then the Constitution can be properly amended, but not subjected to the whims of a judge, or a majority of five or more of the nine unelected justices.

Justice Clarence Thomas addressed this question in a 1996 speech. “The Constitution means not what the Court says it does but what the delegates at Philadelphia and at the state ratification conventions understood it to mean ... We as a nation adopted a written Constitution precisely because it has a fixed meaning that does not change. Otherwise we would have adopted the British approach of an unwritten, evolving constitution.”

Despite the fact that Judge Jackson’s supporters condemn how she was questioned, the questions were perfectly acceptable, and many even necessary in a confirmation hearing for such an important post. 

Further, when compared to the horrid and disgraceful treatment by Democrat members of the Judiciary Committee during the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominees Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, Jackson is getting respectful treatment.

And Justice Thomas was also treated contemptibly during his confirmation hearing. Part of his response to his disgusting treatment was, “it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves…”

We need justices and judges on the federal bench who understand and respect the broad and sensible principles stated in the Constitution and will adhere to them, rather than supplant them with personal or political ideals. Judge Jackson falls short of this standard.

However, in today’s highly political atmosphere, such ideals will not carry the day.

We may not realize the degree to which free speech is under attack

Free speech is under attack across the country. The censoring of conservatives on Google, Twitter and Facebook is one form, and another form of censorship occurs in the news media when many of the nation’s largest and most read newspapers, and most watched and listened to broadcast media, report only some of the relevant news.

This bias of selecting some news over other news is dishonest and dangerous. It creates a situation where millions of Americans are quietly forced, through their reading, listening and watching habits, to make a wide variety of often significant decisions with only some of the important information they may need.

Free speech is also under attack at many of America’s institutions of higher learning. Colleges and universities once were the places where the expression of a variety of ideas was highly regarded and encouraged.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) recently released the results of what it called “the largest free speech survey of college students ever performed,” consulting roughly 20,000 students at a variety of institutions. 

The 55 colleges involved were chosen “to represent a variety of colleges in the United States, including large public universities, small private colleges, religiously-affiliated colleges such as Brigham Young University, and Ivy League colleges.”

The results are not encouraging.

Sixty percent of students said they could not express an opinion because of how students, a professor, or the administration would respond. This position was held by 73 percent of “strong Republicans” and 52 percent of “strong Democrats.”

Black students are most likely to report an instance where they censored themselves, with 63 percent taking this position. Here are three examples from survey participants on self-censoring:

* “I was in a class where the professor pretty much made you feel as if your participation grade was at risk if you disagreed with them.” — Black female at Georgetown University

 

* “Whenever it is obvious that some of my professors are on the left, I felt like I couldn’t express my political opinions due to my grades.” — Asian male at Clemson University

 

* The professors within my college tend to be conservative. I worry with certain professors that my opinion would cause them to unfairly grade my projects. — Hispanic female at the University of Arizona

The survey also found that just 15 percent of students — 11 percent of females and 19 percent of males — felt comfortable publicly disagreeing with a professor about a controversial topic.

The FIRE report notes that “a number of questions focused on a tension between feelings, or emotional reasoning, with logical inference and deduction.” And some faculty members explained that “a number of their students place a ‘supreme importance’ on their own feelings even when what they ‘feel’ is right is contradicted by empirical evidence.” Here are two students’ responses on this:

“Just in general. You have to be very careful of your words in order to avoid hurting anyone’s feelings. Sometimes it is very hard to debate on topics because of this.” — Multiracial male at Northwestern University

“Nearly every day I feel like I cannot express my opinion without hurting someone’s feelings.” — White female at Georgetown University

Over the last couple of years there have been several instances of speakers invited to campuses to speak, but were shouted down and sometimes threatened. Many of those speakers were unable to complete their speaking engagement.

FIRE found that Ivy League school students were slightly more in favor of using violence to stop a campus speech. Twenty-one percent — one of every five — expressed some level of acceptance for violence in such situations.

And, on whether it is “always” or “sometimes” acceptable to shout down a speaker in extreme conversations, only 15 percent of extreme conservatives agreed, while more than 60 percent of extreme liberals agreed.

FIRE rated the universities on a numerical scale, and color-coded them for Speech Code, meaning “whether college policies restrict student speech that is protected by the First Amendment.” The codes are: Green = Best; Yellow = Intermediate; Red = Worst; Pink = Warning.

The five institutions with the highest level of free speech are: University of Chicago, Kansas State University, Texas A&M University, University of California, Los Angeles, and Arizona State University, all with Green codes.

The five institutions with the lowest level of free speech are: Syracuse University, Dartmouth College, Yellow codes; and Louisiana State University, University of Texas, and DePauw University, Red codes.

No West Virginia institutions were among the 55 that were ranked, but two Virginia institutions were included. The University of Virginia was ranked 6th on the list with a high level of free speech, and a Green code. The Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (VPI) was ranked a respectable 8th with a mid-level Yellow code.

Censorship is a serious issue, one that is at odds with America’s First Amendment. Free speech is a cornerstone of this nation. 

There really is only one reason why someone or some group would exercise censorship: They are afraid their ideas will not be able to win when competing with different ideas, and therefore they will be unable to inflict their will on others. It’s about control.