Home » Posts tagged 'Democrats'
Tag Archives: Democrats
Utilitarianism As The Only Moral Law That Matters
What Standard?
As you look around the world in which we live, you may wonder the basis for moral choices. Why rampant abortion? Why pervasive foul language of the worst sort? How are all music types now acceptable? What is the basis for same sex marriage? How could ninety percent of teenagers justify their premarital sex?
Churches function in an all-new manner too based upon different guidelines. What changed? Dress standards have gone by the wayside. Everything is more casual, immodest, and worldly. Church activities and even worship orient more around worldly allure and entertainment. Service times decrease. Members are far less faithful than ever.
Sam Bankman-Fried Case Study
This week in the Washington Post Michael Lewis, who has a future book coming on the same subject, wrote an article entitled, “Sam Bankman-Fried, a personal verdict: A few thoughts on how Americans thought about the crypto trial of the century.” He introduced one portion of the trial testimony transcript with this paragraph:
Caroline explained to the jury how the crypto lenders had asked her for a quick and dirty picture of Alameda Research’s finances. And how, on June 18, on Sam’s instructions, she cooked up eight different balance sheets of varying degrees of dishonesty and presented them to Sam, who selected the least honest of the bunch to show his lenders.
Caroline referred to Caroline Ellison, the CEO of Alameda Research, the trading firm affiliated with Sam Bankman-Fried’s cryptocurrency exchange FTX. She pleaded guilty to fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy charges for her role in the crimes committed. She said in her testimony:
Q. In the course of working with the defendant, did he talk to you about the ethics of lying and stealing? A. Yeah. He said that he was a utilitarian, and he believed that the ways that people tried to justify rules like don’t lie and don’t steal within utilitarianism didn’t work, and he thought that the only moral rule that mattered was doing whatever would maximize utility — so essentially trying to create the greatest good for the greatest number of people or beings.
Utilitarianism
‘Creating the greatest good for the greatest number of people’ in not the ethic of utilitarianism, so he’s misrepresented it. His view of the world though, I believe, is very common. It might be mainstream. People are going to live for their best life now. And what they mean by that is the historical understanding of utility, which relates more to maximizing happiness and pleasure while minimizing pain and unhappiness.
Utility is not in and of itself goodness. The good thing is not inherently good, but good based on what brings the most immediate pleasure. It corresponds to a rejection of God and moral absolutes. What gives the maximum number of people pleasure and happiness is in accordance with conventional wisdom.
What pleasure did a maximum number derive from Bankman-Fried? He used his swindled money to donate to Democrat causes across the United States. His money helped put Democrats in office. Bankman-Fried himself was the beneficiary short-term of utility and emblematic of what anyone could receive without biblical morality.
A Comparison
Among many similar reasons, people miss church because of a sports league that brings pleasure and happiness. They work on Sundays because the money pays for pleasure and happiness. Children lie to their parents because the truth would freak them out. That would prohibit pleasure and happiness all around. The act of evangelism brings animosity and ridicule. How could those two things bring someone pleasure and happiness?
Five hundred years into Christ’s kingdom or one million years into the eternal state, the recipient will live in utter and indescribable bliss. I would call that pleasure and happiness too. For the short seventy to one hundred year life in this age, sacrifice brings joy, deep-seated fulfillment, or an inner calm of the soul. Paul said the short term suffering is not compared to the eternal weight of glory. This is living by faith. Faith overcomes the delusion of utilitarianism.
Democrats Most Astonishing Hate of Democracy
The Symbol of the Reichstag in Germany
A pivotal moment in Hitler’s rise in Germany came from the Nazi burning of the Reichstag. They started the fire, put it out, and then blamed it on the Communists. Democrats in the United States steal this act in a campaign to destroy democracy. The Nazis convinced a large portion of the German population that the Communists burned down their Parliament building. Even their courts wouldn’t disagree.
The Democrats, which have the related word “democracy” imbedded in their name, similarly point the finger at Trump as an authoritarian or totalitarian. His policies looked and still look exponentially more democratic than the finger pointers. He would like the government out of most of the business of Americans. Evidence abounds for this, but let me first take a small step back.
Democracy
The United States isn’t a democracy. James Madison in Numbers 10 and 14 of the Federalist Papers makes this point quite well. But let’s set that aside for now.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that a Constitutional Republic is a form of democracy. A website called “Principles of Democracy” writes:
Freedom of speech and expression, especially about political and other public issues, is the lifeblood of any democracy. Democratic governments do not control the content of most written and verbal speech. Thus democracies are usually filled with many voices expressing different or even contrary ideas and opinions.
Citizens and their elected representatives recognize that democracy depends upon the widest possible access to uncensored ideas, data, and opinions. For a free people to govern themselves, they must be free to express themselves — openly, publicly, and repeatedly; in speech and in writing.
Freedom of Speech and Democracy
Wikipedia for “Freedom of Speech” reads:
Freedom of speech is understood to be fundamental in a democracy.
Democrats censor their opposition more than anyone and with unending examples. They are similar to the presence of Islam in any country. While Moslems are in a small minority, they cry for human rights, but the moment they take charge with less than a majority, they eliminate unfavorable voices.
Oligarchy followed democracy in Greece. Democrats control a vast majority of the public square in America. I include in that schools, media, and even government. They gladly censor opposing viewpoints. The Democrat controlled institutions don’t allow the truth of the Bible. Unless Christians privately fund their own museum, you won’t see a creation account in public. Democrats label many biblical truths, “hate speech.”
Censorship
Democrats use both hard and soft censorship. By hard censorship, I mean official and legal disallowance of a place and opportunity to speak. It may be the loss of a job, because the Democrats don’t hear a statement of support for same sex activity. That turns the non-speaker, who would like to say something against the activity but doesn’t, into enemy status.
By soft censorship, I mean an avalanche of public repudiation and ridicule until speakers do not receive opportunities to speak. It’s also moderating who speaks. The establishment offers a phony, a fraud, as the representative of the alternative point of view, who goes along with the official or permitted position. Very little to nothing comes in a way of supporting the alternative position.
A historic label for soft censorship is the “kangaroo court.” The J6 Committee is a good example of this, but they abound in every state in either blue states, districts, or regions. They also exist in red areas with blue strongholds. The committee cherry picks their own rubber stamps to represent opposition. Opposition is actually major support with a fake label of opposition. I would hope everyone knows this, but I’m afraid it fools just enough of the disengaged.
Other Examples
The J6 Committee parallels with the internet. You read about the “algorhythms.” The oligarchs of the tech industry force opposition or non-supportive speech into an uninhabited hinterland. They are whole national forests of trees that fall and no one hears, so they don’t make a noise. Only approved speech moves into a hearing zone. Yes, people published something, but no one is reading, because no one is seeing.
The Hunter Biden laptop is a good example too. I say these are just examples of what is now normal. Any supportive tweet or internet entry of the laptop goes unseen, censored as disinformation. The censorship itself is the disinformation, much like the Russian collusion operation. I think this is the least of it though. It’s a censorship industry.
The industry removes the bad news about the favored issue or person. Right now, it has the ability to project a pro-Hamas experience, despite a relatively powerful coalition for Israel. Pro-Palestinian protestors crowd the White House and knock down a protective fence with little coverage from the media. The industry does not parallel or hearken to anything insurrectionist.
Massive Scale Elimination of Democratic Values
As I write on this subject, the most massive scale about which I speak is in education, where for years, the Bible, God, righteousness, and creation and the like are kept out of the massive state school complex even in red states. No one can take a male headship position in anything close to a public square. Can you imagine a professor at a major university who takes open biblical views? It doesn’t happen except in private. You must pay to hear the truth told.
I would agree that the Bill of Rights and especially the first amendment is the essence of democratic values. When do you read anything from the left defending free speech anymore? Democrats don’t write about their love for the first amendment. The closest is a totalitarian support of smut for small children in public schools and genderless bathrooms. These are not about the protection of speech or opportunity to have a voice.
Pent-Up Voices
The J6 crowd came to a rally and then walked to the capital out of a long pent-up frustration of censorship. Yes, better means of expression exist. The high percentage of silencing from the left came to a logger head. That group that day did wrong things. This is not what-aboutism. I see that day as the equivalent of throwing snow balls at the Old State House in Boston in 1770. The censorship industry, I’m afraid, because of its reaction, has not seen the worst.
We could hope that people care enough to do something about the actual attack on democracy from the Democrat Party. So far, I see it as a peaceful embrace of those who would allow free speech. It seems most represented by an ability to oppose masks and vaccinations. Still, do positions exist for scientists with an opposing view? Are there safe places of employment in hospitals and in medical schools with an alternate view? I’m saying this is just representative, because the worst relates to far more important issues of truth.
Democrats have a burning Reichstag type hatred of democracy. The Nazis opposed burning the Reichstag. But they burned it. The Democrats don’t mind burning everything down to get their way. They don’t care if you vote or not. They don’t even want you able to say what they don’t want to hear.
My Take on the Complicated World Scene That Includes Ukraine, Russia, and Israel (part four)
What Is the Greatest Danger?
A good question to ask when evaluating United States domestic and foreign policy is “what is the greatest danger to the country?” When I grew up during the Cold War, the Soviet Union was a monumental threat to the security of the United States. If you are close to my age, maybe you remember the power of the Soviet military.
I remember hearing the idea that the Soviets would fly the hammer and sickle over the U. S. capital in 1976. At that time, almost half of the world’s land mass was communist. It was an amazing time when the government changed in Eastern bloc countries and they opened up in the late 1980s. With the fall of the iron curtain, suddenly the United States became the sole superpower. Communist dictators were everywhere all over the world from the moment of my birth in 1962 to the tearing down of the Berlin wall on November 9, 1989. Putin and Xi are barely dictators today compared to those in the Cold War.
Terrorism
A transition began in the 1980s from international communism to Islamic terrorism. Terrorists would not defeat and take over the United States, but they would cause terror and chaos to free countries. My earliest inkling was the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979, the bombing of a Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983,then the bomb under the World Trade center in 1993, and finally the culmination with terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
Terrorist attacks are still a threat, especially as long as someone could deliver a nuclear device into a major U. S. city. Conventional deterrence will not stop nuclear attack motivated by jihad, like the stalemate of mutually assured destruction. One of these random nuclear attacks still poses great danger, especially crossing the Southern border. From a sheer military risk, I still see this as the single greatest, immediate peril to national security.
China
Besides another major terrorist attack, I don’t see any great danger to the United States from a foreign country. China is the biggest threat, but in my opinion China shows no short term aspirations to invade our shores. The biggest danger by far isn’t foreign, but domestic. Every failing foreign policy relates to the internal corruption of the United States. I’m not saying Putin is better than the Democrat Party, but the latter is far worse for the United States than him.
In my childhood, Democrats supported Communists in Latin America. Bernie Sanders took his honeymoon in Cuba. They still lean socialist, even as seen in their support of the Palestinians and leftists in Israel.
The Left, the Democrat Party, and “Democracy”
In 2008 California passed Proposition 8, changing the California constitution on marriage, defining it between a man and a woman. Immediately upon it becoming law, San Francisco mayor (now governor) Gavin Newsome ramped up same sex marriage in city hall. No one said anything about democracy. No Democrat says anything about democracy with violations of immigration law and sanctuary cities. When they challenge elections, they say nothing about threats to democracy. Much more could be said about who really opposes democracy and freedom in the United States.
I don’t support the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I believe, however, that Russia saw the expansion of NATO as an existential threat. This was part of its agreement at the end of the Cold War. Will funding Ukraine end the war against Russia and will it turn Russia into a kind of long term partner, no longer a threat to American security? American meddling all over the world looks like it does more to hurt than help. The present government opposes truly democratic movements, such as what we have seen in Argentina, the Netherlands, and Italy most recently. Meanwhile, the United States is spread so thin that it hurts the American economy and security at home.
Changes are occurring elsewhere, difficult to interpret. They are framed by the establishment, mainstream media in the United States as anti-democratic. This is in the same spirit that antifa is anti-fascist, and antiracism is anti-racism. These are propaganda tools, it seems. Changes have occurred in Poland and Hungary that are called anti-democratic. California would call Florida, “anti-democratic,” because of decreasing abortion and banning pornography in the schools. The present administration pressures African countries to legalize same sex marriage.
Our Own House In Order
A stronger, more cohesive alliance with Russia, China, and Iran also supports an anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian coalition in the Middle East. This hearkens to possible future events in fulfillment of prophecy unlike what I’ve seen in my lifetime.
Many Americans do not trust the Democrat apparatchiks at work in Ukraine or in Israel. These are the same characters who supported billions of dollars to Iran. The Biden family also received millions of dollars for peddling influence in Ukraine. The United States needs to get its own house in order. Then it will be better prepared to exert itself elsewhere.
My Take on the Complicated World Scene That Includes Ukraine, Russia, and Israel
Division Over Israel
What’s going on in foreign policy in the world is one of the most interesting variations of division that I’ve seen in my lifetime. Positions divide normal allies and unify former enemies. It’s a challenge even in theological circles with diverse interpretations of biblical prophecy. The event of October 7, 2023 with the brutal attack by Hamas on Israel also ratchets up emotions, making it more difficult to discuss.
When someone becomes settled, what I like to call “concrete,” in his position, he might take disagreement personally. Maybe very personally. It’s tough to talk issues when emotions run so high. Maybe you’ve seen various podcasts with arguments between an Israeli and a Palestinian. Heated doesn’t represent how hot the temperature gets. I’ve noticed very often, between school yard taunts and name calls, the same repeated accusations from both sides.
Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, and the Democrat Party
Perhaps you heard about the skirmish now between Ben Shapiro and Candace Owens. The co-founder of Daily Wire called his employee an “absolute disgrace,” caught on video in a private meeting and went viral. She then sits down to comment to Tucker Carlson in an explosive interview. Shapiro has done very angry high energy rants about the expressed position of Carlson. I couldn’t possibly list every prominent ongoing debate, there are so many.
One can witness the variated division between the remaining Republican presidential candidates. A divide also exists among Democrats between university-type leftists, Pro-Palestinian, and traditional Democrat Pro-Israel stances, especially represented by Senator Chuck Schumer and others.
The Animosity Toward Israel
Hatred of Israel across the world validates biblical prophecy. Despite propaganda-like support from Hollywood and in the mainstream media for the Jews and against genocidal treatment, hatred reaches a recent high everywhere. Based on its mere size, Israel would not deserve or receive this animosity, yet it does. Why and how? Two reasons.
One, Satan opposes Israel still. He wants to throw a wrench into the ongoing plan of God in the world. He has strong influence on the easily manipulated lost nations and their leaders. Two, God still fulfills prophecy with chastisement of Israel. Israel does not have a statute of limitations on God’s reprimands. I wish for open eyes for Israel, although I don’t expect it. Yet, God still isn’t done with Israel; hence the continued discipline.
As an example of division, many reading this nod “no” in strong opposition to what I write here. Many both amillennialists and postmillennialists see God done with Israel, replaced by the church. When I say “church,” I mean their version of God’s kingdom on earth, made up of Christendom. They see Israel as an unbelieving, rebellious people, who deserves no special favor against the Arabs in Palestine.
Candace Owens, who professes Christianity, married a Roman Catholic. Maybe she leans that way now. She can find support from Reformed evangelicals with a similar view of the world. You look at the history of Roman Catholicism and even the European Protestant state churches, and you see historical anti-semitism. Tucker Carlson grew up Episcopalian and he seems right now to return to some version of Christian nationalism, as seen in his interviews of foreign Christian nationalists. I see Vladimir Putin himself a kind of Christian nationalist, more interested in the survival of his nation and culture.
Jewish Anger toward Hamas and Palestine
What I’m writing in this post would require book or dissertation level analysis. I’m not going to write that, even though it’s an interest.
I understand Shapiro’s anger. Hamas killed 1,500 Israelites and took 240 hostages. The United States is 33 times the population of Israel and had 3,000 killed on 9-11. That means this is at least fifteen times worse, and it’s almost immeasurable with the way Hamas did it.
Remove the religious and ethnic component, and even as an international incident, if Israel acts like any other nation, it would react more harsh than it even is acting. When I hear Shapiro defend Israel’s reaction, I agree with him. I’ve heard both sides of the argument in all their iterations and I support Israel’s argument. The United States should just let Israel do its thing and not get in the way. I would advocate for U.S. backing and support if international escalation occurred from prominent Israeli enemies like Iran.
Varied Points of View, Yet Still Supporting Israel
Support without Foreign Aid
On the other hand, I like the idea of not sending money to Israel. I’m in the proto-Republican anti-intervention, quasi-isolationist camp. This is more in the realm of a fresh realization of the Monroe doctrine. The United States solidifies its own security and borders, solves its own very serious problems first. It follows the Pauline view of bearing your own burdens before you bear those of others.
As a companion to everything else, I like firming up freedom of speech. Some of this relates to a reaction to January 6 compared to Antifa and BLM riots and the denial of a rigged 2020 election and the denial of 2016 election seen in the Russian Hoax and Hunter Biden laptop. I understand the concerns over any even questioning of Israel policy as anti-semitic. White people in the United States, Israel supporters, have felt left out of the concern over racism from American Jews in comparison with silence over Antifa and BLM. Apparent first amendment supporters should allow free expression of these inconsistencies without pulling an anti-semitism card.
Democrat support of Israel comes with obvious strings attached. American money brings American supervision or control. When America attacked Iraq after 911, relatively little criticism came for collateral damage, death of innocent civilians. This is the cost of war for American retaliation. Hamas uses children as human shields and Israel must pause its offensive, perhaps leaving Hamas intact. The United States should consider not sending monetary support and just allowing Israel free reign on its own security. American Democrat politics affect Israeli security, bouncing Israel around like a political volleyball.
Hatred from Jews for their Own Supporters
It is tough to bridge historical support of Israel with the typical woke politics among Jews in the United States and Israel. Almost 50% of Jews in Israel self-identify as secular. They support same sex marriage and other forms of moral perversion, not operating according to objective truth. 62 percent of the 7.6 million Jews in the United States are secular. 79% voted Democrat in the 2018 midterm elections.
Pew Research did a study on American Jews in 2020 and 81 percent of Orthodox Jews supported Trump. On the other hand, the same study said 73% of all Jews opposed Trump. This describes the difference between a secular and religious Jew in the United States. Recently, secular Jew Barbara Streisand complained that she would not live in the United States if Donald Trump became president again. She would move to England — you know, the place where 300,000 pro-Hamas protestors recently gathered on the streets of London against Israel.
Shapiro himself sometimes plays, I believe, to the secular Jew. Perhaps a form of self-preservation innate from hundreds of years of persecution explains. As a professing Orthodox Jew, attaching himself to the Old Testament in a prominent way, he uses profane language and tells dirty jokes in public. Then when an Owens or Tucker, whom I would see as supporters of Israel, albeit in a lesser way, he reacts in a ballistic manner. When questioned on Trump in a secular crowd, he throws Trump under the bus in a harsher way than he would George Soros or Bill Maher.
Support of Israel and Milquetoast Response
Part of the Abrahamic Covenant, which is still intact, is that God promised He would bless people that bless Israel. Among other reasons, that explains a strong support of Israel in the United States, including welcoming those 7.6 million Jews in the United States. A majority of those Jews have been sharply antagonistic with their chief supporters, many expressing intense hatred for them. This communicates the peculiar situation this issue provides. You can greatly dislike the Jewish worldview while really loving and bestowing support for Jews and Israel.
No group provides as sharp and hateful rhetoric toward Christians in the United States like Jews do. Israel’s protection in the Middle East greatly depends on this group of people mainly hated by Jews in the United States. In a personal way, I’ve received no greater disrespect than I have from Jews and on many different occasions. I’ve never treated a Jew in a bad way, always in a loving way. A small percentage of the Jews I’ve known return that favor. Of course, they might explain that they don’t like the reason why we love them so much.
Many forms of contradiction occur over the issue of Israel and Palestine. A Jew easily can confuse a Catholic from a Protestant from an Evangelical. Even on this blog, in the comment section some attack Israel for Christian reasons while we defend Israel for Christian reasons. They both can’t be right, yet they both exist.
More to Come
Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte by Richard Whately & Skepticism
Have you ever read Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte by ? (view the book online for free here or here; a version you can cut and paste into a document so you can listen to it is here), or get a physical copy:
David Hume, the famous skeptic, employed a variety of skeptical arguments against the Bible, the Lord Jesus Christ, and against the possibility of miracles and the rationality of believing in them in Section 10, “Of Miracles,” of Hume’s Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Whately, an Anglican who believed in the Bible, in miracles, and in Christ and His resurrection, turned Hume’s skeptical arguments against themselves. Whately’s “satiric Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Bonaparte (1819), … show[ed] that the same methods used to cast doubt on [Biblical] miracles would also leave the existence of Napoleon open to question.” Whately’s book is a short and humerous demonstration that Hume’s hyper-skepticism would not only “prove” that Christ did not do any miracles or rise from the dead, but that Napoleon, who was still alive at the time, did not exist or engage in the Napoleonic wars. Hume’s argument against miracles is still extremely influential–indeed, as the teaching sessions mentioned in my last Friday’s post indicated, the main argument today against the resurrection of Christ is not a specific alternative theory such as the stolen-body, hallucination, or swoon theory, but the argument that miracles are impossible, so, therefore, Christ did not rise–Hume’s argument lives on, although it does not deserve to do so, as the critiques of Hume’s argument on my website demonstrate. For these reasons, the quick and fun read Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte is well worth a read. (As a side note, the spelling “Buonaparte” by the author, instead of Bonaparte, is deliberate–the British “used the foreign sounding ‘Buonaparte’ to undermine his legitimacy as a French ruler. … On St Helena, when the British refused to acknowledge the defeated Emperor’s imperial rights, they insisted everyone call him ‘General Buonaparte.'”
Contemporary Significance
Part of the contemporary significance of Richard Whately’s Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte relates to how we evaluate historical data. We should avoid both the undue skepticism of David Hume and also undue credulity. Whatever God revealed in His Word can, and must, be accepted without question. But outside of Scripture, when evaluating historical arguments, we should employ Biblical principles such as the following:
Have the best arguments both for and against the matter in question been carefully examined?
Is the argument logical?
Are there conflicts of interest in those promoting the argument?
Does the argument produce extraordinary evidence for its extraordinary claims?
Does the argument require me to think more highly of myself than I ought to think?
Is looking into the argument redeeming the time?
Are Biblical patterns of authority followed by those spreading the argument?
(principles are reproduced from my website here, and are also discussed here.)
A failure to properly employ consistent criteria to the evaluation of evidence undermines the case for Scripture. For example, Assyrian records provide as strong a confirmation as one could expect for Hezekiah’s miraculous deliverance from the hand of Assyria by Jehovah’s slaying 185,000 Assyrian soldiers (2 Kings 19). However, Assyrian annals are extremely biased ancient propaganda. Those today who claim that any source showing bias (say, against former President Trump, or against conservative Republicans–of which there are many) should be automatically rejected out of hand would have to deny, if they were consistent, that Assyrian records provide a glorious confirmation of the Biblical miracle. Likewise, Matthew records that the guards at Christ’s tomb claimed that the Lord’s body was stolen as they slept (Matthew 28). Matthew, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, intends the reader to be able to see through this biased and false argument to recognize the fact that non-Christians were making it actually provides confirmation for the resurrection of Christ. (If you do not see how it confirms the resurrection, think about it for a while.)
Many claims made today, whether that the population of the USA would catastrophically decline as tens of millions would die from the COVID vaccine, that Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams had her election win in Georgia stolen by Republicans, that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump had his 2020 election win in Georgia stolen by Democrats, that 9/11 was perpetrated by US intelligence agencies, that Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election, that the miracle cure for cancer has been discovered but is being suppressed by Big Pharma, and many other such claims are rarely advanced by those who follow the Biblical principles listed above for evaluating information. Furthermore, the (dubious) method of argumentation for such claims, if applied to the very strong archaeological evidence for the Bible, would very frequently undermine it, or, indeed, frequently undermine the possibility of any historical investigation at all and destroy the field of historical research.
In conclusion, I would encourage you to read Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte, and, as you read it, think about what Scripture teaches about how one evaluates historical information.
–TDR
-The Amazon link above is an affiliate link. Please visit here to learn about how one can donate to charity at no additional cost when purchasing products at Amazon and here to learn how to save on Internet purchases in general.
Voting “Rights” Bill
The Democrat Party holds power in the country barely. They don’t have the Supreme Court, even though John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh both sadly voted to uphold the mandate of the vaccine for medical workers in federally funded institutions. When those people were off work, they still will have a medicine in their system that they might not want. The government should not force citizens to put something into their bodies that they do not want. Those two men swung the court to the side of the liberal justices.
The House of Representatives is a slim Democrat majority and it’s tied in the Senate 50-50 with Vice-President Kamala Harris as a tie breaker. However, as you know. at least Democrat Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia has not budged on some of the leftist agenda advocated by President Biden. Manchin might be more trustworthy than Roberts and Kavanaugh, two justices selected by Republican presidents.
The job approval rating for President Biden is very low. Rasmussen had him today at 41 approve and 58 disapprove, which is very, very low for a Democrat president. Quinnipac in its latest poll was 35 approve and 58 disapprove. Anyone in his right mind thinks the job approval should be lower than 41. Who are these people? I think we know.
The midterm elections later in November this year, as they stand, look like a surge for Republicans in both the House and the Senate, perhaps giving the Republicans a majority in the House and the Senate. If that happens, Republicans will be in charge of committees on both sides and starting up investigations on the many corruptions of this administration. Some foresee impeachment potential, but Vice President Harris may guarantee against that.
I read today that Nick Saban, the successful Alabama football coach, who grew up in a small coal mining town in West Virginia, and Jerry West, the Hall of Fame NBA basketball player and later executive, who also grew up in a small coal mining town in West Virginia, both wrote Senator Manchin a letter to vote for the voting rights bill. Saban and West could only gain in their professional careers by supporting the voting rights bill, just like NBA players stand to gain by promoting the Chinese Communist Party, despite human rights atrocities.
What are the voting rights of the voting rights bill? The voting rights bill, if passed, and then upheld by the Supreme Court, would insure that the federal government would control the way states run elections. The U. S. Constitution guarantees the state legislatures have the right to set election laws. Republicans in state legislatures are pushing to strengthen the election laws of their states in order to stop a repeat of what occurred in the 2020 election.
Covid restrictions came in handy for Democrats in 2020. They ignored state election laws. They used Covid for exceptions to election laws. Then tech titans infiltrated local election offices with money and manpower to control how elections occurred and how votes were counted. All this enabled massive ballot harvesting. Democrat operatives filled out ballots on behalf of millions who would not fill them out themselves and dumped in easily accessible boxes. That’s how Democrats won the election.
If 2020 were even a normal election with similar to normal corruption, where individuals received ballots at their homes through the mail and then mailed them in with a signature verifying the voter, the outcome would have been much different. 2020 was a dream election for Democrats, where everywhere was easier to cheat to win. They also ramped up exceedingly more than the normal mainstream media bias, hiding devastating negative stories about Democrat candidates and spreading others about Republicans.
While many locations in California require one to show an identification and vaccine pass to continue in their establishment to purchase and drink your cup of coffee, they don’t want identification for voting. In other words, they want to make it easier to cheat. In my opinion, a big part of the Democrat party does not like voting. They want something closer to the Soviet Union.
The publicity for the voting rights bill poses like a civil rights bill, that without its passing, ethnic minorities will lose their vote. If you support the bill, you aren’t a racist. If you don’t support it, you are one. Advocates portray it as supported by Martin Luther King, Jr. by his identification with voting rights. None of this is true. It’s part of the politics behind the bill, to arouse the base of the Democrat Party by making it angry about something that is really a lie. It’s actually an old strategy, replayed again and again every decade of my lifetime.
I would not think that Saban or West have even read the bill. They’ve likely been recruited to write these letters, having received an explanation of the voting rights bill by their recruiter. I would guess someone helped them “write” them. These are not normally political figures. They are two of the most famous and celebrated contemporary famous sons from the state of West Virginia. I’m glad to report that I do no think either West Virginia or Manchin will go for it. He knows it’s a “voting rights” bill and not a voting rights bill.
The Constitution as originally written did not guarantee a right to vote. It’s not in the bill of rights. States only cannot deny a right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude (15th Amendment), sex (19th Amendment), failure to pay poll tax (24th Amendment), and age, 18 years and older (26th Amendment). Under Article 2, Section 4, the U.S. Constitution makes states accountable for managing federal elections. Most states then give the citizens of its state the right to vote.
States can require voter identification. That does not abridge anyone based on the amendments in the Constitution.
Voting is not a human right. It is not a natural right. It is not natural law. Those all proceed from God, not government. Voting is a civil right, which means it is given by the government. The government gives the right to vote. It can also take it away. Not everyone in this country is allowed to vote.
State governments are not trying to take away anyone’s right to vote. Right now they want to ensure that the elections of the states are not just free, but also fair. Voting can be corrupted by ballot harvesting and many other modern means to steal an election.
Recent Comments