Friday, January 24, 2025

Is Trump Inviting the Crazies to Assassinate his Critics?

From left to right, Dr. Anthony Fauci, John Bolton, Mike Pompeo.
by Rod Williams, Jan. 24, 2025- Donald Trump just freed a bunch of convicted violent insurrectionists, people who beat cops, sprayed them with bear repellant, and tasered them, threw fire extinguishers at their heads and beat them with flagpole, people who desecrated the Capitol by defecating on desk, and people who ran through the Capitol in a rage looking for Mike Pence to hang. He also praised them as patriots and while they were incarcerated, he referred to them as "hostages."

At the same time that he has made heroes of potential killers, he has removed the security protection for those who are likely targets of such "patriots." Trump has removed the security detail of Dr. Anthony Fauci and John Bolton and Mike Pompeo.

Dr. Fauci was the head of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and was the public face of the effort to combat Covid. Fauci earned the ire of many by his promotion of the Covid vaccine, lockdowns, mask mandates and social distancing. Some of these policies were later judged to be ineffective such as masking small children. Many on the Trumpian conspiratorial right viewed Covid as a minor type of flu used by the deep state, or the New World Order as an excuse to control behavior, and condition people to be obedient. 

Mike Pompeo is the former Secretary of State under Trump and also served as Director of the CIA. After leaving office he received ongoing security protection due to threats from Iran. As Secretary of State, he had taken a hardline stance against Iran and was deeply involved in shaping the Trump administration’s policy toward that country and played a role in Trump’s decision to assassinate Qasem Soleimani, a top Iranian commander and a really bad guy.  

After leaving office Pompeo drew the ire of Trumpinistas due to criticisms of Trump. On the Trump
classified document case, Pompeo said, “Trump had classified docs when he shouldn’t have had them, and when given the opportunity to return them, he chose not to do that.”  This of course angered the diehard Trump supporters. They are also angry at Pompeo because they feel he did not do enough to counter the Russiagate charges leveled against Trump. 

John Bolton was Trump's National Security Advisor who left the Trump White House in November 2019. He has also received ongoing US Secret Service protection because of threats against him from Iran. Trump initially terminated Bolton's protection after he left his administration in the first term, but President Joe Biden restored it once he took office. 

Bolton was architect of Trump's maximum pressure campaign against Iran and was also instrumental in the decision to assassinate Qasem Soleimani. Iranian Revolutionary Guard officials plotted to hire a hit man to kill Bolton but the plot was discovered and thwarted. There is no reason to think the Iranians have given up on their desire to take revenge on Bolton.

In 2020 Bolton published a book in which he claimed President Trump was terribly uninformed on matters of foreign policy, obsessed with how the media portrayed him, and had a transaction view of foreign policy. Bolton also said Trump sought leaders of Ukraine and China to help him win the 2020 election. Bolton shared his experiences working with Trump and painted a picture of man who was uninformed, who was irrational and not guided by any set of principles. Bolton said Trump was unfit for office.

Trump has let his displeasure with Bolton, Pompeo, and Fausi be known. I fear that that by withdrawing security details for these men, Trump is sending a message greenlighting action against them. He has essentially placed a target on their back. If I am wrong and that is not the intended message, I think that is the message some of Trump's more ardent supporters will receive. Trump doesn't care. 


Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

Prediction: Donald Trump will Declare Martial Law and Suspend the Constitution.

by Rod Williams, Jan. 18, 2025- Ever since the election and increasing so as we near the inauguration, many opinion writers and pundits have been writing pieces and speculating on news panels as to what to expect from a second Trump administration.

Much of what others predict and what I would predict is too daring. Some things he has said he will do; you can expect him to do. He has said he will institute a massive deportation plan on day one. I think it a safe bet to predict he will do so. I don't think the funding will be there or the time to deport anything like 15 million people, but I think it safe to assume that significant deportations will occur. I expect he deports those who have orders of deportation already who have not turned themselves in and criminals, which may add up to be about 2 million people. I then think the money, or the clock runs out and deportations stall. 

Along with the deportation prediction I suspect the campaign promise and speculation that he will secure the border is a safe bet. Again, that will take money to physically secure the border but when migrants get the message that they are not welcome and they see deportations occurring, border crossing will drop dramatically.

Those are the two easy ones. Beyond that one's crystal ball gets kind of cloudy. What about tariffs? I do not predict the massive across-the-board tariffs that Trump threatened. Economist of every stripe think that would be detrimental to economic growth and would be inflationary. I think Trump will be talked out of it. He will implement some limited tariffs, claim his threat of tariffs changed behavior, and declare victory.

What about Ukraine? I predict the war to end on unfavorable terms for Ukraine. If the war ends with Ukraine giving up Russian-occupied territory and no grantees for Ukraine security and with a prohibition on Ukraine joining NATO, then Russia will have won. After a couple years, Russia will resume its attack on Ukraine or subvert the country and turn it into a client state. An encouraged Russia intent on creating a Russian-dominated Eurasia is a threat to world peace. I don't like that outcome, but unfortunately, I predict that is what will happen. 

I predict we will not take the Panama Canal, purchase Greenland or make Canada the 51st state. I may be wrong, but I just don't think it will happen. Panama would be easy pickings and many Trumpinistas would cheer loudly. However, I think Panama may replace the Chinese company operating the port with a non-Chinese company, Trump will claim a victory and the threat to retaking Panama will be over. Trump spouts a lot of garbage that I have learned to not take too seriously. I don't think the US will invade and annex Greenland or force Denmark to sell it.   

I predict NATO will continue to exist but with a less robust American leadership. One thing to watch for is to see if nuclear proliferation increases. If nations, such as Germany, do not feel secure under the American nuclear umbrella, they may seek nukes of their own. That is a frightening proposition. This is not quite a prediction but something to watch.

I am predicting that six months from now the price of dozen eggs and the price of a gallon of gasoline will not deviate more than 10% from what they are today. 

What about retribution and the enemies within? I predict that there will be some investigations of the people on Kash Patel's enemies list, and it will cost the targeted a lot of money and anxiety. However, I am predicting Liz Channey will not be imprisoned. For the most part our institutions will hold.

So, what is my big prediction? I am going out on a limb: Within nine months of Trump's inauguration Trump will declare martial law. 

I am unsure of the pretexts, but it is what authoritarians do. Frustrated with the pace of deportation and the obstinance and defiance of sanctuary city mayors, Trump may declare a state of emergency and direct the military to engage in deportation activities. We may see nationalized National Guard troops raiding worksites and patrolling the streets.

The pretext for declaring martial law may be a terrorist attack. If we had a series of events happen in a close time frame, related or not, similar to what happened in New Orleans, Trump could use that as the pretext. I am sure he can find a pretext. I am not going beyond saying Trump will declare martial law and predict what the outcome will be. It could be short-lived and almost insignificant or it could be catastrophic. 

Sadly, I suspect that the majority of Trump supporters will support this. This is what they signed up for. They were looking for a strong man and will be pleased with decisive action. They will say Trump is bringing about law and order and defending national security. Abuses will have to get pretty extreme before his core supporters will care. Many of the new low-information Trump supporters will be back to playing video games. Activist liberals will care, but when they take to the streets that are under martial law that may just provide an excuse for further suppression. 

Why would I think Trump would impose martial law? For one, he has called for terminating parts of the constitution before. In Dec. 2020 expressing frustrated with his failure to hang on to power he advocated terminating parts of the Constitution. Here is a X tweet where he called for that:

Do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great ‘Founders’ did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections! (link)

On June 1, 2020, when the country was in the grip of riots as Black Lives Matter and Antifa led violent protest following the George Floyd death,  President Donald Trump gave a Rose Garden press briefing and Trump told governors and mayors to stop the disturbances, or he would:

I have strongly recommended to every governor to deploy the national guard in sufficient numbers that we dominate the streets. If a city or state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them. (link)

During this period of the George Floyd riots Trump considering evoking the Insurrection Act but was talked out of it. My fear is that now, he will not have the same kind of people surrounding him as he did in his first term.

What could be the worst that could happen under a declaration of national emergency and martial law? We don't know. If he has the support of the American people and Congress, which he very well could have, his power would be virtually unlimited. He could exercise dictatorial powers, and then Liz Chaney could face a military tribunal, as Trump once threatened. If Trump seizes power through a declaration of national emergency and imposition of martial law and he begins to lose popularity, it may be difficult to force him to relinquish the power.

Martial law is essentially the same as suspending the constitution. Under martial law, the government could wield massive power. The right to trial by jury could be curtailed. The freedom of press could be suppressed. Elections could be delayed. The President could rule by degree. We have as a guide the World War II example of the U.S. military placing Hawaii under martial law.

Can he do it? Can he legally seize power and suspend the constitution? Yes, he can. It has never been done nationwide before in the United States, but there have been many instances in our nation's history where martial law has been imposed in certain regions for limited periods of time. There have been 68 instances in our nation's history where either state governors or the president have declared martial law. The first instance was Andrew Jackson declaring martial law in New Orleans prior to the Battle of New Orleans in 1814.

President Abraham Lincoln declared martial law in 1862 and applied it to “all rebels and insurgents, their aiders and abettors, within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia draft or guilty of any disloyal practice affording aid and comfort to rebels against the authority of the United States.” (*

In recent history, in 1957 Eisenhower used the U.S. military to integrate a school in Little Rock, Arkansas. In 1962, Attorney General Robert Kennedy sent federal troops to Oxford, Mississippi, to quell rioting following the admission of James Meridith to the University of Mississippi, and in 1963, 1964, and 1965 federal troops were used for the purpose of facilitating integration or protecting protestors. In 1992 George W. Bush used federal troops to restore order in Los Angeles following the Rodney King riots. 

While there has never been a nationwide declaration of martial law, there is nothing to prohibit it. The Constitution does not specifically make a provision for declaring martial law and the Supreme Court has never ruled on the matter. Despite the constitution not providing for it and the Supreme Court never acting on it, since martial law has been declared many times before, there is likely a legal assumption that a president has the authority to impose martial law. 


Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

Neither euphoric nor despairing be. Trump too shall pass.

 Donald Trump’s second inaugural speech will be remembered as worse than 59 others, including his first.

George Will
by George F. Will, The Washington Post, Jan. 20, 2025- Although few presidential inaugural addresses are remembered, six etched in the nation’s memory felicitous phrases, perfect for the moments: “Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle” (Jefferson, 1801); “the mystic chords of memory … the better angels of our nature” (Lincoln, 1861); all Lincoln’s 701 words in 1865, carved in his memorial’s marble; “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself” (Roosevelt, 1933); “the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans” (Kennedy, 1961); “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is our problem” (Reagan, 1981, often quoted without the first four words).

Donald Trump does not deal in felicities. His second inaugural will be remembered for being worse than 59 others, including his first (about “stealing,” “ravages” and “carnage”). It was memorable for its staggering inappropriateness.

Inaugurations should be solemn yet celebratory components of America’s civic liturgy. Instead, we heard on Monday that because of “corrupt” and “horrible” “betrayals” by others, “the pillars of our society” are “in complete disrepair.” The challenges will be “annihilated,” not because God blesses America, but because God chose him. (read more)

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

Thursday, January 23, 2025

Setting the Record Straight About the Panama Canal


 by Alvaro Vargas Llosa, The Independent Institute, January 17, 2025 -
President Trump has convinced many Americans that the Panama Canal, a vital shipping route for international commerce—particularly for cargo going to and originating in the United States—is controlled by China. He views this as a direct threat to the U.S. He also believes that the Panamanians are charging U.S. ships too much for using the canal. As a result, he threatened Panama with military force, intending to take the canal from them and put it under Washington’s control.

Anyone remotely familiar with how deeply rooted the canal is in Panama´s psyche and how entangled the whole issue is with Panamanian nationalism would have easily predicted the passions these threats would stir among Panamanians. Ironically, this comes at a time when Panama has a pro-U.S. administration. Even though Trump often uses bluster in such cases, he may not literally mean what he says. It’s likely that he is trying to pressure Panama to make life difficult for China while scoring points at home.

Be it as it may, China is very far from controlling the canal. Here are the facts: The Panama Canal is run entirely by the Panamanian Canal Authority, a government body with no ties to Beijing. The expansion of the canal, a major multiyear project whose cost amounted to US$5.25 billion a few years ago, was funded by cash flows from the canal’s traffic itself (US$3.15 billion) and by multilateral bodies (US$2.3 billion) from Japan, Europe, another two whose main source of funds is the United States and one funded by Latin America, Spain and Portugal. Also, the bulk of the work was assigned to a European consortium made up of Spanish, Italian, and Belgian capital as well as Panamanian money. 

Six ports handle most of the cargo in Panama. Two of them, Balboa and Cristóbal, are operated by CK Hutchinson Holdings, the Chinese concern owned by Li Ka-shing, the well-known tycoon. However, the most important port, Manzanillo, is controlled by SSA Marine, whose parent company, based in Seattle, is owned by American investors. The port of Colón is operated by a Taiwanese company, which is not exactly an ally of China. Panama International Terminal is run by a company based in Belgium and Singapore, both American allies. Even the smaller Almirante port is owned by Chiquita Brands, a U.S. company with historical ties to American imperialism.

It should come as no surprise that Hutchinson is interested in Panama’s ports. After all, it is the world’s largest owner/operator of maritime terminals, with operations in over 27 countries, including California’s Long Beach. Panama, in any case, is not a significant part of Li Ka-shing’s empire since it accounts for only 3.8 percent of Hutchinson’s worldwide throughput (82.1 million TEUs). 

Indeed, a large part (more than 70 percent) of the Panama Canal’s traffic has to do with the United States—for a total cost of about $2.4 billion a year in tolls in Fiscal Year 2024, or an average of $7 million per day. Panama charges about $16 per ton. Does it sound like the Panamanians are really exploiting the U.S. economy? The U.S. government, which borrowed about $6.3 billion per day in Fiscal Year 2024, has many problems, but the Panama Canal is not one of them. And the U.S. economy, whose productivity has been low for many years and which is suffering from significant inflation, also has problems. Paying $7 million a day in tolls for trade that benefits American consumers and producers is certainly not among them.


Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

Wednesday, January 22, 2025

Some of Trump's Inaugural Address Policy Announcements and Follow-up Executive Orders I Actually Agree With

by Rod Williams, Jan. 22, 2025- As anyone who has followed me on this blog knows, I am a severe critic of Donald Trump. For the most part I found the policy statements in his inaugural address and the content of his slew of executive orders concerning. However, there was some of Trump's inaugural address and follow up executive orders with which that I actually agree. 

I am sick of DEI and cancel culture and political correctness and progressive hectoring for not using someone's preferred pronoun, even when it is a plural pronoun when referring to a single individual. I am sick of seeing the Federal government trying to force schools to let boys who identify as girls play in girls' sports. I am okay that Trump placed all DEI officials on paid temporary leave. I am pleased that the Federal government will now only recognize two sexes. 

I know of lot of what I don't like about contemporary culture is not a result of government action, but I contend that without government's thumb on the culture scale we wound never have gotten this crazy. Even before Trump's election we were seeing large corporations backtracking on some of their extreme DEI actions. We have also seen universities dial back their promotion of DEI policies. Maybe the culture would have moderated without the election of Trump. If so, it was not moderating fast enough, and Dems took every opportunity to prop up the madness. 

I contend that it was the cultural war stuff that led to Trump's election primarily, not the price of a dozen eggs. Immigration was a major issue of course, but without the culture wars, I don't think Trump would have won. People were tired of having the PC stuff rammed down their throat and being denounced as knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing rednecks and bigots if they didn't fall in line. 

I addition to supporting Trump's policies on DEI and related culture war issues, I also generally welcome Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration, but with reservations. I am concerned that Trump may deport families who have successfully integrated into their communities and become good members of society.  I also think there should be a path for legitimate asylum seekers to apply for asylum. 

Concerns aside however, I welcome Trumps border initiatives. The Biden administration had already made some reasonable changes, and illegal immigration had slowed considerably under Biden.  However, it appears to me that the Dems heart was not in it. They only cracked down when it became a severe electability lability. It was hard for me to believe they would not open the floodgates again as soon as the election was over should they have won.  After all, Dems could have avoided this mess had Biden not reversed Trump policies when he came into office. 

Trumps new policies will deter people from making the trek to the border, once word spreads that people are not getting in. That is a good thing. I support the clamp down. I support the sending to troops to the border, as long as they do not engage in law enforcement activity. When people have fraudulently claimed asylum status and been adjudicated as ineligible, and have a deportation order, they should be deported.  Most importantly, criminals should be removed.  I do not support the mass deportation of 15 million immigrants, but Trump's initial action on the border, I support. 


Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

A Perilous Argument for January 6 Pardons

 By Dan McLaughlin, National Review Plus, January 22, 2025 - ... you can make a case that Donald Trump should have pardoned some or even many of the January 6 defendants on a case-by-case basis, and you can even make a case that there is not that much harm in a blanket pardon for the non-violent offenders who have mostly been punished enough by now, but an across-the-board pardon for all the people who assaulted cops is such a terrible idea that even the people around Trump were treating it as radioactive and a non-starter right up until the moment he signed it.

What is the case for a blanket pardon of the violent rioters? That we need to bring a close to a divisive era and promote social peace? ... granting impunity to political violence is apt in the long run to raise rather than lower the temperature of street activism and mob rule. 

That it was unjust to prosecute anyone? We sometimes pardon people who break unjust laws, or even people who break entirely just laws protesting a greater injustice (Nelson Mandela, for example, was guilty; it was the South African system that was bad). But neither of those is true here. The laws against assaulting the Capitol and D.C. police are just laws. The 2020 election may not have been entirely fair, but it wasn’t stolen. There was nothing to justify violence on January 6.

Defenders of the pardons ultimately fall back on two arguments. One is that the justice system has been so lopsided in its treatment of leftist violence that it’s effectively unfair and a denial of equal protection to prosecute right-wing violence. The other is that January 6 defendants simply were unable to ever get a fair process and trial, so we have to act as if none of them were guilty of violent crimes. 

.... If you take to its full logical conclusion the idea that we can never prosecute anybody if we don’t prosecute everybody, we end up with Hobbesian anarchy. If we buy the argument that it’s unfair to try the January 6 defendants before D.C. juries because they are so politically one-sided, how is that different from arguing that deep-red counties can’t prosecute (name your favorite “out-group”)? ... a blanket pardon for violence that actually happened is no way to restore law and order. (read it all)

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

Tuesday, January 21, 2025

GOP Nashville Invites all Davidson County Republicans to Upcoming Reorganization Convention

 


Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

 


Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

On Removing Fluoride from Drinking Water.

by Rod Williams, Jan. 21, 2025 -

 “On January 20, the Trump White House will advise all U.S​. water systems to remove fluoride from public water,” posted Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on X in November—and Tennessee is already getting the ball rolling. Last week, state Senator Joey Hensley (R-Hohenwald) filed a bill that “prohibits public water system operators from adding fluoride to their water systems.”

Over the last few years, the fluoridation of water has become a topic of contention among experts and lawmakers. News Channel 5 reported that several communities in Middle Tennessee have cut the chemical from their drinking water. In December, Montgomery County became the latest area to consider making the change. “Fluoride is an industrial waste associated with arthritis, bone fractures, bone cancer, IQ loss, neurodevelopmental disorders, and thyroid disease,” RFK Jr. explained in his announcement. (As reported in The Pamphleteer)

My first reaction to this move to remove fluoride from drinking water is that it is just nutty. I am an old man now. I remember when as a young teen, when I first started paying attention to politics, that there was a move to prevent the fluoridation of water. Maybe it is because I recall the fight over fluoride from almost 60 years ago that I find the current fight so nutty. 

Along with "Impeach Earl Warren" and pictures of Martin Luther King at a Communist training camp, stopping fluoridation of water were messages on billboards and otherwise disseminated. Much of these messages, along with some others, were promulgated mostly by the John Birch Society. 

The JBS was powerful in the early 60's and had captured control of many Republican Party chapters across the country. The JBS was not all nutty. Many of their positions were mainstream Republican, like support for law and order, low taxes, and smaller government.  Their biggest appeal was anti-communism. They spread legitimate education on the nature and threat of Communism. The truth is that there was a lot of acceptance of Communism in many circles in America in the post-World War II era. There were spies and Communist had infiltrated government and had worked themselves into positions of influence, and in certain circles it was cool to be a Commie. 

The JBS however saw Communism behind every bush and under every bed. Almost every American problem and almost anyone with a point of view that differed from there's was assumed to a Communist or influenced by Communist. Hollywood, unions, churches, universities, the media, and fraternal and civic organization were all seen as controlled or influenced by Communism. 

The JBS claimed that fluoridation was a communist plot to undermine American public health. Not only was fluoride a poison, but they argued that if we accepted the idea that it was okay to medicate citizens by putting meds in public water, then that would be followed by other meds in water to control behavior.

While the JBS saw a Communist conspiracy everywhere, if one dug deeper however, there was a bigger conspiracy than the Communist conspiracy according to JBS. Ever since about the time of the enlightenment, Birchers claimed, the world had been controlled by a group of insiders who controlled everything. These "insiders" were the real ones in charge, and they allowed Communism and Nazism to flourish. Weird, but that was the grand conspiracy. If one just casually became acquainted with JBS they may never even discover the grand conspiracy, one had to dig to find it but that is what they believed is a fact. I suspect many members never even knew. 

By about 1963 the influence of the JBC wanned. A move by William F. Buckley Jr, Barry Goldwater and a few others exposed JBS and the Republican Party began purging JBS and it dwindled to almost nothing for decades. Perhaps it is because I recall that the original opposition to fluoride was tied to the nutty JBS, that I find the current move to ban fluoride so disturbing.

One thing that I have observed overtime is that the extremes of left and right share a lot of the same conspiratorial mindset and at times they see the same enemies and believe that powerful people are pulling the strings, and we are all just puppets. Belief that 9-11 was an inside job, as an example, has adherents on each end of the far extremes. 

Sometimes things that start out as a concern of leftist becomes also a concern of right-wing fringe types. We have seen that with opposition to vaccines. Before it was a right-wing thing it was a thing of the back-to-nature granola type lefties. Opposition to fluoride in drinking water started out as a right-wing thing, then migrated to mostly a concern of anti-vaxxer lefty types and now has returned to being a right-wing thing. 

Even when a fringe position is not based on a belief in a conspiracy, it seems that the people on the political fringe share a distrust of change and innovation and are by nature suspicious. You can see this in opposition to nuclear energy, or GMO food products, or vaccines.

There is no denying that fluoride improved the dental health of Americans. I do wonder however, if it has outlived its usefulness. When fluoride was first introduced into the public water supply, no one was drinking bottled water. Most public buildings had functioning water fountains. Since those days, more and more people drink only bottled water. I am one of the few people I know who still drinks tap water. From my observation from spending years as a social worker working with poor people, I believe that even poor people drink mostly bottled water. I doubt many people any longer get a significant amount of fluoride from drinking water. I doubt much harm will be done by removing it. I would like to see a study that shows if fluoride in drinking water is still beneficial giving the changed way in which people consume water. 

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

Harwood Salon (formerly Bastiat Society) Meets Tuesday Jan. 23, 2025

by Rod Williams, Jan. 21, 2025- The Bastiat Society has changed its name to Harwood Salon. I have been attending Bastiat for several years and highly recommend it. The speakers are always stimulating. At these events one hears from intelligent, educated, thought-provoking speakers addressing serous topics. Often the speakers are authors and scholars. 

In addition to serious topics and stimulating speakers, these events are fun. They take place at the Richland Country Club with an open bar and great food. There is a time for socializing before and after the formal meeting. For more information, follow this link



Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

 


Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

Monday, January 20, 2025

Democrats: The Constitution Is Whatever We Say It Is

By Mark Antonio Wright, National Review, January 17, 2025 - According to Joseph Robinette Biden, the so-called Equal Rights Amendment — which is not, and has never been, ratified per the terms of Article V — is now the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

... But we shouldn’t be surprised that the Democrats are trying to pull this stuff, should we?

The Democrats — also known as the “rule of law party,” according to no one but them — are the party of Barack Obama’s pen and phone.

... Joe Biden’s Democrats insist that the 14th Amendment — or maybe it’s the Fourth Amendment? Wait, actually, is it the Ninth Amendment? — unambiguously grants the people a constitutional right to an abortion.

The Democrats, as a party, believe when the First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” that applies completely . . . unless someone has used “hate speech” on the Internet, or prayed the Lord’s Prayer at the 50-yard line before kickoff, or decided to voice the scientific fact that young men can’t turn themselves into young women or vice versa no matter how hard they may try. (read it all)

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

Joe Biden attempts to amend the Constitution by executive fiat.

by Rod Williams, Jan. 20, 2025- Just because Donald Trump attempted a coup and a Democrat president has not, one should not be lulled into a false believe that Democrats care more about democratic norms or the Constitution than Republicans.

Ok, maybe they do care more, but it is not by much. On his way out the door, Joe Biden tried to amend the Constitution by executive fiat. That sounds like something Donald Trump would do. 

Of course that can't be done. That did not keep Joe Biden from attempting it. The following from Jonah Goldberg writing in The Dispatch explains the nuances of the issue, the logic of the Biden attempt, and the absurdity.

Jan. 17, 2025 - I saw the news that Joe Biden “believes” that the Equal Rights Amendment is the law of the land. 
Say what you will about Biden, the man can keep a secret. In his statement, Biden says that it became the 28th Amendment almost exactly five years ago when the Commonwealth of Virginia ratified it on January 27, 2020. 
From that time until now, Biden has said pretty much nothing about this belief. That’s kind of a weird conviction to keep under your hat all this time. 
That is, unless, like almost everybody else, he didn’t think Virginia’s ratification of the ERA was anything other than symbolic until recently. Heck, the New York Times story on Virginia’s symbolic ratification of the ERA uses the word symbolic in the subhead and the first sentence. If the Times thought there was a shot at the ratification being something other than symbolic at the time, it would have flooded the zone with “let’s make this happen” coverage. Again, if they thought this was possible, the newspaper might even have asked Joe Biden what he thought about it, given that he was running for president at the time.  
Among the reasons nobody but a handful of activists even bothered claiming that Virginia’s ratification of the amendment was anything other than symbolic is that the deadline for the amendment’s ratification expired nearly two decades earlier. Again, don’t take my word for it. Here’s the NPR headline at the time, “Virginia Ratifies The Equal Rights Amendment, Decades After The Deadline.
Now, it’s true there are lawyers, including at the American Bar Association, who argue that there was no deadline for the amendment approved by Congress in 1972 because the seven-year time-limit for ratification was only in the amendment’s preamble not the actual text. But it was put there expressly to keep the text clean if ratified. The Justice Department, including under Joe Biden, has long held that the deadline is binding. 
You know who else thought that the window closed on the Equal Rights Amendment? Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Of course she wasn’t a Supreme Court Justice then, she was just one of the country’s most famous feminist lawyers and law professors. But then in 2020, as a Supreme Court justice, she explained—again—that the deadline had passed for the ERA. Sorry, she said that the allegedly extended deadline had passed, in 1982. Among the reasons she thought it was a dead letter: Several states had withdrawn their ratification. As she put it at an event co-sponsored by the American Bar Association:
I would like to start over. There is too much controversy about latecomers [like] Virginia long after the deadline passed. Plus, a number of states have withdrawn their ratification. So if you count a latecomer on the plus side, how can you disregard states that said, ‘We have changed our minds’?
Pretty good point there, I think. 
... Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand has been pushing a dippy theory that all Biden needs to do is order the archivist of the United States to declare the ERA ratified. Here’s how Gillibrand began her December 15 New York Times op-ed:
With Republicans set to take unified control of government, Americans are facing the further degradation of reproductive freedom.
Fortunately, Mr. Biden has the power to enshrine reproductive rights in the Constitution right now. He can direct the national archivist to certify and publish the Equal Rights Amendment. This would mean that the amendment has been officially ratified and that the archivist has declared it part of the Constitution.
Now, I don’t think this is correct. But, again, who cares about my legal opinion? Fortunately someone else agrees with me: The archivist of the United States. Two days after Gillibrand’s op-ed, Colleen Shogan and Deputy Archivist William J. Bosanko released a joint statement declaring:
As Archivist and Deputy Archivist of the United States, it is our responsibility to uphold the integrity of the constitutional amendment process and ensure that changes to the Constitution are carried out in accordance with the law. At this time, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) cannot be certified as part of the Constitution due to established legal, judicial, and procedural decisions.
In 2020 and again in 2022, the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice affirmed that the ratification deadline established by Congress for the ERA is valid and enforceable. The OLC concluded that extending or removing the deadline requires new action by Congress or the courts.….As the leaders of the National Archives, we will abide by these legal precedents and support the constitutional framework in which we operate.
This was Shogan’s position during her confirmation hearings, by the way. Every voting Democrat chose to confirm her. 
... I know what happens next as much as Biden does: needless legal, political, and constitutional drama. Activists will take what is in effect a presidential fatwah as gospel and start filing lawsuits based upon the 28th Amendment being a thing. Opponents will say it’s not a thing. 

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories