News Commentary for July 21

 What is in the news? Nothing more, or less, than usual. Democrats pulling their virtue signaling, ongoing and endless investigations against both guilty and innocent people, celebrities doing what they do, etc. That being said, let's go through some of it.

First off: Hunter Biden. The coke-head loser son of our geriatric-in-charge. According to FoxNews the investigation into his affairs has reached a 'critical stage.' What does this mean for our favorite foreign-compromised, corrupt, disgraced First Son? Probably absolutely nothing. The report went on to say that sources indicated that charges were not being put against him, yet. No surprise there. After all, Uncle QuidProJoe isn't going to let his one and only boy go to prison for anything. Not tax evasion. Not lying to the FBI. Not being a foreign agent for the Chinese, Russians, Ukrainians, or anyone else that paid him for access to the Vice President, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. The Barr/Durham investigation is just another huge waste of the taxpayer's money to make us believe that they are actually doing something about the corruption in DC.

The Associated Press reports that a group of bipartisan (is there really such a thing anymore?) senators agreed on proposed changes to the Electoral Count Act of 1887 because of the 'attack' on the Capitol and Trump trying to 'overturn the 2020 election.'

What this proposal does is update the post-Civil War act on how election results are tallied. It is supposed to shore up the ambiguities of how votes are counted, who is in charge and making sure that everything is up to snuff. All of this because, as the AP article states, Trump's 'unprecedented attempt to challenge the electors sent from battleground states to the joint session of Congress on Jan. 6.'

I am old enough to remember what happened on January 6, 2021. I really don't care what the Democrats, RINOS, and never-Trumpers say. Donald Trump had a rally and said he believed the election results were corrupt and fraudulent. He admonished Vice President Mike Pence to not certify the results because of the rule changes, ballots miraculously appearing in the middle of the night, observers not being able to see the counting of votes, etc. in the battleground states. Did he instigate a riot? No. Did he orchestrate the 'breaching' of the Capitol Complex? No. Was he in any way responsible for the few idiots that actually did damage to the Capitol and took over the House Chambers? No.

USA Today has an article stating the US Attorney General Merrick Garland doesn't want to indict former President Donald Trump before the election. Why does he not want to? Mainly because he says it could be construed as election interference. I guess it's the same thing as all the negative press about Hunter Biden being suppressed before the 2020 election. I'd really like to know just how Trump could be charged with insurrection when there was none. We, the People, have the Constitutionally guaranteed right to peacefully protest anything that we feel is unjust. What happened on January 6, 2021 was a far cry from what Antifa and BLM did the summer before with all the violent riots, looting, arson, and assault; not to mention the weeks long firebombing of the Federal Courthouse in Portland, Oregon. Yeah. While all the goes uninvestigated and unpunished, actual peaceful protesters are persecuted and called insurrectionists and terrorists.

The Hill reports that the House has passed a $400 billion spending package. What are we, the taxpayers actually paying for? This bill covers the DOT, VA, HUD, and, of course, climate change. I don't know what these elected officials are actually spending all this money on. Our roads are still crap, the VA still sucks, I really don't know what all Housing and Urban Development is going on unless it's giving housing to all the illegals that Biden is letting into the country, and it doesn't matter how much money is extorted from the American taxpayer, the climate is going to do what it's always done- change.

I don't know about you, but I'm sick and tired of the government stealing my money and then telling me what I have to do to make them more powerful and rich. I am not an anarchist. Anarchy leads to chaos. I do believe that the Federal Government should be as the Founders intended it to be – strong on defense of the nation, foreign affairs, and the military, weak when it comes to internal business of how the country is run. That is what the state governments are for.

The Supreme Court, Again, and The Liberal World Order

 

Once again the Supreme Court is at the forefront of the news cycle. This time concerning election law.

The Constitution clearly states: Article One, Section Four, Paragraph One - “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators. “

What does this actually say? The State legislatures have the power to choose the times, places, and manner of holding election for SENATORS and REPRESENTATIVES. That is, unless Congress gets a wild hair and decides it wants to do something different. The state Governors and courts have absolutely NOTHING to do with the election process. Nothing, nilch, nada, finite. The legislature of each state hold the power, PERIOD.

Because gerrymandering has been allowed for decades, the legislatures of each state have done everything they can to keep one party in power. I don't think I need to reiterate which party has done that the most and is doing everything it can to do it nationwide.

All it took was for the High Court to say it would consider hearing the case on election law. Wow! Did the zealots ever come out of the woodwork on that. Since the Court took the State of New York down a notch or two and then overturned Roe v Wade, the virtue signalers, advocates, and activists have been having a heyday with them. They are the highest court in the nation. They don't legislate, they interpret the Constitutionality of the law. The Democrat Party has used the Court to legislate for them; especially when their policy wouldn't pass regular legislative process. This is called abuse of the high Court, abuse of power, and corruption.

The Supreme Court is supposed to be non-partisan; leaning neither left nor right but strictly by Constitutional law and precedent. The problem is that the Democrat Party has perverted the Court by appointing Justices that don't interpret the Constitution as written or intended, but as a 'living document' that changes with the political tide. The Republican Party has, by and large, tried to appoint Originalists as Justices; people that would interpret the Law of the Land as the Founders intended to be.

With a conservative majority on the Court, political activism is less likely to occur. Does it? Of course it does, at least in the eyes of the liberal left. If they don't get their way, if things to go the way they want, they scream that the Justices are not doing their job right. If the Constitution says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms and the Court decides that we, the People, do have that right, the liberal left screams that they are just conservative puppets legislating from the bench. All the Court is doing is making a Constitutionally sound decision.

According to The Washington Post, the committee investigating the Jan 6 debacle “ has offered fresh evidence suggesting President Donald Trump sought to disrupt the congressional counting of electoral votes to allow state legislatures time to send alternate slates of electors as part of a bid to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

“State legislatures have already introduced or enacted laws in a number of GOP-controlled states that voting rights groups say make it more difficult to cast a ballot. Experts say if the Supreme Court adopts the independent legislature theory, it would give state lawmakers ultimate control over election-related decisions like redistricting, as well as issues such as voting qualifications and voting by mail.”

I'd like to know who these 'experts' are. Probably the same people that fact-check Facebook posts. Left to the Democrat Party, anyone in the country would be able to vote whether a citizen or not, ballot harvesting would go unchecked, third-party drop boxes would be on every street corner, mail-in ballots would be the norm without verifying the ID of who sent it, etc. In other words, the Democrats want to change the election laws so that they can cheat legally.

As for President Trump disrupting the counting of electoral votes – it has come to pass that a lot of votes were fraudulent. Arizona being the one that comes to mind finding more than enough fake ballots that Trump would have won that state. Of course, the states that were the most questionable waited until way too late to do an audit. It should have been done in November 2020 when Donald J Trump and most of the nation wanted it done. He was in the right to demand audits and alternate electors. It's kinda hard to 'overturn' a rigged election when no one will even look at any evidence of fraud and corruption.

“This is part of a broader strategy to make voting harder and impose the will of state legislatures regardless of the will of the people,” said Suzanne Almeida, director of state operations for Common Cause, a nonpartisan pro-democracy group. “It is a significant change to the power of state courts to rein in state legislatures.” This, also, coming from The Washington Post. I would like to know what these state legislatures are doing that is making voting harder. Are they asking for voter ID, to be an American citizen, to be a registered voter? If the conservative right is anything, it is for fair and legal voting. It is the liberal left that wants anything but fair and legal voting. After all, it's a well known fact that, with how far left they have gone, there isn't a Democrat running that could win a fair and legal election. Except in California, New York, Illinois, Michigan, and a couple of other states where the gerrymandering has made it next to impossible for a conservative to win.

As far as a state's legislature going against the will of the people, that's what elections are for – to get rid of those that do just that. The only place, it seems, that this process doesn't hold true is for the Federal legislature. There are very few Congressmen that are doing what the people want. Most are drafting, and passing, bills for what makes them more powerful, more wealthy, and damn near impossible to get out of office.

Greg Guttfield commented on Fox News' The Five 'to a Biden administration official defending high gas prices and inflation as necessary to defending the "liberal world order." “What a scary fast trip from America first to America last. That "liberal world order" phrase used to be something you might hear somebody on infomercials say – I'm sorry InfoWars say. But it actually was said, it was actually said out loud. That one sound bite should be in every commercial for every Republican campaign. You should play that liberal world order blurb to truckers, to parents buying food, to delivery workers, because it's this kind of, it's one of the biggest, like, reveals in history, in political history.” This as reported by Fox News.

Fox News also reported: “White House economic adviser Brian Deese suggested the pain at the pump was a price Americans had to pay for the "future of the liberal world order," in a CNN interview on Thursday.

"CNN Newsroom" host Victor Blackwell played a clip of President Biden telling a reporter at Thursday's NATO Summit that Americans can continue to pay a premium for gas "as long as it takes" to win the war in Ukraine.

Blackwell asked Deese how the White House would respond to Americans worried that they won't be able to survive paying close to or over $5 a gallon, potentially for "years" to come.

"The military analysts, the Director of National Intelligence say this can be a long war measured in years. I think everybody understands why this is happening. But is it sustainable? What do you say to those families that say, 'Listen, we can't afford to pay $4.85  a gallon for months, if not years. This is just not sustainable,'" Blackwell questioned.

Deese initially responded, "What you heard from the president today was a clear articulation of the stakes. This is about the future of the liberal world order, and we have to stand firm." The comment caused a stir on social media.”

While Deese continued on extolling the 'economic advances' that the country was enjoying, he talked about a 'transition.' “When asked what he meant by "transition," Deese said the administration wanted to return the economy to a much better place than it was under the Trump administration.

"The economy pre-pandemic was not working for a lot of middle class families," the economics adviser claimed.”

What great economic recovery are we going through? Middle class Americans are suffering more than they have in decades. Gas prices are higher than ever. Inflation is out of control. Our jobs are, once again, going overseas. We are now, once again, dependent on OPEC and other foreign oil barons instead of energy independent. The Democrats have never made America great. The Biden Administration continually downgrades all the advances that Donald Trump made for America. He said it in a speech soon after the inauguration, “The America First Policy is over. We are a global economy.”

The scary part was what Deese said about the 'liberal world order.' Just what is this 'liberal world order?' Does this mean that, come hell or high water, the United States of America, a Constitutional Republic is definitely going to be changed into a Socialist State and become the United Socialist States of America? Only your local Democratic Socialist, or a die-hard AOC fan can say for sure.

If you haven't gotten enough intel to show you just what the Democrat Party is doing and what they want to accomplish, you are not paying attention, or you are part of the problem. One person can only do so much. But, it only takes one person to stand up and say, “This isn't right! This has got to change.” Once that one person does it, it gives others the courage to do the same. Suddenly, that one person becomes ten, then a hundred, then a thousand, and so forth. As is written in the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320, “As long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours, that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself". We don't have to worry about English rule anymore. What we have to worry about is a tyrannical dominion far worse. The sentiment is there, though.

Quotes are great. They say what a lot of us actually feel but can't put into words. The problem with quotes from great statesmen, politicians, philosophers, poets, writers, etc., is that they mean nothing. A quote is a quote is a quote but actions, well, actions speak so much louder than words. It's time for red-blooded American patriots got off their arses and DID SOMETHING! America isn't going to fix itself without someone doing something. NOW IS THE TIME! It's almost to a point of no return. There are many, many patriots that have been predicting and warning and no one has heeded the call. It's now or never, America.

The Supreme Court v New York Decision on Gun Control

 The Supreme Court just overturned a New York law that prohibits lawfully licensed people to carry firearms outside the home. Justice Thomas wrote wrote a 63 page majority opinion explaining why. Justice Alito, on the other hand, had much more to say, especially to Justice Breyer, who wrote the dissent.

Breyer spent most of his dissent quoting statistics on gun violence, including suicide, as a reason to back the New York law. Alito argued back that the liberal Justices, especially Breyer, were just saying, “guns are bad.”

MSN News reported, 'Breyer -- in writing what may be one of his last big dissents before retirement -- struck back.

"I am not simply saying that 'guns are bad,'" he said.

But he said that balancing "lawful uses" against the "dangers of firearms" is primarily the responsibility of elected bodies such as legislatures.

"Justice Alito asks why I have begun my opinion by reviewing some of the dangers and challenges posed by gun violence," he said.

Breyer said he did so because the "question of firearm regulation presents a complex problem -- one that should be solved by legislatures and not courts."'

My only question to the liberal Justices is this: What is in the Second Amendment that says the legislature can infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms? Were does it say that only government employees are allowed to own and carry firearms?

Our so-called representatives aren't really representing the people that have given the authority to legislate and those representatives are inserting Justices and judges that are not following the Constitution of the United States of America.

The Second Amendment has been a big deal to government for quite some time. Our elected officials seem to think it is their duty to just wipe away our Constitutionally guaranteed rights, especially for protecting ourselves from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Why are they doing everything they can to disarm the American People? Conspiracy theory says it's because they want to do things they could get shot for.

When Madison initially introduced the various proposed amendments that would later become the Bill of Rights, he proposed to insert the bulk of them, including what would later become amendments one through five, part of the sixth amendment, and amendments eight and nine, into Article I, Section 9, between Clauses 3 and 4.  His speech to Congress can be found here.

This is the portion of the Constitution which limits Congressional power over individuals.  Clause 3 is the prohibition on Bills of Attainder and ex post facto laws.

Clause 4 is the limitation on the imposition of taxes directly on individuals as oppose to excise taxes on economic transactions.  This clause has been substantially abrogated by the sixteenth amendment, authorizing the federal government to tax incomes.  In other words, Madison proposed to put these amendments into that part of the Constitution that protected individual rights of the people from the federal government. The context of Madison’s original introduction to Congress of the Bill of Rights, including the second amendment, is powerful evidence supporting the conclusion that the right to keep and bear arms was intended to confirm an individual right of the people to arms. (Madison on the 2nd Amendment & milita clause | Human Events – Bearing Arms )

Here are ten quotes from the Federalist Papers concerning the People's right to keep and bear arms:

1. “The Constitution shall never be construed… to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams

2. “…arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside… Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them….” – Thomas Paine

        3.“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be                 taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…”- Richard Henry Lee

        4.“The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole                 body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that             can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” – Noah Webster

       5.“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-                   digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such                     manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military,                 supplies.” – George Washington

        6.“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their             people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson

        7.“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who             are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the                 assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides,             for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas                 Jefferson

        8.“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”             – George Mason

        9.“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …” – Richard Henry Lee

        10.“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of                         them.”- Zachariah Johnson

(10 Essential Quotes On The 2nd Amendment From Our Founding Fathers (thefederalistpapers.org)

There should be absolutely no debate at all about the People's rights. The Constitution is a legal document, not an opinion. What if the courts decided to 'interpret' the law codes however they wanted? Oh, hang on, they do; at least when it comes to the far-left radical Democrats. As far as conservative Republicans, well, the law is the law and no one is above the law.

Kudos to the Supreme Court for taking the State of New York down a notch or two. Now, if only Congress would actually stick to their Oath of Office and uphold the Constitution instead of shredding it.

Chief Justice John Roberts, The Supreme Court, and the Country

 

Let’s get right down to brass tacks; or would it be wooden nickels in this case? The Supreme Court of the United States of America has one job: to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and to make sure that every law Congress legislates is in accordance with that most sacred document. Period. They are not there to legislate from the bench. They are not there to play political games. They are not there to pervert the Constitution. They are there simply to ensure that the laws of this great nation are Constitutional and to litigate cases between the States. After all, they are the highest Court in the nation.

Article III Section 2 reads: ‘The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; - to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other ;public Ministers and Consuls; - to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; - to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; - to Controversies between two or more States; - between a State and Citizens of another State; - between Citizens of different States; - between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

‘In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jusrisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.’

As you can see, the Supreme Court does not have the authority to legislate. It doesn’t matter if it is a law they don’t agree with. It doesn’t matter if the case before them could possibly cause civil unrest. It is their responsibility to uphold that which is written in the Constitution.

Chief Justice John Roberts has made it the Court’s responsibility to legislate on certain areas of dispute. The latest is the case between Chike Uzuegbunam and Georgia Gwinnett College where the Chief Justice was the lone dissenter. Uzuegbunam sued Gwinnett on the grounds they violated his First Amendment right of free speech by not allowing him to preach the Gospel on campus. His attorneys asked for only a dollar in recompense to show that he still had interest in the violation since he has since graduated. Roberts said it was a moot point and all he was trying to do was prove he was right.

Damn straight he needed to prove he was right! It doesn’t matter if a person is preaching the Gospel, Satanism, paganism, the Constitution, or Ozzy and Harriet; FREE SPEECH MEANS FREEDOM TO SAY WHAT YOU WANT, WHEN YOU WANT, WHERE YOU WANT. Contrary to popular belief, unless it is specifically written into law, it is not illegal to yell, “Fire” in a crowded theater. It isn’t the most sane thing to do and goes against common sense, but it is not illegal.

It is the Roberts Court that said it was all right to stomp on and disrespect the American Flag because it was protected under the First Amendment right to free expression. Unfortunately, Mr. Roberts misunderstands what the term ‘speech’ means. The words mean everything: “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, or the rights of the people peaceably t assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Thanks to Mr. Roberts, this amendment has been bastardized almost beyond recognition. [As a side note: 18 US Code paragraph 700 Desecration of the Flag of the United States reads: Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.]

Chief Justice Roberts has not been the Constitutional originalist that Ronald Reagan thought he was. He has actually sided with the left more than not. He has legislated from the bench on behalf of the Democrat Party and refused to hear the cases concerning election fraud in the 2020 election, which is one of the things that the Supreme Court is supposed to do; hear cases between States. He is an embarrassment to the Court and to the United States. He should step down and let someone that believes in the Constitution take his place. I would pick Justice Clarence Thomas, myself.

When even the Supreme Court has gone anti-American, anti-Constitution, full blown liberal, it is definitely time to take our country away from those that are ruling over us. We are a Constitutional Republic; not a Democracy, not a monarchy, not a tyrannical dominion. This government was set up ‘of, for, and by the people.’ Those elected officials, and those that are appointed by the elected officials, are our servants, not our rulers. The President of the United States is the ‘leader’ of the nation but only so far as we allow him to be. Congressmen are our representatives only and are to do as the people want. It is time to show them that they are not all powerful and above the laws that they pass. As so many of them are prone to say, “No one is above the law.” Congress, the Executive, and the Judicial branches should be held to a very high standard. Not one of them has the standards of conduct appropriate for our representatives, judiciary, or executive. They all need to go.

The Government would like for us to believe that they alone hold the power to remove members or appointees. Not so. We, the People, hold the power to remove any of them with impunity if they are acting irresponsibly or with corruption. Only a tyrannical overlord holds unmitigated power over the people as our elected officials are showing us.

The Founding Fathers made sure that there was a separation of powers, that there would not be one person, or branch, more powerful than the others. Right now, President (and I use that term here VERY loosely as Joseph Robinett Biden is not very presidential in anything) Biden is signing executive orders and actions left and right; some of which he doesn’t even know what they are (and YES he did say, “I don’t even know what I’m signing.”). Speaker Nancy Pelosi is ramming legislation through without committee hearings, debate, or even time for members to read the reams of pages of these pieces of legislation. To top it all off, with the Democrats holding the White House, the House of Representatives, and basically the Senate, with the so-called Vice President holding the tie-breaking vote, there is very little recourse to keep the left-wing radicals from instituting their anti-American, Marxist agenda; and the Supreme Court will not do anything about it because Chief Justice John Roberts is afraid that the Socialists will pack the Court with more liberals and take his precious sway from him.

As the Democrats are screaming equality, Constitutionality, for the good of the people, for the down-trodden, and for Democracy they are tearing our Constitutional Republic apart at the seams. Their far-left policies are only strengthening their hold on power, strengthening their political base, removing the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, changing the Constitution by executive fiat or restrictive legislation, and not giving a damn about the American people, only their own wealth and power. It is all for the Party; almost like the Soviet Communist Party or the German Nazi Party.

After the 2020 election and all the obvious fraud and corruption, Chief Justice Roberts decided not to hear one shred of evidence that was brought before the Court by some 17 States against the State of Georgia. Why? Only the Justices were in the room from what I understand when the debate was had but, rumor has it that the Chief Justice went on a tirade and was yelling at the other Justices. He was screaming that he didn’t want to start riots and uprisings by overturning the election and that the three junior Justices would vote the way he told them to. Not very Chief Justice like or even very American.

I believe that John Roberts should stand down, retire, recuse himself, or in some other way leave the Court due to corrupt behavior. He has sold out to the liberal left lock, stock, and barrel. The Supreme Court is not supposed to be political in any way, shape, or form but it has become a political tool for the left. It’s time to change things up and get back to our roots.