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

May 3, 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Russian war with Ukraine has now entered its third month

April 26, 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Having a “living” Constitution is having no Constitution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Florida takes a stand for parent’s rights to protect their children

What is basic education? It is the process of helping youngsters in their early years to gain knowledge, skills and understanding of important, fundamental areas of living as a human being. These things are taught in the home and in schools, and for some, in religious activities.

And in schools, at first, the focus is on learning basic things like the ABCs, then how to read, speak and write; how to count, and then to add, subtract, multiply and divide. With each year of age comes more complex learning. 

Young minds are only capable of basic learning, which is why the early years focus on the basics. What children learn in the early years will stick with them. Which is why they need to be taught by parents and in school about fundamentals, like honesty, kindness, fairness, clear thinking, respect for others, and working to achieve. 

Young minds are evolving, and are malleable. In their early years, children have little ability to evaluate the good or bad of things with which they come in contact. That is why parents must be sure they are not exposed to harmful ideas, and why they must be watchful for efforts to “mold” the young in certain harmful ways.

Such things as gender identity, that there are more than two genders, whether they like being a boy or girl, or would rather transition to another gender, are not appropriate. Bringing up what the letters LGBT mean. Teaching that people of color are oppressed, and white people are oppressors. These concepts are unsuitable for K-3 children, and perhaps some older ones, as well.

While the denials are strong, the fact is that some schools and some teachers are taking advantage of the malleable nature of children in kindergarten and the early grades to put harmful ideas into the curricula that most parents do not support. These ideas are being secretly introduced into classrooms, as neither school boards nor the public have given them official and public approval.

This subversive behavior has raised the ire of parents in some states, as they resent the effort to remove from them the obvious authority they have over how their children are treated. And in Florida, the Legislature has acted on their behalf.

On March 28, the Governor’s website (flgov.com) said the following: “Today, Governor Ron DeSantis signed House Bill (HB) 1557, Parental Rights in Education, which reinforces parents’ fundamental rights to make decisions regarding the upbringing of their children. The bill prohibits classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through 3rd grade and prohibits instruction that is not age appropriate for students and requires school districts to adopt procedures for notifying parents if there is a change in services from the school regarding a child’s mental, emotional or physical health or well-being. The bill builds on the Parents’ Bill of Rights, which was signed into law in Florida last year, and is part of Governor DeSantis’ Year of the Parent focus on protecting parental rights in education.”

Gender activists and opponents of this bill call it the “The Don’t Say Gay” bill, even though the term “gay” does not appear in the text of the legislation. Reacting not to the bill itself and its purpose, but to the activists’ mischaracterization of it as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, opposition to Gov. DeSantis’ position and the legislation has gained a following.

And the once red-blooded American company, the Walt Disney Company, has taken exception to this child-protecting law. The company’s CEO, Bob Chapek, intends to work for the repeal of the law.

The company’s position has angered a group of its employees, which wrote an unsigned letter claiming Disney has embraced a “progressive orthodoxy” that has created an “environment of fear” in employees that are not progressives.

 “The Walt Disney Company has come to be an increasingly uncomfortable place to work for those of us whose political and religious views are not explicitly progressive,” the letter said, as reported by the New York Post. “We watch quietly as our beliefs come under attack from our own employer, and we frequently see those who share our opinions condemned as villains by our own leadership.” 

Responding to Disney’s opposition to the bill, DeSantis’ said this in a Twitter post: “The state of Florida is governed according to the interests of the people, not according to the political posturing of corporate executives in California. We will never allow corporate influence to repeal the substantive rights of parents in our state.”

Someone posted a meme on Facebook which read: “It’s not about homosexuality or heterosexuality. Stop promoting sexuality to our children, PERIOD. Let kids be kids.” So far, this common-sense post has not been taken down.

People who support DeSantis’ position are being accused of being “anti-gay” or “anti-trans.” But wanting to protect the youngest school children from potential indoctrination of a subject that could harm them for the rest of their lives is not “anti-gay” or “anti-trans.” It is pro-children.

Mature individuals will have plenty of time to decide how they spend their adult years after they have progressed sufficiently to make such decisions. 

Our traditional standard of free speech is under attack in America

More and more these days, people seem to be having fits over what other people think and believe. No longer do they just go on their way, shaking their heads in dismay and disagreement, but they plot how to punish those horrible excuses for humanity who dare to think for themselves.

Back in the fifties, a song in a Broadway musical was about “standing on the corner, watching all the girls go by.” After a couple of verses, the lyric says, “Brother, you can’t go to jail for what you’re thinking.” 

Today, you may not go to jail for what you think, but you can get attacked and “cancelled” by those who dislike your ideas, and therefore dislike you, and will see to it that you get your just desserts.

Examples of cancelling someone are not hard to find. You may have heard about speakers on college campuses being shouted down as they were speaking by students who disagreed with their ideas. A professor at the University of Southern California was put on leave because of the outrage that occurred when students mis-heard a Chinese word the professor used, and claimed he had used the N-word. He had not.

Such high-handed behavior is sharply at odds with the First Amendment’s protection of our ability to speak freely and the other freedoms the Founders of our country had in mind. That is un-American.

What someone thinks or does has become deserving of public rebuke in the minds of some who think differently. Given the radical thoughts of so many in positions of influence, perhaps in the not too distant future, it may become an area of criminality.

People see themselves as judge and jury, and convict someone on nothing more than a different point of view. Our traditional standard of free speech is being killed.

Another of our once strong standards is the sense of right and wrong. That is much weaker, given the large number of people who willingly commit crimes and other lesser wrongs. These impulses have been nourished by idiotic liberal concepts, such as defunding the police, the no-cash bail movement, and those whose job is to prosecute crime, but refuse to do it.

We haven’t forgotten the rash of incidents in cities across the country that were taken over by bands of ne’er do wells and criminals trashing public buildings and businesses, and robbing and killing people.

Newsmax magazine published a story about a crime spike in its April edition. It involved an ABC News analysis of data supplied by the state police in each of the states reported on, showing new homicide records in 12 cities in 2021. Two of the records broken last year were set in 1984 and 1987, and two others in 1990 and in 1991. The rest were in the 2000s, most on them in 2019.

The crime centers are: Columbus and Toledo, Ohio; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Austin, Texas; Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Portland, Oregon; Tucson, Arizona; Rochester, New York; Louisville, Kentucky; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Indianapolis, Indiana; and St. Paul, Minnesota.

What do these cities have in common, besides crime? They are all run by Democrat administrations.

There used to be three strong elements in our society that helped children learn how to be good humans: the home, the schools, and the churches. Actually, there still are three, but one of them has seen a dramatic decrease in participation: the churches. 

According to a Gallup 2019 poll, “… Gallup finds the percentage of Americans who report belonging to a church, synagogue or mosque at an all-time low, averaging just 50 percent in 2018.

“U.S. church membership was 70 percent or higher from 1937 through 1976, falling modestly to an average of 68 percent in the 1970s through the 1990s. The past 20 years have seen an acceleration in the drop-off, with a 20-percentage-point decline since 1999 and more than half of that change occurring since the start of the current decade [2010s].”

And while the other two areas have seen changes, too, those changes are less about numbers than about what goes on, or no longer goes on, in homes and schools.

Families too often consist of only one parent, and too often child rearing is not an important focus, at least not in the traditional way.

Schools are more and more becoming ideological training centers, and less and less educational centers. 

The grading system that has existed for decades is being replaced with a feel-good mish-mash that replaces actual testing for subject knowledge with a broad subjective judgement by the teacher. It’s not whether students earn an A, B, C, D or F, it’s about whether students made a respectable effort. Even basic discipline is missing.

These weak standards are not everywhere; not in every school system or in every school, of course, but they should not be anywhere.

So many kids and young adults today do not know and exhibit the strong traditional standards that built this great nation. Many, perhaps most, were not taught and expected to mirror those ideals, and some have just subscribed to an “easier” way of life.

Whatever the reason, the nation is suffering and becoming weaker.

Politics control the nomination process for Supreme Court Justices

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ending fossil fuel usage is only a dream, at this point in time

Green Energy Mania (GEM) desires that we do away with fossil fuels immediately, without regard to whether the preferred types of green energy sources are available in the necessary quantities to meet the present and future needs of Americans and the rest of humanity.

Few people believe that burning materials to make electricity is a good idea, if there are other ways of producing it. There are, however, lots of people who believe that the GEM goal is so important that it needs to be forced on Americas right away, without regard to the reality that we are nowhere close to being able to produce enough electricity by wind, solar, nuclear, et al, to handle the needs of Americans.

This attitude produces many problems, such as rules and restrictions that were created that affect the production of fossil fuels, reducing their availability and increasing their price.

Furthermore, while the US is at the top of the list of nations reducing CO2 emissions, there are other nations, like China and India, that couldn’t care less about that, and are increasing their use of fossil fuels. Why are we punishing ourselves with expensive and inconvenient restrictions when the reductions they produce are made irrelevant by the increasing excesses of other nations? 

Perhaps the only thing good about Putin’s Russian attack on Ukraine might be that it has highlighted some of the fallacies of the GEM mindset. Not so long ago — 2020, to be exact — the United States had gained the status of being a net energy exporter. And then, Joseph Biden became President of the United States, and willingly gave that up through executive orders that hurt our fossil fuel production and usage.

We must sensibly balance our wants against our needs. No matter how badly people want to end fossil fuel use, we have no choice but to depend upon them until cleaner methods are able to meet our needs. And even more sensibly, let’s use our own fossil fuels, not those of other countries.

Buying oil from places like Venezuela, whose oil is the dirtiest in the world, and America-hating Iran, the world’s top sponsor of terror, is just foolish.

And when we start smartly using our own fossil fuels as needed, let’s stop foolishly making that more difficult and expensive by getting rid of rules and restrictions. Let’s finish the Keystone XL pipeline that will make it safer and faster to get fuel from Canada for use here.

On that topic, Global Energy Institute President Marty Durbin said last year that her organization “opposes President Biden’s action to revoke the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. The pipeline — the most studied infrastructure project in American history — is already under construction and has cleared countless legal and environmental hurdles. This is a politically motivated decision that is not grounded in science. It will harm consumers and put thousands of Americans in the building trades out of work. Halting construction will also impede the safe and efficient transport of oil, and unfairly single out production from one of our closest and most important allies.”

“Several extensive regulatory studies conducted over the past decade as part of an unprecedented regulatory review concluded the pipeline would enhance the American economy while protecting the environment,” according to the Global Energy Institute.

Those that think not using a pipeline, and transporting fuels instead by trucks and trains — which burn fossil fuels while moving those fuels, putting lots of CO2 into the air, which a pipeline does not do — are not thinking clearly.

The Keystone XL pipeline would deliver over 800,000 barrels of oil a day. Its construction supports over 13,000 Canadian and American workers in the building trades.

And, while the U.S. and some other nations are working to phase out the use of coal for electricity production, others are increasing its use.

Citing data from the International Energy Agency (IEA), the Heartland Daily News, published by The Heartland Institute, reported that “Global coal demand fell by 4 percent in the pandemic year 2020, the biggest decline since World War II, but coal demand surged in 2021 as economies rebounded from the 2020 lockdowns. The IEA projects coal use will rise at an annual rate of 6 percent through 2024, surpassing its previous all-time high for use sometime in 2022.”

“According to the IEA,” the Heartland report continued, “the gap between the political commitments to meet net zero carbon dioxide emissions and the realities of the electric power demand and the increasing use of coal to satisfy it, is widening.”

We need fossil fuels, and will for some time to come. And, other nations are going to continue to use fossil fuels, regardless of what the U.S. and other nations decide to do, or what they may think is needed. 

Some nation or nations will benefit from producing those products. Why should that not be the U.S.? We will benefit from the jobs created, and the income produced, and we might as well enjoy the cost savings that using American fossil fuels will provide to us.

America is a much weaker nation today than it used to be

Many of us living today were born at a time when a family most often consisted of a mother, a father, and one or more children. The father — and sometimes the mother, also — worked to support the family. The children grew up in an atmosphere where things like a basic education, a close-knit family that survived on love for each other and respect for others, preparing to get a job and probably getting married and having a family of their own, were normal. And children were then prepared to repeat the cycle.

This age-old process produced a stable, mature society that helped America, which was brilliantly designed, develop into the leading nation in our world. And today there are still many people who are raised that way and will continue to live that way.

But through recent decades, this process has been weakened, and some of the influences that weakened it have come directly from our federal government. 

Today, America is a much weaker nation than it used to be, in many ways. Many people seem to be unaware of that, and others are unconcerned with the state of things. Will America follow the same path as Rome? Will it be destroyed from within because its people do not know, or have abandoned the governmental and social structures that made it great?

In addition to the Roman Empire, Babylon and Greece fell. Many of us watched as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (the Soviet Union, or USSR) fell apart. These once-great nations did themselves in. They were careless with their strength and glory, and they abandoned what helped them grow, and destroyed themselves.

There is a story from the early days of the United States. In Philadelphia in 1787, as delegates to the Constitutional Convention were leaving Independence Hall, from the crowd of interested onlookers a woman approached Benjamin Franklin. She asked, “well, Doctor, what do we have, a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin replied, “a republic, if you can keep it.”

Great nations evolve. They start from meager, often negative beginnings; they gradually grow to a level of freedom, security and comfort.

But then devolution begins. After time, comfort leads to forgetting the past struggles and the need to conserve what made them what they are. Seeking abundance takes control. With abundance comes an attitude of superiority, accompanied by greater apathy for the processes that brought development and success. That leads to selfishness. Selfishness leads to societal division and discord. And eventually, discord brings collapse. 

How far down that road has America traveled? What are the signs? Here are some.

A. Government is too big, costs too much and is too involved in our daily lives.

The federal government website tells us that “There are roughly 2 million civilian government jobs at more than 120 federal departments and agencies, not including the U.S. Postal Service.”

A federal department rules over education, which should be a local and state responsibility. Government inserts itself in other areas where it is not needed, wanted, or supposed to be. Ten thousand new IRS employees, they say, are “needed” to process tax returns, or for whatever purpose the government may direct.

Many government agencies are encouraged to put into effect rules with the force of law. But in America, only Congress can make laws. And then government agencies are sometimes ordered not to enforce the law, like on the southern border, allowing illegal entry of people, drugs and gangs. And at the state and local level, district attorneys in several states are not prosecuting some or many crimes.

In a Gallup poll last September, 52 percent said government is doing too many things, and prefer lower taxes and fewer government services.

B. Some military leaders think “equity” among races is more important than having the most qualified people functioning in the most effective military possible. Shifting attention from readiness to identity equity is dangerous. Mortars, bombs and bullets do not seek targets evenly by race, they seek available targets, perhaps made easier by this new wokeness. Military personnel must be united against a common enemy, not against those in other sub-groups because of race or other irrelevant differences.

C. One political party is straying from, and working to be rid of, some of the principles established more than 200 years ago. Members of Congress have discussed doing away with the filibuster and the Electoral College, which protect minority interests and the interests of smaller states from the tyranny of the majority; and stacking the Supreme Court to achieve dominance through law-making by judges and justices. 

On that subject Justice Clarence Thomas said in Utah Friday, “Are we leaving [our children] a mess or are we leaving them a country? Are we leaving them chaos or are we going to leave them a court?”

D. Social media companies believe they have the power to censor speech that does not toe the line of their preferred set of ideals. Large corporations buy up competitors, making life easier and more profitable for themselves, but not necessarily better for the people.

The signs are there, if we just honestly look for them. And then work to reverse them.

Here is a recipe for restoring the quality of public education

There is a lot of controversy over things that are occurring in public education today. Things like rewarding excellence among students has taken a back seat to “equity,” which is making sure that all sub-groups share pretty much equally in benefits, whether earned or not. 

As an example, some schools have eliminated advanced math courses for all students because some sub-groups are not equally represented among students taking those courses, which punishes those high-achieving students. Some students are good at math, while others are not. And others may be good at history, languages, or the arts, and high achieving students deserve the opportunity to progress as far as they may want to in their areas of strength. 

Many high schools have multiple valedictorians, so as to not hurt the feelings of students who fell slightly short of winning the honor. There are other issues, as well, such as the invasion of Critical Race Theory in the curriculum.

An email last week contained a video that addressed this and other issues with public education by presenting an approach that focuses on what is really important in education, and how to get back to that focus. The points of that video, along with some quoted material follow.

It began with this introduction from the presenter: “If every high school principal gave the following speech, America would be a much better place.”

Then, speaking as the principal of a high school, he began: “To the students and faculty of our high school, I am your new principal, and honored to be so. There is no greater calling than to teach young people.”

He then explained the important changes coming to the school. 

1. This school will no longer honor race or ethnicity. He said the color of one’s skin, where their ancestors came from and how they got here, doesn’t matter. “The only identity this school will recognize is your individual identity: your character, your scholarship, your humanity.  And the only national identity this school will recognize is American.

This includes after school clubs that cultivate narcissism, an unhealthy preoccupation with the self, “while, the purpose of education is to get you to think beyond yourself.”

“This is an American public school, and American public schools were created to make better Americans. If you wish to affirm here an ethnic or racial identity, or a national identity other than American, you will have to attend another school.”

2. It does not matter whether English is your native language, what matters is that you leave this school writing and speaking English as fluently as possible.

It is the duty of the school to be sure that students are prepared to successfully compete in the job market, therefore students must leave this school with excellent language skills.

Other languages will be taught, he said, noting that unfortunately many or most American-born people speak only English.

3. Everything in this school will reflect learning’s elevated status. There will be a dress code for faculty and students. Students will address teachers by their title — Mr., Mrs., or Miss — not by their first names. They are your teachers, not your friends, and will be regarded with due respect.

4. No obscene language will be tolerated on this school’s property. This will help students learn the difference between “the elevated and the degraded,” and “the holy and the obscene.” In other words, you will show proper respect for each other.

5. We will end all self-esteem programs. “In this school, self-esteem will be attained one way, the only way self-esteem can be attained: by earning it.” Consequently, “graduating classes will have only one valedictorian, not eight.”

6. I am reorienting the school toward academics and away from politics and propaganda. Such topics as racism, sexism, Islamophobia, homophobia, global warming, tobacco or gender identity will not be part of the school atmosphere. And no time will be spent trying to convince any students that they are victims because of their particular circumstances. “This school will have failed if any of you graduate without considering him or herself inordinately lucky — lucky to be alive, lucky to be an American.”

He noted along the way that if these new rules did not sit well with some students, “this is not the right school for you.”

The principal then asked all to stand and join him in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to our country, adding that since many of them did not know the words, teachers would hand them out.

This video was created and distributed by Dennis Prager, an American conservative radio talk show host and writer. He is co-founder of PragerU, a non-profit organization that creates short videos on political, economic, and philosophical topics, such as this emailed video.

The importance of education to the future of America cannot be over-stated. Whether through unknowing influences or outright subversion, many public schools no longer adequately teach our young about the nature and substance of our country.

If this is not corrected very soon, millions more young people will be unable to understand what America is all about, and why its original principles must be continued into the future.

Biden has been more of a help than a hinderance to Russia

The big news of the last week is the Russian attack on its neighbor, Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin is doing this for one of two reasons, Russia observers tell us. 

One reason they say is that Putin is afraid. He is scared to death of democracy, which Ukraine is reportedly working toward. And he fears that Ukraine could become a part of NATO, which he views as a threat to Russian communism. This, despite NATO having said it does not want to admit Ukraine to the organization.

The other, the more likely reason, is that Putin desires to re-establish the former Soviet Union by retaking those nations that were freed when the communist state fell in 1991, a goal he has firmly expressed in the past.

While the threat of a Russian attack was building, the nations of the world, including the United States, did nothing more than issue mild warnings. Sanctions were threatened, some serious ones, but would not be put in place until after an attack. Sanctions as a deterrent to war were not thought to be useful. Last week, Russia began the attack. 

One of the most serious sanctions would be blocking Russia from participating in the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) banking system. This action has been described as a “Financial Nuclear Weapon.” As this is being written, “selected” Russian banks have been taken out of SWIFT, but not all of its banks.

“For the U.S. and its European allies, cutting Russia out of the SWIFT financial system would be one of the toughest financial steps they could take,” NBC News reported, “damaging Russia's economy immediately and in the long term. The move could cut Russia off from most international financial transactions, including profits from oil and gas production, which account for more than 40 percent of the country's revenue.”

The U.S. buys a good bit of oil and gasoline from Russia. Forbes reported, “The United States imported more gasoline and other refined petroleum products from Russia than any other country in 2021.”

According to Federal Customs Service records, the United States is the single largest buyer of Russia’s heavy-oil products, and during the first five months of this year, U.S. refiners bought nearly 20 percent of Russia’s heavy-oil exports.

That complicates things for the U.S. in placing sanctions on Russia to force the end of the war against Ukraine, especially if one of those sanctions is completely blocking Russia from participating in SWIFT.

This situation exists a fairly short time after the U.S. became a net energy exporter in 2020, after increases in the production of crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids.

President Joe Biden had barely lowered his hand after taking the oath of office last year when he took actions that put the U.S. in a situation of supporting Russia, and at the same time making our country somewhat dependent upon it.

One action was stopping completion of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have moved 830,000 barrels of oil per day to the U.S. from Canada. That would have substantially increased domestic energy production, perhaps to a level where buying oil and gasoline from Russia would no longer be needed.

A second action was stopping oil drilling on federal lands, thereby lessening the amount of domestic energy production. 

And Biden helped Russia directly by removing the U.S. opposition to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline that benefits Russian energy sales, and will double Russia’s delivery of energy to Europe, bypassing pipelines in Ukraine and Poland in the process, a substantial financial benefit for Russia.

We have seen the price for a barrel of crude oil rise from $21.04 per barrel in April of 2020, during President Donald Trump’s administration, when energy independence was finally achieved after several decades, to more than $100 per barrel as of last week.

Biden has been more of a help than a hinderance to Russia when being a stalwart figure of opposition would have been much better. This mild stance followed his criticism of former President Trump’s tenure. 

In 2019, Biden said of Trump, “It’s going to take a hell of a lot of work to make up for all of the damage he’s done internationally and nationally.” Then, it seems, Biden said, “hold my beer!”

A cartoon post on Facebook put forth this question: What sanctions can Biden place on Russia?” To which the following answers were provided: Shut down their pipeline. Create supply chain nightmares. And, basically drive their economy into the ground. You know, like what he’s done to us.”

Somehow, that one escaped the censors’ knife.

Putin has put his nuclear forces on alert. This outrageous move ought to cause the most timid national leaders to get serious about the Putin threat.

Thus far, in opposition to his thuggery the world has effectively only stuck out its tongue at Putin. What he deserves, and requires, is to be knocked cold.

Censorship is dangerous, especially as science is very rarely settled

Those who resisted the often-conflicting advice from health experts about how to fight the COVID virus, particularly after more than a year of hearing it, were condemned for “not following the science.” And we have heard for years from some people that the science of climate change is settled, and that we must accept those assertions as fact.

It is the reality, however, that science is rarely settled, that there is always the possibility that new information will be discovered and that some theories will be proven wrong, or need to be amended, as a result.

Without getting too deep into the scientific method, Baen Books (baen.com) explains that “science is a process of examination and exploration, not a ‘fact,’ pronouncement, or conclusion. In essence, science consists of formulating a hypothesis from observed facts, creating experiments to prove or disprove the hypothesis, observing the results of the experiments, then making a conclusion to accept or reject the original hypothesis on the basis of those observations.”

One well known example of how scientific theories are wrong and are corrected is the centuries-old theory that the sun, moon and stars revolved around a stationary Earth, or “geocentrism.”

Here is how this “fact” was established:
Question: Why does the sun always rise in the East and set in the West? 
Observations: The sun, moon and stars always follow the same rotation around the Earth. 
Conclusion: The Earth is the center of the system of the sun, moon and stars.

This view of the universe was scientifically sound for its day and age, hundreds of years ago, and thus “settled science.” But centuries later — in the 18th and 19th Centuries — it was thought likely that the sun, not the Earth, might be the center of the system. Heliocentrism entered into and eventually dominated thought on the essence of the solar system. We now know that the planets and their moons revolve around the sun. The settled science was wrong.

Thus, science is very often not settled, and there are frequently different ideas about what is and what isn’t correct that should be examined.

With that in mind, consider the way social media have responded to ideas about COVID that were divergent from the “approved messages.” Those posts were labeled as “false information” by the “fact-checkers” of social media platforms, such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. As a result, they were labeled or blocked on the charge that they contained “harmful” or “dangerous” information. This was done ostensibly “to protect the public.”

But often these platforms were simply keeping opinions contrary to the preferred message from their audience. And not infrequently, those censored messages were actually true and correct. Among information that was correct and helpful, but forbidden, were points about wearing masks, the supposed benefits and risks of vaccination, and natural immunity gained from having had COVID. 

In America, one of our wonderful assets is that we have the freedom of expression. Through freedom to express our ideas, “settled science” may be discovered as incorrect or incomplete, and be improved by new information. New ideas may be presented at any time, and be open to debate, and perhaps lead to better understanding.

Censorship, even when imposed by private entities like social media, is wrong, unless the censored material is unarguably dangerous or harmful. This is so because we are blessed with freedom of speech, and that includes unpopular speech and even bad speech. And also, because even the most heavily supported ideas may be wrong, or in need of being improved upon. Furthermore, keeping unpopular ideas hidden may itself be dangerous.

Many ideas that do not agree with the approved messaging are censored by social media sites. There is a discussion regarding whether a “platform,” which such sites are, can arbitrarily decide what is “false information.” We expect newspapers and other news purveyors to make sure their content is correct, but platforms are not held to that standard, and are intended for open dialog.

You cannot have a useful discussion about important topics if only some information is allowed in the discussion. Social media sites, as platforms, are not supposed to regulate speech, unless it is truly dangerous. Political differences, or mere differences of opinion, are out-of-bounds for being blocked by social media “fact-checkers.”

And while, social media sites may have important information on them, they are not the only place people ought to go to find it. Social media have no business considering themselves as authorities on anything. That is not their role.

Social media must stop playing God, and let people have their say, right, wrong, or undetermined, so long as they do not allow inciting violence or other dangerous activity.

Of course, one reason — perhaps the main or only reason — social media sites engage in censorship is because they have a political purpose, and open dialogue thwarts their efforts to have their ideas win out in the court of public opinion. After all, it is easier for your side to win the argument if it is the only side put forth

But good ideas will win on their inherent content, without needing to censor opposing ideas.

The federal government is growing more intrusive under Joe Biden

First, the FBI was instructed to go after parents who are concerned about their children’s education. This followed news of meetings of school boards where parents spoke out about elements of their children’s education that were at odds with traditional educational curricula.

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a memo that called for the FBI and DOJ to “address the rise in criminal conduct directed toward school personnel.” This move was described by Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton as an excuse to target parents who are opposed to Critical Race Theory, also known as CRT, and other left-wing teaching materials. This, he said, was done at the behest of a prominent liberal education group, the National School Boards Association.

Fitton said that the memo “compared these parents to domestic terrorists and suggested using the Patriot Act to target them,” and that the Biden DOJ is “targeting average Americans going to school board meetings and complaining about Marxist propaganda brainwashing going on in our nation’s schools.”

“Just like that, you had AG Garland essentially issue an all hands on deck command to the national security establishment to target parents that were ‘threatening’ school board members,” Fitton continued. This move, he said, is “designed to intimidate parents [who are critical] of critical race theory extremism, transgender agenda extremism and the other threats to the safety, security and privacy of their children.”

In doing this, the federal government is attacking a basic operation of our democracy — freedom of speech — he concluded.

While parents were angry that schools had inserted lessons on topics that they not only disagreed with, but were unaware of — and rightly so — there was little evidence of actual violence or real threats to the safety of any school board members or school personnel.

Perhaps Garland, as the nation’s top law enforcement officer and a former judge, is unaware of the state and local law enforcement agencies that actually have jurisdiction in such matters, were there to be evidence of actual violence or intimidation.

Then the Department of Homeland Security sent agents to California in case some truckers decided to form a protest near the stadium where the Super Bowl was to be played, and "potentially block roads in major metropolitan cities" protesting vaccine mandates and other issues.

As reported by ABC7 in Los Angeles, “The agency said the convoy could begin in Southern California as early as this weekend, possibly disrupting traffic around Super Bowl LVI, and reach Washington in March in time for the State of the Union,” citing an Associated Press bulletin.

The report continued, saying, “The White House says the department is ‘surging additional staff’ to the Super Bowl, just in case (emphasis added).”

This action was taken before any actual trouble occurred, and without being asked by local authorities for help. Yet again, the federal government inserts itself into local/regional events, ignoring that there are local law enforcement agencies that could and should address them.

For a protest to make a difference, it must get the attention of those who have implemented the subject of the protest. The Canadian trucker protest has done that, significantly hindering the delivery of needed materials. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has only dug in his heels, refusing to lift the mandates the truckers oppose, despite the problems the protest has caused.

All the while one of the federal government’s legitimate and major areas of concern — the southern border — has been ignored, allowing hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens to enter the country with little or no involvement by federal authorities, other than assisting them in getting into the country through its reckless border policy of inaction. And then flying and busing them in the dark of night around the country to unsuspecting American cities and towns.

“We the people” are fed up with lots of things these days. Government overreach, at all levels, has finally put that last straw on the camel’s back. Resistance to vaccine mandates and vaccine passports has caused a mass protest in Canada and a significant protest in France, as well as some other countries.

Here in the U.S. many are fed up with the continued forced wearing of masks, particularly for young school children. This begs the question: Do masks really work? Well, some do and some don’t. 

For the purposes of stemming the spread of Covid, cloth masks — a very common choice — do not work. But any mask excels in harming the health and development of young children. And vaccines also do not work to prevent catching and spreading the virus.

Where the wearing of masks and getting vaccinated are concerned, that is where the defensive statement “my body, my choice” actually is relevant.

Over-the-top denial of people’s freedoms to ostensibly fight the Covid virus has at last passed the threshold, and people are standing up to the authoritarian control policies of federal, local, and state governments. 

A major benefit of the United States is the guarantee of a broad array of personal freedoms. Seeking those freedoms led to the war against Great Britain that allowed the colonies to establish the most free nation in history, and many Americans are unwilling to let that go.

America is being torn apart from within by bad politics, leftist policies

Watching America collapse or, more accurately, be torn apart from within, is very disturbing. The country has had challenges before. Some of us remember the turbulence of the sixties. The Vietnam War, the hippies and the Civil Rights Movement all had things stirred up. But the country settled down after a while.

Today, the large number of “Americans” who do not know why our system of government is superior to the others, because they were not taught about it, did not learn about it when they were taught, or who just don’t accept it, is truly troublesome.

Barack Obama’s pledge to “fundamentally transform the United States of America” if elected should have started a revolution against that concept. Instead, due to the large number who disagree with and/or don’t understand our nation’s founding principles, it fired up a lot of people who agreed with that idea. Today we are seeing where that mindset has led us.

Our country is divided more than it has been since the Civil War. One political faction wants to change many things, frequently because “times have changed.” Things like doing away with the Electoral College that protects minority interests and getting rid of the Senate filibuster that helps discourage the introduction of highly partisan legislation, and makes it easier to pass one-sided legislation. 

It has also discussed packing the Supreme Court with liberal activists to make laws rather than to correctly interpret laws. This will strengthen and maintain leftist power in Washington for a long time.

And even though Joe Biden won the 2020 election with 81.3 million votes — the most ever — and with the highest voter turnout percentage since 1900, it wants to change election laws to “increase voter turnout.”

The other side, however, wants to protect and defend the brilliant concepts of the Founders that made America superior to every other governmental form yet conceived.

This conservative faction understands that the principles of the U.S. Constitution do not change with the winds of time, or the preferences of political parties. And it understands why they should not change. 

The “conservative” justices on the Supreme Court and other courts work to maintain founding principles, and to save the republic from the suicidal tendencies of the socialist/communist radical left.

Laws that protect people must be followed and protected. And people that cannot or will not live and act in compliance with those laws must be punished. The safety of the populace is of utmost importance in the workings of a good government.

Fortunately, the disastrous results of defund the police, no bail/low bail, and not punishing some crimes are being seen for the irrational blunders they are. Yet millions among us still want to change direction from that which brought us a strong nation, and they are having negative effects on our country.

Education, which has been made far less effective because of the fear surrounding the Covid virus, now is home to a movement, mostly in secret, to improperly change the history curriculum. Some of this occurs at the school board level, some at the school level, and some at the instructor level. And it has spread into other subject areas.

Critical Race Theory (CRT) has been sneaked into classrooms, and rather than teach children that each of them is a valuable individual, it classifies them as either an oppressed person, or an oppressor. The distinction depends not on individual character, but on skin color. 

Instead of encouraging kids to understand and get along with each other, CRT pits groups of kids against each other, further intensifying the discord we see.

Some school boards deny parents their right to express concerns at meetings, and deny them requested materials. Some board members tell parents “I don’t work for you.” Teachers unions resist the importance of getting back into the classroom, and restoring the learning environment.

Reactions to the Covid variants have had devastating effects on the country, and much of the world. Combined with the other issues, things are truly upside-down.

Advice from the scientists has been all over the board. Some of that is a normal part of learning to deal with a new disease. But two years in, there is beginning to be resistance to the control mechanisms put into effect to protect us. 

Governments and businesses mandate vaccinations. Vaccines are designed to keep people from getting a disease. Vaccines in the past have done that. The Polio, Tetanus and Measles vaccines, for example, prevent contracting those diseases. 

Some people use those vaccines to justify forcing Covid vaccinations. But there is a big difference. Covid vaccines do not prevent catching or transmitting Covid. They reportedly reduce the effects of the virus, but do not prevent catching or transmitting it.

And then there is the selective censorship by social media platforms that impede the free exchange of important ideas. It is aimed primarily at conservative politics, and the “approved” Covid messages.

Comments contrary to the approved message were taken down, labeled as “false information” by the self-appointed media judges. Much of that information, however, proved to be correct.

Free speech is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Without the free expression of ideas — good and bad ideas — we are doomed.

Biden’s reasoning for who to appoint to the Supreme Court is flawed

So, President Joe Biden gets to pick a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. Back on the campaign trail he pledged to choose a black woman for the position. Why? Because, he said, it’s time.

If there is any good news in this situation, it is that with 99.9 percent certainty his selection, if approved, will not affect the balance on the Court. 

Replacing Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the three liberals on the Court, will almost certainly result in the nomination of a liberal/progressive, keeping the activist — “make law from the bench” — number at three, against six who usually follow the strict constructionist or original intent philosophy when interpreting the U.S. Constitution and laws.

America was once a nation where one earned his or her place on a court bench, in a hall of fame, or at the top of a rating or activity through merit. We are now, more and more, selecting people based not upon their abilities and accomplishments, but on their race or gender. This system is referred to as “equity.” It is more about evening out numbers than seeking out the best.

And there is the possibility that the person Biden nominates may feel that she got the nod only because of her race and gender, not because of her positive attributes.

If we are going to start picking justices for the Court based upon these new criteria, when will the time be for a Hispanic male, an Asian man or woman, or a transgender person? And who will decide when the time is right?

Many or most times — and filling this Supreme Court vacancy is one of those times — the proper choice is the most qualified person. That may well be a black woman. But it might be someone else.  And, if no others are even considered, how can we the people be sure that we are going to have the best possible person nominated for this crucial position?

Every Justice on the Court should be someone trained in the law, who understands and is devoted to the task of upholding the principles of the U.S. Constitution and the laws of the land as written and intended. There are already three on the Court who try to make law from the bench.

The nominee should be someone who has held a judgeship long enough to be familiar with the job, and without regard to their race, gender, political preferences, or the wishes of the woke.

Hopefully, Biden will nominate a black woman with abilities and qualifications equal to Clarence Thomas — who is a black man and one of the greatest Justices of any color, ever — and others seated on the Court.

From SCOTUSblog.com, which has covered the U.S. Supreme Court since 2002, here is some information on potential nominees: “Two potential nominees therefore stand apart from all others: Leondra Kruger, a justice on the California Supreme Court, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.”

“Both are well known to the White House team that will lead the nomination process,” the blog continues. “Kruger is a former Department of Justice attorney. Biden recently appointed Jackson to the court of appeals.”

The report goes on to say that “The president’s bottom-line calculus may reduce to the following. Jackson was recently confirmed by the Senate, making a Supreme Court confirmation process likely to go smoothly. Kruger has never faced Senate confirmation.”

That distinction matters, because if Democrats lose control of the Senate later this year, that would be important if hearings on the president’s nominee were substantially delayed until after the election, or if the first nominee is rejected. A candidate that has cleared the Senate previously would likely speed the process.

Several other names have also been mentioned for the position.

And exactly when did Biden catch the fever for choosing justices based upon the race and/or gender?

His disapproval and opposition to current Justice Thomas in his 1991 nomination hearing gathered headlines. As the then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chair, Biden actually tried to discredit Thomas as a crazy libertarian and reckless judicial activist.

“I assure you I have read all of your speeches, and I have read them in their entirety,” Biden said after Thomas’ opening statement. “And, in the speech you gave in 1987 to the Pacific Research Institute, you said, and I quote, ‘I find attractive the arguments of scholars such as Stephen Macedo who defend an activist Supreme Court that would’ — not could, would — 'strike down laws restricting property rights.’”

Thomas responded by denying what Biden accused him of, but Biden didn't buy it. “Quite frankly, Biden said, “I find it hard to square your speeches with what you are telling me today.”

So, while opposing a well-qualified black man 40 years ago, who despite Biden’s opposition was confirmed, he now believes a black woman should be the next associate justice because “it is time.” 

Time will tell whether Biden intends to nominate the next potential justice for the best reasons, as polls show Americans want. But given his support for the radical left’s agenda, we should not hold our breath.