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.

Our political division is so great that it challenges our future

April 29, 2025

Why is it so important for some on the left — some, not all — to put so much emphasis on supporting and helping illegal aliens in this country?

A good example is the situation of illegal alien Abrego Garcia, happily referred to by the left as “a Maryland man.”

Information available online about Garcia has been missing in many reports of his recent deportation. Here is some of that.

According to police and court records, Abrego Garcia was arrested in Hyattsville, Maryland, in October 2019. He was identified by the Prince George's County Police Gang Unit as a member of the notorious Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) gang.

Garcia was pulled over by a Tennessee Highway Patrol trooper in 2022 driving an SUV belonging to Jose Ramon Hernandez Reyes, another illegal alien who in 2020 confessed to human smuggling across the U.S.-Mexico border. Garcia was observed speeding and unable to stay in his lane.

There were eight individuals in the car with Garcia, who said they were headed for Maryland from Texas for construction work. However, the trooper suspected it was a human trafficking incident, as there was no luggage in the vehicle. The officer only gave Garcia a warning for driving with an expired license.

Garcia’s wife, Jennifer Vasquez, said that he is a "violent" repeat wife-beater in 2021.She wrote in a complaint, "At this point, I am afraid to be close to him. I have multiple photos/videos of how violent he can be and all the bruises he [has] left me."

Garcia is said to have admitted to entering the United States illegally in 2012, and was issued a deportation order in 2019. By that time, two judges had believed him likely to be a member of MS-13.

That year, an immigration judge ruled that Garcia was removable to anywhere other than El Salvador because of a threat from a rival gang. It was not a mistake by the Trump administration to deport Garcia, but he should not have been sent to his home of El Salvador. However, since that time the rival gang alluded to is apparently no longer a threat to him, and he has been unharmed since his arrival in El Salvador in March.

However, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller said that Garcia was no longer eligible for any form of immigration relief in the United States after MS-13 was declared a terrorist organization.

Contrary to the commonly reported idea, there seems to have been a lot of due process over several years. 

And, referring to Garcia as “a Maryland man,” implying that he is a law-abiding person in the U.S. legally and a loving husband and father, is as dishonest as saying that China, Russia, Iran and North Korea are our best friends.

The FBI arrested a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge who reportedly has ties to left-wing activists last week. Judge Hannah Dugan was arrested after she allegedly helped hide a migrant charged with violence from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.

The Daily Caller News Foundation reported that “ICE agents visited the courthouse where Dugan sits on April 18 to arrest a migrant scheduled for a hearing with Dugan that day, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported. Dugan reportedly directed the man and his lawyer to walk down a hallway toward another floor where the ICE agents wouldn’t find him.”

Another judge, this one in New Mexico, has been arrested, along with his wife, accused of harboring an illegal immigrant suspected of being a member of the Tren de Aragua street gang in their home.

According to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, Judge Joel Cano is facing obstruction charges. “He took one of the TdA members’ cell phones himself, took it, beat it with a hammer, destroyed it, and then walked the pieces to a city dumpster to dispose of it to protect him,” Bondi said, adding that his wife is also facing charges for destroying evidence.

It is relevant to note how many judges have become involved in ruling against the Trump administration’s efforts to rid the country of violent illegal aliens. The cries from the left in defense of the illegals noting a lack of due process and other complaints is loud and shrill.  Those same judges sat quietly in their chambers while millions of foreigners walked illegally into the country during the Biden administration’s tenure. And the left was unmoved by the lack of due process and the abundant crime during those four years.

And then we have members of the U.S. Congress going to El Salvador to lobby and work for the return of Abrego Garcia.

Judges are put in place and trusted to be honest and unbiased in legal matters. Is our country’s sense of honesty and integrity so unimportant that judges now do such illegal, dangerous and un-American things as we are seeing today? 

And why would members of the U.S. Congress go to such extraordinary lengths to defend such a person as Garcia, the El Salvador man, and to demand he be brought back, and allowed to remain in, the U.S.?

At least part of the problem is the dislike for Donald Trump, and people putting that dislike above all else.

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.

Federal control of elections, and getting the filibuster out of the way

Good Congressional legislation that benefits the country and its citizens will have broad bi-partisan support. If a bill has strong support from one side, but little or no support from the other, it likely is good for the majority and/or bad for the minority.

Many bills, perhaps most, have only one party supporting them, the party in the majority, and are hotly contested.

A bill currently with this partisan split is the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, named for the late Georgia congressman and civil rights leader. The “voting rights” bill has strong support from Democrat majority, but strong opposition from the Republican minority.

As reported by Politifact, “Supporters say the bill would renew the power of the federal government to oversee state voting laws and protect minority voters at a time when more GOP-led states have passed new restrictions. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-VT., who introduced the bill, said it would ‘ensure that the Voting Rights Act continues to have the effect long intended: to protect the right to vote.’”

The report continues, “But Republicans say the John Lewis bill is federal overreach and would make it too easy for plaintiffs to challenge state election laws that Republicans say are designed to prevent fraud. Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, has called it ‘unnecessary’ and said that ‘it's against the law to discriminate in voting on the basis of race already.’”

Republicans view their election laws as mechanisms to reduce fraud, and Democrats view them as efforts to restrict voting to certain groups. Democrats see their election laws as making it easy for people to vote, while Republicans view them as mechanisms that make fraud and cheating easier.

The Democrat bill will transfer much of the control over elections that now resides with the states to the federal government. The system of federalism under which the United States was formed left much power to the states, deliberately not giving the federal government total control. The control of election procedures resides with state legislatures.

In addition to trying to federalize control over elections, Democrats also are now talking about eliminating the Senate filibuster, or eliminating certain of its uses. The filibuster, however, is a mechanism that both protects the Senate minority from being run over by the majority, and also helps to encourage the introduction of bills that will have bi-partisan support, which do not encourage a filibuster. 

Some Democrats now favoring the changing or elimination of the filibuster have done an about face from just a few years ago.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, who in 2017 as Minority Leader spoke to the Senate, saying there should be a "firewall" around the legislative filibuster. "Let us go no further down this road," he said. "I hope the Republican Leader and I can, in the coming months, find a way to build a firewall around the legislative filibuster, which is the most important distinction between the Senate and the House."

He and other Democrats condemned efforts by Republicans to challenge the filibuster back then. Here are some of their comments:

From Schumer: 

• “They want to make this country into a banana republic where if you don’t get your way you change the rules.”
• “Change the rules in midstream to wash away 200 years of history.
• “Ideologues in the Senate want to turn what the founding fathers called the cooling saucer of democracy into the rubber stamp of dictatorship.”
• “It’ll be a doomsday for democracy.”

President Joe Biden, D-DE, when he was in the Senate: 

• “It raises problems that are more damaging than the problem that exists.”
• “You’re going to throw the entire Congress into chaos and nothing will get done.”
• “Nothing at all will get done.”
• “It is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power.”
• “Ending the filibuster is a very dangerous thing to do.”
• “It is a fundamental power grab.”

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-IL: 

• “That would be the end of the Senate.”
• “You can’t change the rules in the middle of the game.”
• “Preserve checks and balances so that no one party can do whatever it wants.”

Sen. Bob Menendez, D-NJ: 

• “You cannot change the rules in the middle of the game because you do not like the outcome.”
• “Partisan power grab that will stomp on the rights of the minority and leave fundamentally changed for the worse.”
• “I will not stand by when a party drunk with power tries to overturn 200 years of precedent.”

Sen. Chis Coons, D-DE: 

• “I’m committed to never voting to change the legislative filibuster.” 
• “The one most important rule that requires compromise requires working across the aisle.”

Sen. Cory Booker, D-NJ: “The legislative filibuster should stay there and I will personally resist efforts to get rid of it.”

Sen. Mark Warner, D-VA: “I don’t think that we ought to be coming in willy-nilly and changing the rules.”

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-NY: “If you don’t have 60 votes yet, it just means you haven’t done enough advocacy and you need to work a lot harder.”

Isn’t it interesting how politicians forego their support of important things when they get in the way?

Democrats determined to make government work better. For them.

This may be the first time in American history where so many long-standing elements of our government were targeted for change. Such important things as increasing the number of Supreme Court justices; imposing term limits on justices; getting rid of the Senate filibuster procedure; imposing more gun control constraints; and statehood for the District of Columbia and the territory of Puerto Rico are on the plate.

Critics of these changes cite political advantage as the motivation. Four more justices appointed by the current Democrat president and approved by a Democrat-controlled Senate certainly fits that idea. Two U.S. Senators each and some number of Representatives for DC and Puerto Rico also fit in. 

And doing away with the filibuster, so the Senate would make all decisions at 51 percent like the House of Representatives, would make appointment approvals easier for both parties, and would remove protection against the tyranny of the majority. Democrats, incidentally, made good use of the filibuster during the Trump presidency.

The bill to make D.C. a state was passed by the House Committee on Oversight and Reform last Wednesday, and will get a vote by the full House this week. 

One reason cited for this historic transformation of the nation’s capitol is to provide the taxpayers of the District of Columbia with voting representation in the Congress and full control over local affairs.

However, it is important to know just why the nation’s capitol was not a state to begin with, and that goes back to the establishment of the U.S. Constitution, which was ratified in June of 1788.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to "exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States."

Founding Father James Madison, the nation’s fourth president, was concerned that if the capital doubled as a state, it would have greater power than the other states, creating an unequal situation, and he correctly believed that the federal government should be neutral in matters of the sovereign states.

An additional and more recent opinion about the nation’s capitol remaining an independent entity that is not associated with any state comes from Robert F. Kennedy when he was Attorney General in the 1960s. “It was indispensably necessary to the independence and the very existence of the new Federal Government to have a seat of government which was not subject to the jurisdiction or control of any State,” Kennedy wrote.

And regarding the perceived systemic inequality that has denied the full voting rights, citizenship and representation in Congress for residents of Washington DC, which some cite as justification for statehood, no one forces people to live in the District instead of a nearby state, where they would have voting rights and be only a short distance from the District. 

Further, DC statehood will definitely benefit Democrats. According to bestplaces.net, which got the following voter data from federal agencies, related that in the last five presidential elections, DC voters were heavily Democrat. And in 2016, DC voters voted Democrat 90.86 percent, against the 4.09 percent who voted Republican.

Virginia’s 9th District Republican Congressman Morgan Griffith addressed this situation in a recent correspondence to constituents. “Any measure giving the District statehood would need to go through the process of amending the Constitution. H.R. 51, the statehood bill the House will consider, does not do so. Instead, it shrinks the seat of the U.S. government to an area around the Mall, the White House, the Capitol, the Supreme Court, and other federal buildings, and admits the rest of the District as a state.”

“This approach suffers from an additional flaw beyond its constitutionality,” he continues. “The 23rd Amendment grants electoral votes to the ‘seat of Government of the United States,’ not the District of Columbia specifically, meaning that the handful of residents in this area, presumably including the president and his family, would have as much weight in the Electoral College as some states.”

“Giving the residents of the District of Columbia a voice in the Federal Government is a worthy goal,” he wrote, “but it must be done constitutionally.”

Offering a fair and sensible measure to satisfy this issue, Griffith has introduced H.R. 2614, the Compact Federal District Act. The bill recognizes the right of D.C. residents to be represented in Congress, and be able to vote for a U.S. House Representative and two Senators by transferring most of the District and its residents to Maryland in a process known as retrocession, which means returning the land to Maryland that it ceded to the federal government to form the District of Columbia. 

The proposed actions listed at the beginning of this commentary share a political desire, with the possible exception of term limits for Supreme Court justices. That desire is giving a clear and great advantage to one political party: The Democrats.

Apparently, they like this method of gaining power. If you cannot achieve your goals under the existing system, change it to meet your needs.

Government excess; correcting a wrong; and foolish leadership

Published December 29, 2020

Congress officially passed a $900 billion coronavirus relief package which was attached to a broader, $1.4 trillion government spending bill, clearing the House and Senate by overwhelming majorities. 

This bill is a monstrosity, running 5,593 pages long, but is perhaps the best of the many Congressional boondoggles with which to illustrate the current practice of bundling a ridiculous range of interests into one omnibus bill.

This tactic most often is used to get one or more highly controversial elements approved with relative ease. You want your favorite pork measure to get approval? Then tie it to a bill that 95 percent of Americans and their elected representatives believe “must” be approved.

Much of government over-spending and outrageous legislative measures have been born of this underhanded, but too-often successful tactic.

The “billionibus” bill has been inaptly referred to as a coronavirus relief measure. While it does fund coronavirus relief and some very beneficial things, it has a lot of money in it for other countries. 

For example, at least $15,000,000 for democracy programs and not less than $10,000,000 for gender programs, in Pakistan; $86 million for assistance to Cambodia; $130 million to Nepal, $1.3 billion for Egypt and their military; $135 million to Burma; $453 million to Ukraine; $700 million to Sudan; and $505 million to Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama.

It also gives $40 million for the necessary expenses for the operation, maintenance and security of The Kennedy Center (which has been closed, due to the coronavirus), and includes funds for the Resource Study of Springfield (Illinois) Race Riot that occurred in 1908. 

A proper House and Senate would write bills that dealt with, ideally, one single issue, or perhaps a couple of closely-related ones, instead of a popular issue with a bunch of self-serving, narrow, partisan, voter-attracting measures attached.

* * *

President Donald Trump pardoned Michael Flynn to end the nightmare against a man who had served his country valiantly for many years in the U.S. Army, retiring at the rank of lieutenant general, and had accepted President-elect Trump's offer for the position of National Security Advisor in 2016 and then briefly served as National Security Advisor.

People opposing the pardon rely on the claim that Flynn had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, but they fail to consider the sordid circumstances of that plea.

An FBI agent, who worked in the disastrous special counsel investigation into supposed Russian involvement with the Trump campaign and administration headed by Robert Mueller, “told investigators he thought the probe into Gen. Michael Flynn was ‘unclear and disorganized,’ and that the former national security adviser wasn't conspiring with Russia,” National Public Radio reported in September.

William Barnett was interviewed by Justice Department investigators, and his position on the Flynn matter was summarized in a 13-page document.

Later, FBI agents prepared to close the investigation of Flynn, having found no wrongdoing, but former FBI intelligence agent Peter Strzok demanded it be kept open. You may remember that Strzok, and his paramour and fellow FBI employee Lisa Page, were knee-deep in official FBI malfeasance. The lengthy and ridiculously expensive Mueller probe failed to find the much-ballyhooed collusion with Russia.

Desperately trying to get Flynn, in early 2017 FBI agents went to the White House to interview him. According to an article at Townhall.com, their handwritten notes said, "What's our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?" 

Ultimately, the FBI successfully blackmailed Flynn into pleading guilty to lying. This they accomplished by causing him to run up legal costs that broke him, forcing him to sell his home, and then they threatened to go after his son.

How many of Flynn’s critics would have done the same as he did to escape being persecuted by the FBI?

* * *

We have seen some pretty out-there things occur recently, but please, don’t make the mistake of thinking that things cannot get any crazier. 

A major American city plans to allow perpetrators of many crimes to have their charges dismissed if poverty, mental illness or substance-abuse disorder is the reason they committed the crimes. This will be classified as a poverty defense, according to the elected officials who champion this idea.

If you are poor and living on the street, and break into a business or a home and steal something, your criminal charge will be dismissed, and you are free to sell the stolen items in order to help you survive.

And, in order to acquire adequate shelter, trespassers will be allowed to set up camp on private property. 

Other wrongdoings on this list of allowable crimes, when committed for the reasons listed, are assault and harassment. 

Want to guess in which U.S. city this is happening? Seattle, Washington. An organization called Decriminalize Seattle is behind this movement. It has also called for defunding police by at least 50 percent, and using those funds for “community led health and safety systems.” 

This is the sort of “leadership” we find today in Democrat-run cities and states. Will a Democrat administration allow this twisted reasoning to be applied nationwide?

Thoughts on Judge Amy Coney Barrett, Kamala Harris, and Joe Biden

There is so much ado over President Donald Trump’s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court.

She is a devout Catholic. That seems to send pangs of fear through some Democrats. Well, former President John F. Kennedy was a Catholic. The late Justice Antonin Scalia was a Catholic. And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden are also Catholic.

More to the point, Article VI, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution says: "… but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

So, whether she is Catholic or a non-believer is irrelevant to appointment to the Supreme Court, or any federal position.

In nominating her, Trump did what the Constitution provides for the sitting President of the United States. None of the complaints about him making the nomination are mentioned, or even loosely alluded to, in the Constitution. What he did is exactly right, and follows much precedent.

The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s dying wish is not part of the Constitutional process, and the American people are getting to have their say on who gets to make the nomination for her seat, as they elected Donald Trump for a full four-year term, which is not yet over.

Opponents are worried that she will overturn Roe v Wade, or the Affordable Care Act. But this concern is misplaced.

As an originalist/textualist, she follows the written intent of the Constitution and the laws, as judges and justices are supposed to do. Barrett will merely rule on the legality/constitutionality of any measures that come before the Court, including those.

Hopefully, in the confirmation hearing just getting underway, the character assassins who eagerly attended the confirmation hearing of the last Trump nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, and trashed his character and his honor, and those that provided the “high-tech lynching” of Clarence Thomas years before, will be infected with good conscience, decency and civil respect for Barrett and the Constitutional process being followed.  

* * * * *

So, Kamala Harris ran for the Democrat nomination for president, but was only an also ran, and is now the Democrat nominee for vice president. Before being elected to the U.S. Senate, she was a prosecutor and California attorney general, and prosecuted people in court for violent crimes.

Yet, in the vice presidential debate with current Vice President, Mike Pence, he has been criticized for not treating her appropriately, for — gasp — “mansplaining!” Instead of treating her like a little girl, a delicate flower, Pence spoke to her like an adult.

Not the least of reasons Pence spoke to Harris like she is an adult and not a little girl is her penchant for saying things that were not true. Like the fairytale about President Lincoln foregoing a Court appointment near an election because it was “the right thing to do.”

So, is Harris up to the job? Or not? If she needs to be protected from the kind of opposition a male nominee would — and should — experience, perhaps she’s not ready for the job. Will Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-un and Xi Jinping give her the break a female apparently deserves, should she have to deal with them?

* * * * *

One thing nearly everyone recognizes is that former Vice President Joe Biden’s campaign has been riddled with oddities. It now appears that Biden has been involved in collusion. You remember collusion? The long, expensive investigation by Congressional Democrats into Trump’s imagined irregularities with Russia that found nothing?

When the Affordable Care Act was before the House of Representatives in 2010, Speaker Nancy Pelosi made the completely absurd comment to the American people that “We have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it, away from the fog of controversy.” Well, fog or no fog, we don’t pass bills in the U.S. Congress so that the people will be able to know what is hidden inside them. That happens before the votes are taken.

Apparently, Biden has colluded with Pelosi and has made the equally absurd decision to refuse to answer whether or not he will attempt to pack the U.S. Supreme Court with activist judges if he is elected, so that it will be easier to control everything the government does or does not do.

A reporter asked Biden, “Well, sir, don’t the voters deserve to know…?” He replied, “No, they don’t.”

He’s wrong, of course, but he’s also walking a narrow plank: don’t offend the radical Democrat left by saying he won’t pack the Court; don’t offend the others by saying he will.

Some Democrats hint that if they win the election and control the White House and Congress, they will pack the Court, abolish the Electoral College, eliminate the filibuster that protects the Senate from the tyranny of the majority, and perhaps add two more states to the Union to increase the number of Senate Democrats.

These measures will transform the nation into a chaotic mess that is the opposite of the ordered republic that our Founders created. That cannot be allowed to occur.

The amount of money in elections these days is a serious problem

Every election year certain problems present themselves. One minor problem is increased emailing. Many of us have more than one email account, thus the problem is magnified. 

There are lots of campaign emails, most seeking political support, some selling campaign materials. The ones asking for contributions pose a different type of problem.

We are often asked to contribute to candidates from all over the country, not just in our state of residence. Some of these candidates may be known to us and liked, and we may want to support them. Others may be unknown, but we disapprove of their opponents and would like to support them.

But why should anyone — literally any person in the country — be able to contribute to any political candidates that they want to? We can only vote for candidates running for offices representing our state and localities and the presidency, so why can we give money to any candidate that asks for it?

There may be some sensible reasons for being able to contribute to candidates for whom you can’t vote, but not many. Perhaps a relative is running for office, or you have some connection to the area in which the candidate is running, like a business connection or owning property there.

And then there is the situation of political action committees (PACs). From Ballotpedia.com: “Political action committees (PACs) are political committees established and administered by corporations, labor unions, membership organizations or trade associations. The general definition is a group that spends money on elections, but is not run by a party or individual candidate. However, PACs can donate money to parties or candidates they support.

“There are two types of political action committees, separate segregated funds and nonconnected PACs. Separate segregated funds are either established or administered by corporations, labor unions, member organizations, or trade associations. They can only raise funds from individuals associated with the connected groups. Conversely, nonconnected PACs are not connected to any of those groups and may solicit funds from the public. Nonconnected PACs are financially independent and pay for themselves via the contributions they raise. Separate segregated funds are funded by the organization they are associated with. 

“In addition, PACs can be broken down into multi-candidate and non-multi-candidate categories.”

And then there is the super PAC, which Ballotpedia also defines: “A super PAC is a political committee that can solicit and spend unlimited sums of money. A super PAC cannot contribute directly to a politician or political party, but it can spend independently to campaign for or against political figures. These committees are also called independent expenditure-only committees. A super PAC is not legally considered a political action committee (PAC) and as such is regulated under separate rules.” 

PACs and super PACs dredge millions or billions of dollars in contributions from people across the country during an election, and pour those dollars into contributions for and against candidates, political and legislative agendas of their choosing. The additional political contributions and political ads they fund makes running for high profile political offices far more expensive than it needs to be, and ought to be.

According to the reference site thoughtco.com, “In a typical election cycle, political action committees raise more than $2 billion and spend nearly $500 million. There are more than 6,000 political action committees, according to the Federal Election Commission.” At least some of the remaining $1.5 billion goes to staff and expenses. PACs are quite the business.

The Campaign Finance Institute reports that the cost of winning a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2018 was $2,092,822, and a U.S. Senate seat cost $14,863,228. 

The projected cost of all Congressional Races and the Presidential Race for 2020 is $10,838,227,655, according to OpenSecrets.org. That total is divided almost equally between all Congressional Races and the Presidential Race at more than $5 billion each.

By comparison, the 2000 election cycle totaled $3,082,340 for both Congressional Races and the Presidential Race. In six Presidential Election Cycles over twenty years, the total costs have more than tripled.

Opinions vary on whether PACs are good or bad. They receive praise for providing a way for people to combine their money and make their voices heard, but also a way for some to make larger donations, which can create the question of exactly who those elected actually work for.

Another evaluation says that these large contributions come from unknown sources, which were described as “forces of darkness” and “forces of light.”

Proponents of super PACs say they provide additional aspects of freedom of speech, whereas opponents list negative advertising as a major factor produced by super PACs.

It seems that the simpler and more straight forward the election system is, the better, and the easier to manage. You can only vote for candidates in your state and localities, for federal offices representing your state, and for the President and Vice President. Therefore, contributions should have those same limitations.

That would put the decision making where it belongs: in the hands of eligible voters. As things stand now, much control is in the hands of large organizations with specific interests that are not always good for all.

The Equal Rights Amendment died in 1982. But is it really dead?

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), aimed at providing legal equality of the sexes and prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, was first proposed nearly a century ago, in 1923. Four decades later, sponsored by New York Democrat Rep. Bella Abzug, with the support of well-known feminists Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem, the ERA was introduced in Congress. It was approved by the House in October of 1971 and by the Senate in March of 1972. It was then sent to the states for ratification, where more than 30 states ratified it within a year.

However, ratification requires the approval of three-quarters, or 38, of the 50 states to become an Amendment to the Constitution, and it fell short. At the seven-year deadline for its ratification set by Congress, and even after the deadline was extended to 1982 by Congress and signed by President Jimmy Carter, fewer than 38 states had ratified the ERA.

In 2018, nearly 40 years after the initial and the extended deadlines had expired, the Illinois legislature adopted a resolution to ratify the ERA, making 37 of the 38 states needed for ratification. 

Earlier this month the Commonwealth of Virginia’s Democrat-controlled General Assembly became the necessary 38^thstate to ratify, when the House passed the ERA. Whether this effort matters, or was just a waste of time depends upon whether the deadlines set for ratification by Congress are valid.

This situation is made even more complicated by the fact that five states which previously ratified the ERA had rescinded their approval before the initial deadline occurred. ERA advocates insist, first, that the deadlines did not end the viability of the proposal, and second, that those five states could not rescind their approval.

Logically, if Congress has the authority to pass and send to the states proposals that may become Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, it also has the authority to set a time limit for ratification of these proposals.

Advocates argue that both the initial and the extended time limits should be ignored. But if advocates thought an extension of the deadline was necessary to extend the ratification period until 1982, how can they now argue that deadlines are not valid?

Furthermore, precedent was established for Congress setting a time limit on ratification when, starting with the 18^thAmendment and continuing through the last one, the 27^th Amendment, Congress did set expiration dates for ratification.

Advocates’ argument that states may not rescind their ratification of the proposed Amendment also seems weak. If a state has the authority to pass a state constitution and state laws, does it not also have the authority to amend that constitution and those laws? If states can pass and amend constitutions and laws, why can they not ratify and then rescind ratification of Amendments to the U.S. Constitution?

The effort to pass the ERA in the 70s and 80s fell short, in part because of efforts of conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly in opposition to it. But had there been truly strong sentiment for the ERA, it would have passed then. And today, decades later, the equality between men and women has substantially improved. Why, then, is the ERA needed?

Following the Illinois vote for ratification in 2018, an article in Business Insider by Daniella Greenbaum stated that “[w]e are no longer living in a time in which women don't have the right to vote or own property. The status of women in the United States could not be more different now than it was in the 1920s, when the ERA was first written.”

Jarrett Stepman, a contributor to The Daily Signal, suggests that among the many potential problems the ERA would cause today if ratified, four deserve discussion.

“Perhaps one of the clearest results of the ERA would be that it would almost be impossible to exclude women from the draft,” he wrote. “At 18 years-old, women would have to sign up for Selective Service just like men. Though the reinstatement of the draft in the near future is unlikely, in any case in which the draft was deemed necessary, women would be included due to the ERA. Given the legal push to open up all combat roles to women, this could have potentially profound societal and individual consequences.”

The second of the four is the possible abolishment of same-sex bathrooms in public buildings. This issue has already become the subject of fierce debate, and more than a few sexual assault crimes have resulted from the creation of gender-neutral bathrooms.

The end of government-funded women-only shelters and other such facilities that help battered women and women harmed by domestic violence is a third problem.

And last, but hardly least, the ERA could force the “right” to taxpayer funding of abortion into the Constitution, at least in Medicare cases where abortion was a “medically necessary procedure,” equal to a “medically necessary procedure” for men.

However, the abortion lobby will certainly seek expansion of federal money for abortions.

Abortion is rarely “medically necessary,” given that unwanted pregnancy nearly always results from voluntary actions, not involuntary actions, like rape or incest. Given that truth, there is little reason for any federal money to be used for abortion. 

We should embrace and build on America’s traditional values

Today’s political atmosphere is toxic. It is filled with hard feelings, bad intentions, exaggeration, insults, misunderstandings, and more. People on one side of the political spectrum often automatically write off people on the other side simply because they hold different opinions.

It is difficult to have a calm, rational discussion about the differences, as some are offended or angered with the mere prospect of coming face to face with ideas that are different than their own. In this atmosphere, details get lost in the noise, and the essence of the broad philosophies of each side, which need to be discussed, compared and evaluated, lie there ignored while the battle rages.

Those on the political right, conservatives, hold to a set of principles that should not scare or anger anyone. They are practical concepts to which our country has subscribed for many decades, such as: free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values and strong national defense.

Here, stated more broadly, are those conservative principles:

1. The federal government exists to preserve life, liberty and property, and it is instituted to protect the rights of individuals according to natural law. Among these rights are the sanctity of life; the freedom of speech, religion, the press, and assembly; the right to bear arms; the right of individuals to be treated equally and justly under the law; and to enjoy the fruits of one’s labor.

2. The federal government’s powers are limited to those named in the Constitution and should be exercised solely to protect the rights of its citizens. As Thomas Jefferson said, “The government closest to the people serves the people best.” Powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited by the Constitution, are reserved to the states or to the people.

3. Judges should interpret and apply our laws and the Constitution based on their original meaning, not upon judges’ personal and political predispositions.

4. Individuals and families—not government—make the best decisions regarding their and their children’s health, education, jobs, and welfare.

5. The family is the essential foundation of civil society, and traditional marriage serves as the cornerstone of the family.

6. The federal deficit and debt must not place unreasonable financial burdens on future generations.

7. Tax policies should raise only the minimum revenue necessary to fund constitutionally appropriate functions of government.

8. America’s economy and the prosperity of individual citizens are best served by a system of free enterprise, with special emphasis on economic freedom, private property rights, and the rule of law. This system is best sustained by policies promoting free trade and deregulation, and opposing government interventions in the economy that distort markets and impair innovation.

9. Regulations must not breach constitutional principles of limited government and the separation of powers.

10. America must be a welcoming nation—one that promotes patriotic assimilation and is governed by laws that are fair, humane, and enforced to protect its citizens.

11. Justice requires an efficient, fair, and effective criminal justice system—one that gives defendants adequate due process and requires an appropriate degree of criminal intent to merit punishment.

12. International agreements and international organizations should not infringe on American’s constitutional rights, nor should they diminish American sovereignty.

13. America is strongest when our policies protect our national interests, preserve our alliances of free peoples, vigorously counter threats to our security, and advance prosperity through economic freedom at home and abroad.

14. The best way to ensure peace is through a strong national defense.”

Contrary to the common narrative, conservatives who hold these principles are not racist. They are not xenophobic, or homophobic, or sexist, or white-nationalistic. Those mischaracterizations come from political antagonists who either don’t make the effort to understand conservative principles, and instead react emotionally. Others deliberately twist their meanings in an effort to delegitimize them, hoping to demonize the opposition and generate support for their own rebellious ideas.

Those 14 principles, “True North: The Principles of Conservatism,” were articulated by The Heritage Foundation, and have in their favor ages of proven success. It was upon these steadfast, common sense principles that the United States of America was established, and upon which it became the great nation that it is.

Rather than working to further improve the American system, an opposition force works to tear it down and replace these solid, proven principles with historically unsuccessful and dangerous principles of socialist and communist systems that have failed wherever they have been tried.

Democrat socialists won’t admit that socialism is their goal, saying that they really don’t want full-blown socialism, only certain desirable parts of it.

But socialistic methods are a slippery slope, and once a nation is well down the slope, escape is virtually impossible. For a real life, contemporary example, review the recent history of Venezuela.

During the 1970s, Venezuela was the richest country in Latin America, and one of the most stable democracies in the Americas. Then came the election of President Hugo Chávez, who propagated "socialism for the 21st century," which was about establishing liberty, equality, social justice, and solidarity. 

Today, Venezuela is the third least free economy in the world, ahead of only Cuba and North Korea.

Vote buying is alive and well in Democrat campaign positions

If a campaign worker slips you a ten or a fifty as you head into a polling place, or promises you a week at the beach, that is a crime; election fraud.

Another way, a legal way, of encouraging folks to vote the right way is through campaign promises to deliver free stuff to people through government programs, if that candidate wins the election.

As it turns out, such techniques fit neatly into the goals of far-left Democrats who openly advocate socialist ideals. 

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren wants to cancel the student debt of most of those who still owe money. She proposes cancelling up to $50,000 each for some 42 million former students. And then, make two- and four-year college tuition free.

Along with a cadre of other Democrat hopefuls, Warren supports Medicare for All. This would cancel out private health insurance and provide free healthcare to all U.S. residents, courtesy of the federal government, which would control prices, and everything else related to healthcare.

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont wants to provide a living wage to everyone, regardless of whether they have any skills, or whether they have ever had a paying job before, by mandating that employers must pay all workers $15 an hour, or $31,200 in gross pay for a year of 40-hour workweeks. 

Free health care for all is, he believes, necessary, as is a tuition-free college education. And for those who have student debt, ol’ Bernie would cut their debt in half and slash interest rates on refinanced loans on what’s left to pay.

Other candidates – Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kamala Harris of California, and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York – have co-sponsored the Debt-Free College Act. 

And Harris has an even better idea:just give away cash. She proposes that families making less than $100,000 a year receive up to $6,000 a year ($500 a month), or individuals making less than $50,000 a year could get up to $3,000 a year ($250 a month).

Warren also wants to pay reparations to the descendants of slaves. Slavery has not existed in the U.S. since 1865, roughly five generations ago.

With a bevy of candidates who want to give out lots of free stuff, even cash, some also want to give away things to immigrants, legal and illegal alike, all paid for by higher taxes.

 

Democrats are notorious for their dangerous degree of compassion for immigrants in general. And the more free stuff we offer, the more appealing is the idea of coming to America, legally or not.

While the actual number of illegals in the country is debated, a conservative estimate is between 10 and 12 million, and by far the largest group comes from Mexico, about 55 percent of the illegal population.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimated the cost of illegal immigration on the country in 2017 was $116 billion. That figure is likely higher this year than in 2017.

FAIR estimates that $59.8 billion goes to educate children of illegal immigrants, the vast majority of which is paid for from property taxes at the local and state level.

Another $18.5 billion goes to healthcare, according to Chris Conover of the American Enterprise Institute. It includes: “about $4.6 billion in health services paid for by federal taxes, $2.8 billion in health services financed by state and local taxpayers, and another $3 billion bankrolled through ‘cost-shifting,’ i.e. higher payments by insured patients to cover hospital uncompensated care losses, and roughly $1.5 billion in physician charity care.”

Some cities and states even allow illegals to vote in elections, which devalues the franchise and diminishes the voting power of United States citizens. So far, illegals are forbidden from voting in federal elections.

Under the best of circumstances, which is that these candidates actually believe these ideas will work as advertised, history and present-day reality show us that socialism and socialist ideas like these most often fail miserably. And the evidence is there for all who care to see it.

The increasingly socialistic left points with pride to various countries that have instituted government control over systems that are privately controlled in the U.S. The healthcare system in countries like Canada, Great Britain and the Scandinavian countries is often held up as an example.

These are not true socialist countries, of course. They just dabble in select aspects of socialism and charge the necessary sky-high taxes to fund them. For all the supposed wonders of government healthcare, however, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, three of the most frequently cited countries, are moving toward private health insurance. 

America was designed to allow great freedom for its citizens with a small and restricted government that would guarantee individual freedom, not interfere with it. After all, the truth is that the bigger the government, the smaller the citizen. 

Our federal government has grown to dangerous proportions, and the idea of imposing socialist methods on the people will further destroy what was and is the most unique and successful government system ever conceived.

We should not forget Margaret Thatcher’s brilliant point: “The great problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

Just when you think you’ve heard the weirdest thing possible …

Politics is many things: maddening, confusing, dirty, crazy. A recent example is Arizona Republican Sen. Jeff Flake, a #NeverTrumper who did not seek reelection in November, and has decided that he will oppose every effort to confirm President Donald Trump’s judicial and other nominees during the remaining weeks of his term, unless there is a bill put forth to protect Special Counsel Robert Mueller from being fired.

This position is odd for a couple of reasons. First, the reason for holding up a vote on a nominee or voting against one is that you believe the nominee is not fit for the position. Second, there is no indication that Trump, after one and one-half years of Mueller’s investigation, intends to fire him, even though he has the clear authority to do so if he chooses, for any reason, or for no reason.

Such a bill raises constitutional questions, as well, since a law that effectively raises an administration employee, which Mueller is, above the authority of the president in effect creates a fourth branch of government.

And then there’s the new Darling of the DNC, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the young Democrat elected to represent a New York district. The new representative is loved by both the Left and the Right, but for very different reasons.

The Left loves her because she is young and appeals to their idea of shaking things up. The New York Times termed the young member of the Democratic Socialists of America a “28-year-old giant slayer” when she defeated 19-year incumbent Representative Joseph Crowley in the primary.

The Right loves her because of her frequent gaffs; she seems to have little knowledge about the way the country works, among other things. She not long ago informed the country that America’s government has “three chambers of Congress.” Realizing the mistake, she corrected to “three chambers of government: the presidency, the Senate, and the House."

She champions renewable energy, believing it can cure many ills. “[T]he transition to 100 percent renewable [energy is] the vehicle to truly deliver and establish economic, social and racial justice in the United States.”

And to top it off, in a Twitter dustup with Donald Trump, Jr., she threatened to use the House subpoena power against him. That’s a no-no.

After the 2016 election there was talk of doing away with the Electoral College because were it not for that system Hillary Clinton – the person in all of time who was supposed to win the presidency – would have become president, since she won the popular vote.

Another Democrat wants not only to do away with the Electoral College, but the United States Senate, as well.

As reported by The Washington Times, “Former Democratic Rep. John Dingell, the country’s longest-serving congressman, called for the abolishment of the Electoral College and the Senate, arguing against the ‘disproportionate influence of small states’ that paralyzes the lawmaking and electoral processes.”

Whether Dingell, with more than 59 years in Congress, either was never taught the reasons for the brilliant design of our government, or perhaps just wants to grease the wheels for Democrats to speed transforming the United States of America into another socialist catastrophe, a la Barack Obama, is open to debate.

The Senate’s design of two from each state and the Electoral College as the deciding electoral factor were very deliberate mechanisms to insure that the states maintained some independence and that population centers like New York City and California would not run roughshod over the less populated areas of the country. They both are obstacles the Left would love to eliminate.

A Facebook post laid bare the ignorance of at least some of the legions of Trump detractors. When Trump saluted the flag-draped coffin of former President George H.W. Bush, he was criticized for saluting without having served in the U.S. military. Apparently, no one – or at least not Trump – may salute without having earned the privilege.

The post, however, showed photos of former president’s Bill Clinton and Barack Obama who also dared to salute without having served in the military, which, if memory serves, did not generate any criticisms.

And we find performers in the anti-Trump media, sometimes known as the “fake news” media, who criticize Trump’s combative “take no prisoners” style as offensive, as well as nearly everything else he does, says or even is thought to be thinking. One such performer said during the funeral of George H.W. Bush that Trump’s style, in sharp contrast to Bush’s gentlemanly style, has debased the presidency.

But history shows us that politics has always been a rough and tumble activity, and that Trump has much company in his caustic style. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams may have set the standard in 1796, and the 1828 contest between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson has been called as the dirtiest in American history.

So many of the crazy things that we witness today result from the tremendous amount of things that people don’t know: ignorance. And the poster child for that sad characteristic may be New York’s Representative-elect Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.