The One Big Beautiful Bill and the environment in the news

June 3, 2025

A very hot topic in the news lately is the Republican’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBB) that passed the House by a razor-thin margin and is now before the Senate. As with many bills of this kind, there are good things, and not-so-good things, in it. And, predictably, the Democrats are 100% against the bill, and even some Republicans have issues with it.

There will be much activity in the Senate for members to get things taken out they don’t like, or to moderate things to make them more acceptable.

And like so many others, this one breaks a common-sense idea about legislation. The OBBB is 1,100 pages long and proposes tax cuts and spending cuts, as well as several other subjects that are not related to each other. The bill contains many things that Republicans and President Donald Trump like and want, hence its title. 

However, as a practical matter, bills before Congress should address 1 item, or maybe a couple that are very closely related, and not be as long as, or longer than, a best-selling novel.

Bills are often used to sneak in a controversial topic that a small number of the members support. It might get passed because the primary topic or topics are very popular, and voting against the bill because of the sneaked-in aspect would not sit well with constituents. Also, having a number of different topics in a bill makes it longer and harder to get through, as well as more difficult to understand and to develop a level of support or opposition.

Ideas about changes to the OBBB are being suggested. The Club for Growth, for example, has a list of 21 “potential improvements,” including: 
* Full and immediate repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act  
* Cut marginal tax rates for individuals 
* Reduction to Corporate Income Tax rate 
* Enhance the qualified business income deduction from 23% to 40% 
* Reduction of capital gains and dividends taxation/investment income 
* Index Capital Gains to Inflation 
* Allow all Americans to save for their futures tax-free through Universal Savings        Accounts 
* Prohibit funding for sanctuary cities 
* Eliminate the SALT deduction 
* Extend Work Requirements to all anti-poverty welfare benefit programs
* Sell federal land

There are also a few articles dealing with the environment that are not widely available. Some of them challenge the popular narrative, while others discuss topics less common than those to which we are accustomed. 

Dr. Roy Spencer is a former NASA scientist, climatologist, author, and former Visiting Fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment. He offered this information in a Heritage Foundation article. 

“Warming of the global climate system over the past half-century has averaged 43 percent less than that produced by computerized climate models used to promote changes in energy policy. In the United States during summer, the observed warming is much weaker than that produced by all 36 climate models surveyed here. 

“While the cause of this relatively benign warming could theoretically be entirely due to humanity’s production of carbon dioxide from fossil-fuel burning, this claim cannot be demonstrated through science. At least some of the measured warming could be natural. Contrary to media reports and environmental organizations’ press releases, global warming offers no justification for carbon-based regulation.”

Two “Key Takeaways” from the Heritage article are:
* Climate models that guide energy policy do not even conserve energy, a necessary condition for any physically based model of the climate system.
* Public policy should be based on climate observations—which are rather unremarkable—rather than climate models that exaggerate climate impacts.

Appearing in emails and elsewhere is this: “After nearly two decades of accelerating ice loss (with losses reaching about 142 billion tons per year from 2011–2020), Antarctica saw a dramatic shift between 2021 and 2023.

“During this period, satellite data (GRACE and GRACE-FO missions) show the Antarctic Ice Sheet gained about 108–119 billion tons of ice per year.

This gain was especially pronounced in four major glacier basins in East Antarctica (Totten, Moscow University, Denman, and Vincennes Bay), which had previously been rapidly losing mass.”

Another article discussed a lesser-known factor that affects our environment. “A recent scientific study confirms that changes in Earth’s orbit play a key role in triggering ice ages. These shifts, known as Milankovitch cycles, affect the planet's climate over tens of thousands of years by altering the amount of sunlight reaching Earth. Based on current orbital patterns, researchers estimate that the next ice age could begin within the next 11,000 years. This discovery deepens our understanding of Earth's long-term climate cycles and the natural forces that drive major environmental changes.”

And Researchers from ETH Zurich and the Carnegie Institution for Science say Earth is cooling far faster than we thought — and will turn into a dead, rocky planet like Mars much sooner than expected.

Our environment is very complex, with factors of which most people are unaware that affect it. They are rarely talked about outside of scientific circles. But they have an effect on the environment that cannot be ignored. We must always be aware of the “big picture” of our environment.

Trump’s efforts to downsize government has Democrats going crazy

March 4, 2025

The left’s attitude toward President Donald Trump is — unsurprisingly — unchanged since he won reelection last November. In fact, a recent Pew Research Center poll shows Democrats dislike everything Trump does. Imagine that! 

It seems that anything that can be said regarding Trump to make him or his actions look bad is approved and encouraged.

Here is one example: “President Donald Trump announced late Sunday that he was naming former Fox News personality Dan Bongino as deputy FBI director, the latest in a series of controversial picks for high-profile law enforcement positions,” as reported by Politico. And, another source referred to Bongino merely as a podcaster.

However, these sources of important information that people depend upon neglected to tell the public that Bongino had served 4 years as a New York police officer and 11 years as a U.S. Secret Service agent during the tenure of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. He has much more substantive law enforcement credentials than a Fox News personality or a podcaster. 

This is a good example how the left “sort of” reports things, using negative and/or derogatory information while leaving out relevant information in reporting on the Trump administration, its personnel, and its actions.

And it’s not just the news media that are indulging in this behavior.

The left likes to think of itself as open-minded, inclusive, tolerant and peace-loving. However, the extreme portion of the left pursues hatred and intolerance as normal elements in its dealings with, and references to Trump supporters and Trump administration officials. And since voters voted against the radical left last November, this behavior is becoming more mainstream.

Down in Louisiana an LSU law professor criticized both Trump and Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry using vulgar language in class. A few days later, in response to student complaints, the professor was suspended by LSU pending an investigation into the complaints.

At a recent meeting of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, Florida Democrat Rep. Maxwell Frost called President Trump “the grifter in chief,” and referred to Elon Musk as “President Musk.” 

At a town hall held by a Republican Congressman near Atlanta, Georgia recently, he was repeatedly interrupted with shouts and jeers. A similar result was found in a town hall in La Grande, Ore., where the audience booed and yelled. A Wisconsin Republican Congressman was booed after saying that Trump has done “some very good things.” 

In response to the activities of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), one person said, “this is all a horror show,” and another person said that “Democrats should treat this as a war.” And California Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters screamed, “We have got to tell Elon Musk that nobody elected your [expletive deleted].”

Continuing her rant, Waters added, “We’re in a crisis in this country because Trump and Elon Musk and the billionaires have decided they’re going to put us all in our place. They’re going to run this country. They’re going to make sure that they take over everything.”

"This is what the start of dictatorship looks like," Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar said. "When you gut the U.S. Constitution and you install yourself as the sole power, that is how dictators are made."

New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) is trying to protect illegal aliens from being deported. This is a high priority for the Trump administration, especially for the violent criminals among the millions of illegals. “Believe it or not, in America EVERYONE has rights,” AOC wrote. “Citizen or not, we all should know our rights to protect ourselves and others from illegal search & seizure.” Even she ought to understand that the one right they do not have is to be here illegally.

Whether these Democrats actually do not know what they are talking about, or are deliberately distorting the truth for political gain, is an open question. Nothing seems to be more important to them than damaging Trump and his policies, the things that tens of millions of Americans support. Trump collected 77 million votes and 312 Electoral votes, when only 270 are required to be elected.

Doesn’t it seem odd that the Democrats who constantly complain about how “our democracy” is being treated, loudly demonstrate how little they understand about how “our democracy” — our constitutional republic — is supposed to work?

It seems to puzzle them, and in fact, set off their alarms, that by the U.S. Constitution the President of the United States of America, who was elected by a majority of the voters in the nation, controls the Administrative Branch. All of the people in the Administrative Branch work for the President, and they do not require Congressional approval or any approval outside that of the President.

A new Gallup poll shows that Democrats want their party to moderate their positions. And for the good of the people that those in Congress are elected to serve, this is a sensible idea.

The problem is that by moderating their talk and behavior they must abandon their political goals, which are more important to them than restoring and maintaining the nation as created by the Founders.

That is what Trump, Musk and the rest of the administration is working toward.

Donald Trump, DOGE and Elon Musk are not the real problems

February 18, 2025

Things have certainly been active lately, especially since November 5th, and even more so since January 20th.

President Donald Trump and his administration are getting started doing the things he campaigned on. And the opposition party is quite active in objecting to, and opposing virtually everything Trump and his administration are doing to drain the swamp and restore the government to its proper role and size.

The newly formed temporary agency, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), is at the center of the controversy, with the socio-liberal faction freaking out at new levels. 

The leftists, whose previous actions to get Trump disqualified and jailed did not succeed, are vocally livid. They don’t complain about the misuse of billions of taxpayer dollars, they are angry at the investigators.

Some comments appearing in The Hill: “’He’s pushing the boundaries of a system as far as they can go,’ said one Democrat who works for an outside organization planning to take action as part of the burgeoning new resistance.”

“’This guy is doing some crazy [expletive deleted],’ added a second Democrat who is also involved in planning efforts. ‘This isn’t jamming through a nominee. This is when it starts to be alarming.’” 

“While Elon Musk is pouring gasoline and dropping lit matches across the federal government, voters don’t want their elected representatives acting like deer in the headlights,” said Karthik Ganapathy.

Discussing Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez D-N.Y., Ganapathy said: “AOC in particular is modeling what effective, clear leadership looks like. Making sense of the chaos and helping people understand what they can do to make a difference. We need more members following her lead.”

From Politico: “Ocasio-Cortez urged Democrats to ‘blow this place up.’ ‘We should not comply in advance,’ she said. ‘We should not make it easy for them to do what they need to do if they’re going to do it anyway. Make them do it anyway, but not with our help.’

In an interview, AOC said this: “This is not business as usual, and Senate Democrats should not be treating this as business as usual. We need to see a halt on all Trump nominees.”

“Some Democrats have tried to capture a sudden wave of activism that has popped up over the past week as Trump and Musk’s assault on the federal bureaucracy has come into focus. [N.Y. Sen. Chuck] Schumer, for instance, was among several Democratic lawmakers who protested Musk’s moves outside the Treasury Department on Tuesday.

“He led a boisterous crowd of lawmakers and supporters in chanting, ‘We will win.’ The crowd immediately followed by chanting, ‘Shut down the Senate.’”

Some comments made on Fox News: "[Expletive deleted], ‘shut down the Senate!’ Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-N.J., said during an anti-DOGE protest in Washington, D.C., Tuesday. ‘We are at war!’"

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., commented: "We are going to fight it legislatively. We are going to fight it in the courts. We're going to fight it in the streets." 

Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, said at a protest over DOGE and its chair, Elon Musk, earlier this month, "We are gonna be in your face, we are gonna be on your [expletive deleted], and we are going to make sure you understand what democracy looks like, and this ain’t it."

And Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J. said: "We will fight their violation of civil service laws. We will fight their violation of civil rights laws. We will fight their violations of separation of powers. We will fight their violations of our Constitution of the United States of America. We will not shut up. We will stick up. We will rise up." 

There are some obvious problems with some of these comments. But the main problem is that these people either think this process is not legal or constitutional, or they know that it is legitimate, and are just saying it isn’t to get their base angrier.

In organized protests some participants were carrying signs that said things like, “Elon Musk was not elected!” That is true. But Alejandro Mayorkas was not elected. Nor was Merrick Garland, Anthony Blinken, Anthony Fauci, or the bureaucrats who mis-spent billions of dollars at the USAID. All of them were appointed or hired through proper means, as was Musk.

DOGE is not a cabinet agency, it is a temporary administrative agency created by Trump’s executive order. The president has the authority and the duty to control administrative agencies and departments. Cleaning up messes like wasteful spending and improper actions is precisely what a president should do.

DOGE did not have to be approved by Congress. And, as an appointed government official, Musk does not require Congressional confirmation and has legitimate authority.

So, what the country now faces has two parts. One is a legitimate effort to clean up inefficient government agencies and departments, curb wasteful spending and eliminate excessive regulations.

The other is a politically-oriented opposition effort highlighted by adolescent behavior and vile discourse attacking the administration, and thereby creating anger among its followers, increasing the risk of lawlessness and violence.

In the efforts to prevent the correction of their mechanisms of inappropriate government actions and improper spending of taxpayer money, the leftists are the ones endangering “our democracy.”

Political considerations still control how our government works

January 7, 2025

As we watch Joe Biden’s presidency ending and prepare for President-elect Donald Trump to take office, some notable things have occurred.

First, Biden continued his questionable behavior by killing the sale of the troubled U.S. Steel company to Japan’s Nippon Steel. This transaction, had it been completed, would have been for more than $14 billion. 

In doing this, Biden said it was his “responsibility to block foreign ownership of this vital American company” as “this acquisition would…create risk for our national security and our critical supply chains.”

There is little evidence to support that. However, had the purchaser been our most significant adversary, Communist China, those who condemn Biden’s action would have celebrated it.

U.S. Steel was founded 1901 by Andrew Carnegie, J.P. Morgan and Charles Schwab. It is the first U.S. company to achieve a worth of at least $1 billion not long after its creation. However, during the 20th century the company had serious problems, which brought about trying to sell it.

Japan is a strong ally of the U.S. and would have been a good owner of the company, keeping it alive. U.S. Steel had warned that, “without Nippon Steel’s cash, it will shift production away from its aging blast furnaces to cheaper non-union electric arc furnaces and move its headquarters out of Pittsburgh,” as reported by the Associated Press.

Biden, who prides himself as the most pro-union president ever, seemed to not notice that possibility.

Also, Biden awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to 19 people at a White House ceremony. The Medal is the Nation’s highest civilian honor, and is presented to individuals who have made exemplary contributions to the United States, to world peace, or other significant endeavors.

Prior to giving the awards Biden noted that the recipients are “a collection of people, with different backgrounds, beliefs, talents, generations, and agendas, using their remarkable gifts and unwavering passion to strengthen our resolve as one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Among those receiving this special award were some well-known people, including Robert F. Kennedy (posthumous), Michael J. Fox, Denzel Washington, Lionel Messi, Earvin “Magic” Johnson, Ashton B. Carter (posthumous), Bill Nye, and Ralph Lauren.

However, there were two others who are well known, and controversial: former Secretary of State and former Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and notorious philanthropist George Soros.

As Secretary of State, Clinton was lackluster. Her time as a senator and first lady were no better. She is best known for her erroneous claims, such as that as first lady she traveled to Bosnia, and “landed under sniper fire.”

More recently, she said that “If you’re just catching up: The Republican Party, taking orders from the world’s richest man, is on course to shut down the government over the holidays, stopping paychecks for our troops and nutrition benefits for low-income families just in time for Christmas.” Really?

George Soros is a strong supporter of progressive projects, and has poured billions of dollars into them through his Open Society Foundations. He funded groups supporting anti-Israel protests on college campuses.

Worse, he has invested heavily in political campaigns of far-left, progressive — read “pro-criminal” — district attorneys in major cities. Two of these are Manhattan’s Alvin Bragg and Larry Krasner in Philadelphia. These two prefer pursuing criminal justice reform over finding and prosecuting criminals.

Just last week as the 119th Congress prepares to begin working, the House of Representatives addressed its first step, which is electing its Speaker. The Republican candidate, who was depending on a very narrow majority, was former-Speaker Mike Johnson, and the Democrat candidate was Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.

The House can do nothing until it elects the Speaker, and a vote to certify the election of the next President is at the top of the list, right after members of the House are sworn in. So, a smooth and quick Speaker election is critical.

What should have been a simple task of taking an hour to count the votes and complete the election was thrown into chaos by a few Republicans who did not want Johnson in the position.

Of the 219 House Republicans all but three understood the importance of getting Johnson elected quickly so they could get on with the important work of the House did vote for Johnson. He then fell short of the needed 218 votes, which was the majority of those voting.

The three who wanted to play games with this important action were Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina, and Rep. Keith Self of Texas. It would have made more sense to elect Johnson and get to work, and if there was strong enough support to replace him, wait until the House was up and running. 

It appeared initially like a second vote would be needed. Johnson talked with each of the three to try and work things out. But ultimately, what did the trick was a phone call from Trump.

So, the efforts of three Republicans to continue the insanity that began with the ouster of former-Speaker Kevin McCarthy in 2023 did not succeed. And now the House can focus on passing legislation that will help restore America. 

Trump faces many serious problems, and tremendous obstacles

December 10,2024

As January 20, 2025 — the day of inauguration — approaches there is much talk about what things Donald Trump will do as the new President.

Among the serious problems facing the country and the Trump administration are: the federal government’s size and exorbitant operation; straightening out the military; and the National Debt.

The federal government has become a place where unelected bureaucrats make decisions with the force of law and impose penalties and fines without congressional approval.

Back in June the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a decision that addressed this problem. Kentucky Republican Representative James Comer, Chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, issued this statement about this decision.

“Today’s Supreme Court decision stops the unelected, unaccountable federal bureaucracy’s aggressive regulatory overreach. This is a win for the American people, small businesses, and our Constitutional Republic. For far too long, the administrative state has been able to wield unchecked power and act as legislators by issuing major regulations that have driven up costs for Americans, stifled innovation, and micromanaged nearly every aspect of Americans’ lives. This decision rightfully hands the power back to Americans’ elected representatives in Congress to write our nation’s laws and to the courts to interpret them.”

This is a good development, but more can and must be done. 

There is a crisis within our military. Some in its leadership have become terribly confused in terms of understanding the requirements for and critical job of the military. Foolish and non-productive ideas like DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) have replaced merit in determining job assignments, recruitment processes and promotions. 

Last year the Army, Navy, and Air Force failed to reach their recruiting goals by 41,000 recruits. That means that in 2023 we had the smallest active-duty force since 1940. 

Some other factors in this recruitment failure are: a smaller eligible population, Gen Z has a low trust in institutions, and follows traditional life and career paths much less than previous generations. Another factor is that the military, due to recent changes in operations and philosophy, does not have the strong appeal it once had.

The military’s role is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, and maintain, by timely and effective military action, the security of the United States, its possessions and areas vital to its interest.

We need to increase funding for defense to strengthen and grow our military forces.

The National Debt has grown beyond all reason and is dangerously high. This problem has been going on for many years and has increased recently, as the following data shows: 1974 - $475 billion; 1995 - $4.9 trillion; 2005 - $7.9 trillion; 2015 - $18.2 trillion; 2020 - $26.9 trillion; 2024 - $36.2 trillion.

The current total works out to $107,169 for every person in the country.

Decades ago our largest budget deficits were brought on by national emergencies like the Great Depression and World War II. More recently, the government has simply spent more money than taxation provides, and on inappropriate things. This causes huge deficits, and huge interest payments on our debt.

In 2023, the federal government spent $658 billion on interest costs. That was 2.4 percent of the GDP (gross domestic product). 

While the June Supreme Court decision was a step in the right direction, the federal government still needs much corrective work. There are several departments, agencies, offices, etc. that are not necessary or useful.

Government employees are often not living up to their duties. Many of them work remotely, not at their duty station, a situation that evolved during the COVID pandemic, and which has not been remedied. 

A report found that only 6 percent of federal workers report in-person on a full-time basis. And, almost one-third of federal workers are remote full-time, which is a big difference from before the pandemic when only 3 percent worked remotely. This negatively affects the efficient and proper functioning of many areas of government.

There are at least three federal departments that need to be eliminated: The Departments of Commerce, Education, and Energy. These are among the most frequently mentioned for elimination, with the Department of Education leading the list. 

Having only been around since President Jimmy Carter signed it into law in 1979, the Education Department unnecessarily interferes with the efforts of the individual states to serve their citizens’ needs, a federal department which states did without for two hundred years.

And, as these items are addressed, other critical problems exist. We must repair the open borders of the Biden administration and get control of the illegal aliens now in the country, restore our position of energy independence, and fix the horrible Biden inflation that has made life so difficult for so many.

The Trump administration has a wonderful opportunity to begin to restore the federal government to a reasonable size and reach, to get government spending under control and make some headway toward reducing the National Debt.

That is a substantial challenge under the best of circumstances. And with the Democrat/liberal mindset that is so subversive to the American ideals our Founders established, it will be much more difficult. 

A loud and clear message was sent by voters on November 5th

November 26, 2024

The people spoke on November 5th, voting to make Donald Trump and J.D. Vance our next President and Vice President, and to give both houses of Congress a Republican majority.

And now, even after the disastrous message provided by the election results, the political left still is committed to divisiveness, unpopular attitudes and even illegal activities.

The election was a mandate from the people. The policies and realities of the last four years are highly unpopular, and voters want to restore the nation to the condition of the four years before President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris took office in 2021, and to continue policies of that nature.

The election was a thumbs-down message about the absurd and dangerous virtual “open-border” policy that allowed millions of unvetted illegal aliens to enter the country at will. The Biden administration even secretly flew thousands of illegals into the country, avoiding the border altogether. 

These illegal aliens are people with a variety of motives for coming here. Some are coming for the right reasons, even if their method of entering is a crime. But many, many others are drug dealers, women traffickers, child traffickers, robbers, rapists, murderers and other types of criminals. And some of them are on the terror watch list.

While many of them have been charged with crimes, the recent guilty verdict in the trial of the illegal alien with a heavily checkered criminal past who was accused of murdering 22-year-old nursing student Laken Riley is indisputable proof that this and other crimes have occurred because the border security measures that were in place when Biden and Harris took office were cancelled in what looked like a 5-year-old’s temper tantrum on Biden’s part.

None of this seemed to even attract the interest of the Biden administration, which attempted unsuccessfully to blame the problem they created on the Republicans in Congress. The Republicans voted down a bad bill that supposedly was to address the situation, but wasn’t available until early 2024.

Biden’s reversing of Trump policies that were working pretty well also threw the country into four years of exceedingly high inflation. The war on domestic oil is responsible for the high gasoline and diesel prices, and shattered America’s energy independent status. It forced us to import oil and gas from other countries instead of using our own resources.

Under the Biden economic policies, people can’t afford things that had previously been affordable. Prices rose by more than 20 percent, a 40-year high. The average family of four was paying an additional $17,080 per year. The goods and services they could afford before January 2021, had risen to $1,423 per month more than before.

Businesses are caught in the middle of this mess. They have to deal with higher prices for the goods they market, and the components of the goods and services they produce. Increased costs lead to increased prices. And increased prices lead to unhappy customers and fewer customers who can afford the higher prices.

This affects small businesses greatly, as they are less able to deal with higher operational costs than the large companies. Some of them are forced to close down, putting workers on the unemployment line.

The public complaints of price increases on needed items led presidential candidate Harris to play politics with the inflation caused by the Biden/Harris administration.

Harris threatened to introduce a national ban on price gouging, if elected. She told an audience that her plan would “stop companies taking advantage of the desperation and need of the American consumer and jacking up prices without any consequences.”

These so-called “progressive” policies so badly affected the American people that they voted against them, and said a very loud “Stop it!” They don’t want open borders. They don’t like the much higher prices. It was a definite “No” to the exceedingly foolish Biden policies.

The country now looks ahead to next year when the Trump administration can begin to address the problem of millions of illegal aliens in the country and the costs in dollars and lives they bring. But blue state governors and blue city mayors have publicly announced their intention to fight the administration’s efforts to deport the millions of illegals who were happily, but illegally, welcomed into sanctuary states and cities.

For example, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy has said that he would “fight to the death” against the Trump administration if it acted against New Jersey’s “values.” And Matt Platkin, New Jersey’s Attorney General, commented on X (formerly Twitter) that while he respects the electoral process and trusts in the peaceful transition of power, he will resist what he termed Trump’s unlawful attack on the “rights” of New Jersey residents to be in the country illegally.

But a majority of the country’s voters has said loudly that they are fed up with the dangers and expense of millions of illegal aliens being here, and with the unnecessarily high prices on everything they need and want.

They want an end to the foolish policies that brought these problems to us. The question now is, will the Democrats get the message and give up their radical un-American impulses?

What is happening in the aftermath of the 2024 election

November 12, 2024

“A relatively trouble-free presidential election was good news for those working to restore faith in the system,” the Associated Press (AP) reported last week. “Less encouraging was a flood of misinformation that sought to undermine trust in voting and sow chaos, something experts say is likely to get worse in the years ahead.”

So far, not many problems have been reported, but the AP did note that “The most significant test for officials on Election Day was a series of bomb threats reported in five battleground states, some of which forced polling places to be evacuated temporarily.”

Early voting saw more than 84 million people who voted either in person or by mail. Together with votes from polling places, former President Donald Trump won the popular vote with 74,783,561 votes and the Electoral College with 312 votes. Vice President Kamala Harris received 71,187,165 votes and 226 Electoral College votes, as the AP reported Sunday. 

Green Party candidate Jill Stein received 704,468 votes, and Independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. received 681,096, even though he had withdrawn from the contest, and despite his efforts was left on the ballot in some states.

Now that this much-anticipated election of the next President, members of Congress and various state and local races is over, people might expect things to settle down.

But no, there is still a very lively atmosphere in the country. Of course, Trump followers are pretty happy with the results. They are now concerned with the transfer of power and seeing who Trump will put in the important positions of the new administration.

But those on the other side are having serious problems dealing with what happened. A lot of comments were focused on Donald Trump and all of the reasons why he shouldn’t have won, rather than on why Harris didn’t win.

Some serious and sensible observers, however, have focused on problems with the Harris campaign, generally giving her accolades, but also mentioning things she didn’t do that would have helped her, and things she did that didn’t help.

In a column in The Washington Post contributing columnist Matt Bai said this: “But you must admit that Harris, like Hillary Clinton then, was not a perfect candidate with a clear message. I think the most stunning numbers in some of the state exit polling are those that show Trump winning significant shares of union voters, Black voters and Latino voters. To me, that sort of confirms my instinct that it was risky, if not negligent, for Harris to run a campaign that was almost entirely about how awful her opponent is.”

And comedian Bill Maher, a self-described liberal who often says some very wise things, called the Democratic party “losers” and suggested that they “look in the mirror” following the election. “We had an election,” he said during a “Real Time” monologue on HBO Friday night. “I did not vote for the winner, we’ll see what the winners do now. They won, now they have reality they have to deal with. We’ll see what they do.”

But not everyone is so calm and sensible. We find the common idea of some celebrities threatening to move out of the country, while others refuse to perform in red states. There have also been videos made by disenchanted Harris followers screaming at the top of their lungs about their plight.

They are predicting that there will be no more elections, and that Trump will go after his political enemies, just as the DOJ and the left has done to him. 

“I think that we also have to deal with the issue of race and gender. There was a lot of gender bias in this,” said Al Sharpton. “There was a lot of race bias in this and I think that we thought a lot of voters were more progressive in those areas than they were.”

“The View” co-host Sunny Hostin was "profoundly disturbed by the results." She feels for the working class, the elderly and her own daughter, claiming she "now has less rights than I have." She worries that Trump will establish "internment camps." And she also said that "sexism and misogyny" were how Trump won the Latino vote in a Texas county that Hillary Clinton won in 2016.

Other Harris supporters made these comments: “I might wake up a slave.” “I’m in Texas and I am so afraid.” “If you’re a black man and you voted for Trump … I hope that cop beats you so good.” “Trying not to worry too much but I’ve been up since 3 crying and panicking.” “I feel like i’ll [sic] be going 6ft under.” “I’m panicking [for real.] We need a proper evacuation plan.”

Fortunately for us all, we did not elect a candidate because of their race or gender, or because they refused press conferences and answering questions in a serious manner. And we did not fail to elect a candidate because of their personality, the baseless and silly references to Hitler and fascism, and because they are a lawfare victim. 

Instead, we elected a candidate based on policies proven far better than what the American people and the nation have suffered under for the last four years.

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

August 6, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

July 2, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Millions cheer Trump being convicted on 34 felony counts

June 18, 2024

Former President Donald Trump was convicted by a jury in New York last month on 34 counts of falsifying business records in order to influence the 2016 presidential election.

It is the first trial on four crimes of which Trump has been accused.

This conviction represents the first time in the nation’s history that a former president has been found guilty of a crime. And it has the added element of interest because Trump is the Republican candidate in the November presidential election, where he is seeking a second term.

Democrats and other anti-Trumpers are ecstatic over the verdict, rendered on the second day of jury deliberations. Sentencing on the crimes is scheduled for next month, and there is the hope among his non-fans that he will receive jail time.

That’s the story of one side of this highly controversial topic. On the other side are supporters of the former president who disagree with the verdict and believe this trial should never have occurred.

Critics of the trial have many complaints about the way Trump has been treated, including a long list of “irregularities” and questionable things with the initial charges and the actual courtroom process.

They cite the huge effort to keep Trump from running for reelection that includes states trying to prevent his name from appearing on the ballot. This effort was shot down by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that states cannot make this decision.

Several legal authorities, including present and former law professors as well as former prosecutors and defense attorneys, have cited a list of problems with this entire process, from the filing of the charges all the way to the rendering of the verdict.

Let’s consider Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s role in this. During his successful campaign, he noted his past experience and desire to go after Trump and his sons to “hold them accountable.” And he has satisfied his supporters on this point.

On the Sean Hannity show on Fox News Channel, former Harvard law professor — and proud Democrat — Alan Dershowitz heavily criticized Bragg’s accusing Trump of falsifying business records to allegedly pay porn star Stormy Daniels hush money, saying that it’s the “weakest” case he has seen in his 60 years of being an attorney.

“There is nothing here,” Dershowitz told Hannity. “There is no misdemeanor, there is no felony, there is no federal crime. The feds refused to prosecute — even Bragg refused to prosecute until some of his young progressive woke prosecutors demanded that he prosecute.”

He criticized Bragg for “trying to elevate it to a felony by claiming that the only reason that he paid the nondisclosure funds was to prevent voters from learning about it. Obviously, he did it because he didn’t want to embarrass his family, he didn’t want to embarrass his wife. And the idea that you can prosecute somebody — they could have gone after Alexander Hamilton on this theory,” Dershowitz said.

Appearing on Fox Business Network’s “Mornings with Maria” Dershowitz told host Maria Bartiromo that Bragg ought to be investigated for bringing this case under the existing circumstances. “Nobody in history has ever been charged with failing to disclose in a corporate form the fact he paid hush money.” Dershowitz said. “The reason you pay hush money is to not disclose it. Alexander Hamilton paid hush money.”

More problems with the trial have been cited by Professor Jonathan Turley of the George Washington University Law School. Turley lists several things done during the trial by Judge Juan Merchan. Here are a few of them.

“For many of us, the Trump trial has seemed otherworldly, a vaguely familiar proceeding where common elements of a trial seem to have been flipped,” he wrote for The Hill.

“At the start of closing arguments, most honest observers were still wondering what the prosecutors were alleging as to the crime that Trump was allegedly concealing with the falsification of business records,” Turley wrote, alluding to the fact that defense attorneys cannot adequately defend their client if the alleged crimes are not specifically named.

He noted that “the prosecution engaged in flagrant violations from offering testimony on unestablished facts to directly contradicting prior instructions,” with no interference from Merchan.

A guilty verdict needs a unanimous vote by all 12 jurors. But Turley wrote that Merchan told the jurors that “they could split on what occurred, with four jurors accepting each of the three possible crimes in a 4-4-4 split. The court would still consider that a unanimous verdict.” 

“Given the instructions and the errors in this trial, it would seem that an acquittal is almost beyond the realm of possibility,” Turley wrote before the verdict had been reached. “That leaves either a hung jury or a conviction. However, the framing of this case and failure to protect the rights of the defendant have undermined the perceived legitimacy of the proceedings and any possible verdict.”

There are several other salient points Turley, Dershowitz and others have made, and other factors highlighting the blunders in this trial, but there isn’t enough space in this column to cover them all.

Apparently, the left believes doing anything to prevent Trump from winning the election is okay.

The dangers originating at the southern border are growing

April 16,2024

Not so long ago those in positions of authority and leadership understood the importance of controlling who may enter our country.

In 2012, after winning election to his second term, then-President Barack Obama commented, “America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don’t have a choice about that.” 

Another comment he made was: “Now I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own.” Responding to what he termed the temptation to do that, he said, “But that’s not how our system works … That’s not how our Constitution is written.”

Several years prior to Obama’s comments, then-Sen. Joe Biden took a similar position. “It makes sense that no great nation can be in a position where they can’t control their borders. It matters how you control your borders. Not just for immigration. But it matters for drugs, terror [and] a whole range of other things.”

However, not long after expressing his true and important position on enforcing the law, Obama did what he said he was not permitted to do: he issued an executive branch memorandum titled “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (DACA). This declaration provided amnesty for young illegal aliens, and also provided other benefits to them. All of that was un-Constitutional and illegal.

A couple of years later, Obama expanded this illegal declaration and added Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA).  These two actions provided provisional amnesty to more than 4.5 million illegal aliens, and encouraged cartels to traffic illegal aliens into the country.

Statistics reported in 2015 showed that while illegal aliens constituted only about 3 percent of the U.S. population, they represented nearly 14 percent of all offenders sentenced for crimes committed here. That included 12 percent of murder sentences, 20 percent of kidnappers, and 16 percent of drug offenders. Those statistics also showed percentages ranging from 40 percent to 75 percent of the most wanted criminals in border states to be illegal aliens.

A Government Accountability Office study found that between 2011 and 2016, more than 730,000 illegals were in federal, state and local prisons and jails, and accounted for 4.9 million arrests for 7.5 million offenses, including drug crimes, assaults, sex offenses, kidnappings, homicide-related offenses, and terrorism-related offenses.

Then came the election of Donald Trump to the presidency in 2016, and his ideas about the border and actions he took were very much the same as the prior rhetoric of Obama and Biden.

Trump’s policies were aimed at reducing the numbers of illegals trying to come in, and were successful. And despite the opposition of Democrats, who claimed Trump had no mandate for the actions he took, the number of those apprehended while attempting to cross the border decreased by 88 percent from the peak under Obama. And that wasn’t because border security was weakened, but because the numbers of those trying to get in dropped substantially, due to the new level border security that was in effect.

But then in the 2020 election voters decided that they wanted Joe Biden as President. And Biden wasted no time in reversing the successful policies Trump had implemented.

The number of apprehensions of illegal aliens at the border in October prior to the election of 2020 was right around 69,000. Interestingly, by February of 2021, just one month after Biden was sworn in, that number was 100,441. That trend continued to increase, reaching 212, 672 in July. And the invasion has continued unabated since.

During Biden’s catastrophic tenure, as of February 2024 more than 7 million illegals have entered the country. Worse than that, if you can imagine anything worse than this deliberate trashing of laws and common sense, Biden has reportedly flown nearly 400,000 illegals into the country, bringing them in without having to cross the Rio Grande and battle the razor wire in Texas, and interact with the border authorities.

After cancelling Trump’s border policies, which dramatically reduced the number of illegals coming in, by executive fiat, Biden has consistently said he does not have the power that Trump had, and cannot close the border. Actually, all he has to do is reinstate Trump’s policies, and things will improve almost immediately. 

As pressure has mounted, he has changed his tune just a little, now saying he is investigating whether or not he can close the border. This “investigation” has gone on for weeks without an answer. Biden and the Democrats apparently are the only ones who do not know the answer: Yes, you can close the border.

Meanwhile, the crimes against Americans continue to rise, and deaths to Americans by drugs illegally brought in, and by criminal illegals who have walked in undisturbed. None of this seems to bother Biden. Or, maybe no one has explained this to him.

But Biden knows exactly what is going on. It’s part of the Obama/Biden plan to fundamentally transform the United States of America into another Venezuela. And the plan is working.

Fear and desperation define the Democrats’ election strategy

December 26, 2023

In their never-ending effort to prevent former President Donald Trump from being elected for a second term, the Democrats have taken yet another step. Their fear that Trump will win in 2024 has driven them to levels of desperation likely unseen before of as a weapon against a presidential candidate in our history, or certainly in the last hundred years.

Without listing all of the efforts so far unleashed, suffice it to say that every imaginable contrivance has been used. The most recent is perhaps the most ridiculous.

The Colorado Supreme Court, a panel of seven Democrats appointed by a Democrat governor, has ruled that "President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President" under the 14th Amendment.

There was, of course, much delight from this decision, and much irritation. Let’s focus on the response from those who disagree with the Court’s action.

Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, called the action a “flawed decision.” “This is the most dangerous attack on your constitutional right to vote I have ever seen.”

House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y. commented that "Four partisan Democrat operatives on the Colorado Supreme Court think they get to decide for all Coloradans and Americans the next presidential election. This is un-American and Democrats are so afraid that President Trump will win on Nov 5th, 2024 that they are illegally attempting to take him off the ballot."

 “We trust the U.S. Supreme Court will set aside this reckless decision and let the American people decide the next President of the United States,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-LA, wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter.

Trump attorney Alina Habba commented that “This ruling, issued by the Colorado Supreme Court, attacks the very heart of this nation’s democracy. It will not stand, and we trust that the Supreme Court will reverse this unconstitutional order.”

Attorney and former law professor Alan Dershowitz, a long-time Democrat, appearing on Newsmax "National Report," said the following: "In the 60 years I've been practicing and teaching law, I've never seen a decision that's so anti-democratic and so unconstitutional; it is absurd," 

Dershowitz told National Report co-hosts Emma Rechenberg and Jon Glasgow, "The idea that the 14th Amendment was supposed to substitute for the impeachment provision, carefully drafted by the framers, is wrong."

He added that the 14th Amendment stipulates the process, which clearly says Congress shall have the power to ensure that a person cannot run for office.

"If you want to impeach a president, if you want to make him not be able to run in the future, there's a provision. It requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate," he said. "But the idea that the framers of the 14th Amendment intended to circumvent that carefully drawn provision and simply allow any state to make up grounds for denying him the right to be on the ballot undercuts democracy."

Because Trump allegedly engaged in an insurrection, according to the challengers, he is disqualified by Section 3. There are three major legal problems with that claim, however.

1. Trump didn’t hold an applicable office

2. He was not charged, let alone convicted, for ‘Insurrection or Rebellion’

3.  Section 3 is no longer extant. There is an argument that can be made — and which was already adopted by one federal court — that Section 3 doesn’t even exist anymore as a constitutional matter.

Offering more information on this, attorney Hans von Spakovsky with The Heritage Foundation wrote: “First, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment applies only to individuals who were previously a ‘member of Congress,’ an ‘officer of the United States,’ or a state official. Individuals who are elected — such as the president and vice president — are not officers within the meaning of Section 3. Second, no federal court has convicted Trump of engaging in ‘insurrection or rebellion.’ In fact, the Senate acquitted Trump of that charge in his second impeachment.”

Notre Dame University election law professor Derek T. Muller wrote in a blog last Tuesday, “This is a major and extraordinary holding from a state supreme court. Never in history has a presidential candidate been excluded from the ballot under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. United States Supreme Court review seems inevitable, and it exerts major pressure on the Court.

The Democrats, who loudly defend “our democracy,” are now trying to save it by trying to eliminate their chief political enemy in a manner that is stunningly un-democratic. It is more like what one sees in banana republics.

A recent headline regarding the Colorado Supreme Court action read: “Colorado Saves Democracy By Not Allowing People To Vote For Preferred Candidate.”

It is worth noting that among the seven Democrats on the Colorado Supreme Court, three of them disagreed with this action.

This partisan action will act as a lesson for the future, as political parties may use this and similar methods to fight political enemies. Will there soon be a movement to remove Joe Biden from the ballot, too?

If this ridiculous, irrational action is allowed to stand, our nation will suffer a foundational transformation at the hands of Democrats.

Two arguments made against DeSantis are incorrect

June 6, 2023

The 2024 Presidential Election is still 17 months away, and campaigning for the nominations is already heating up. The Republican list is growing, featuring these declared candidates and others likely to declare: Former President Donald Trump, former United Nations Ambassador and former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, South Carolina Senator Tim Scott, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson, former Vice President Mike Pence, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, and political commentator Larry Elder.

Democrats, on the other hand, have only three interested parties, so far: President Joe Biden, environmental attorney Robert F. Kennedy Jr., lecturer and author and 2020 presidential candidate Marianne Williamson.

Biden and Trump lead their respective parties at this point, and only one other Republican candidate, DeSantis, has seen much support. That has Trump firing shots across the bow, starting as DeSantis was traveling the country before he declared himself officially a candidate.

Trump, whose aggressive nature has cost him votes in the past, is focusing on DeSantis because he’s the only threat at this point. Trump has noted recently that you have to go after number two, and he is doing just that.

In addition to his penchant for name-calling, Trump has criticized Ron “DeSanctimonious” on two things recently. On both counts there is a problem with the criticism.

A political ad produced by Make America Great Again, Inc., has the narrator saying “We Can’t Afford Ron DeSalesTax,” with the tune of “Old MacDonald Had A Farm” in the background. It accuses DeSantis of having voted to raise taxes when he supported a 23 percent sales tax measure while serving in the House of Representatives a few years back.

That is true, as far as that brief statement goes. In fact, DeSantis co-sponsored the Fair Tax Act in 2013, 2015, and 2017. However, there is a good bit more important information about the Act than the Trump ad tells us.

In addition to a sales tax with a high rate, the Act would replace federal income, estate, payroll and gift taxes. So instead of paying a tax on every dollar you earn and those other categories, you pay only on things you buy that are subject to the tax. That is very different than simply voting for a 23 percent sales tax, on top of the others, as the ad implies.

"In Congress, the governor supported the concept of a Fair Tax, a plan to lower the overall tax burden on an individual by replacing all federal taxes — including income tax — with a lower tax. The plan also sought to end the IRS which, at the time, was being weaponized by the Obama administration. To describe only part of the plan in an attack is dishonest," said Bryan Griffin, the DeSantis political team press secretary.

DeSantis is still a critic of the IRS, saying it has become "a corrupt organization" and would "chuck it out the window" for a single-rate taxation system. He said that he has supported all of the single-rate proposals, and believes a fair tax or a flat tax system replacing the current system would be a big step forward, and something more favorable to average folks.

The second thing Trump misrepresented is DeSantis talking about two terms in the White House. “I’ve been watching ‘DeSanctus’ go out and say ‘I’ve got eight years. It’s going to be eight years,'” Trump said. “If he’s saying it’s going to take eight years for things to change, then you don’t want him as your president,” he added. “I can turn quickly. Reduce inflation, lower interest rates and heal the economy. This will take six months,” he said in a radio interview.

But DeSantis was not saying it would take him eight years just to do those things. He was saying that he could hold the presidency for eight years, as opposed to only four years that Trump could serve. That would give his policies more time to mature and become the new normal. DeSantis’ point was quite different than what Trump implied.

DeSantis’ idea for a new tax system based on the new sales tax and eliminating the IRS, would simplify the tax situation, reduce the taxes paid by millions of Americans, reduce the federal budget and help the government live within its means, and also reduce the heavy hand that government agencies often wield over those they serve. And a system with a fair tax or flat tax would also provide benefits to taxpayers.

It seems likely that Trump would also like the ideas DeSantis has for taxation. He did, after all, cut taxes substantially while he was President.

Trump and DeSantis will likely be going at each other throughout the campaign. Hopefully, the focus will become what each candidate is for, rather than what and who they are against.