Once more, political divisions have caused the U.S. Congress to shut down the government. Sigh…again?! Ever wonder if a long-running TV show will ever have its final season?
I’m not a federal worker, but my current role relies on the U.S. government functioning at full capacity. Or at least at a rational level. Then again, that may be too much to ask in the current environment.
Gosh, I hate to interrupt someone during their nap!
While literally thousands of people across the nation have found themselves on a reluctant furlough, members of Congress, along with the president and vice-president, are still getting paid. Of course, they rarely suffer whenever such indignities befall the average peon. Having lived in a gilded cage most of his life, Donald Trump can’t feel that kind of pain – certainly not with the support of his blind faithful.
The shutdown has entered its first full week, and – as usual – the finger-pointing has been rampant. I’m almost afraid some of those fools will put their hands in traction!
I don’t care if any of them get hurt, though. They’re not worth the trouble. But Congress is as politically divided as the nation. Trump bears a great deal of responsibility for that chaos. He made it cool for some people to be hateful and bigoted. Yes, he’s taking America back – back to a time when only people who looked like him held the bulk of the country’s power and money.
But the nation has been growing divided for decades now. Technically I believe it started with the Watergate fiasco, but worsened the moment Bill Clinton first announced his run for the presidency. It only intensified after the turn of the century.
Thousands of federal workers are now not getting paid. That includes active duty military personnel; even those stationed overseas. But Trump has done the right thing in that case and ordered that they continue getting paid. Air traffic controllers also aren’t getting paid, but are being forced to work, as they are considered essential employees. Many, however, are calling in sick. They learned their lesson more than four decades ago. In 1980 the Air Traffic Controllers Union was the only labor group in the U.S. to support Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign. The following year they went through on their threats to strike – demanding better pay, updated equipment and more controllers. And then Reagan fired 11,000 of them. Needless to say that was the last time any work union in the U.S. supported a Republican for the presidency.
Even though things look okay for me now, I’m still concerned. The government agency my company contracts with has been the target of many public officials, especially Republicans. Trump, however, has issued another threat. He’s promised to terminate a number of federal associates and says that, when the government reopens, he’ll make sure they don’t get any back pay – which has always happened in the past.
Personally I think it would be great if every essential employee doesn’t show up for their job. I mean EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM! That’s not likely, however, but I’d love to see how these sanctimonious Republicans would respond.
In the meantime, average taxpaying, law-abiding citizen will continue to feel the adverse effects of this morass. It’s a never-ending cycle of incompetence in the highest levels of the political universe.
Several years ago actress turned animal rights activist Brigitte Bardot found herself in legal trouble with French authorities. The former screen siren openly condemned the Islamic practice of animal slaughter during the Aid al-Kabir holiday. She’d been in such a predicament before – several times. French law doesn’t actually forbid disparaging religious ideology, but it looks down sharply upon it, as it can be considered slander or worse, a conduit to hate-obsessed violence.
It’s surprising, considering France fought hard against Nazi occupation during World War II. One tenet of Nazism is that anyone who speaks out against the government is deemed a traitor. But, short of slander or threats of violence, criticism of governing bodies and religion is free speech. Imprisoning anyone, or even threatening to levy a monetary penalty for such views, runs counter to that.
All of it strikes hard for me – and other writers and artists – here in the U.S., as we witness ongoing assaults on various forms of free speech. Book bans remain a primary source of concern. And with Republicans in charge of the White House and both houses of Congress, the attacks continue. Social extremists have always been opposed to any viewpoint that doesn’t conform to their standards – whether it’s coming from the left or the right. The voices of moderates seem to get lost in the chaos.
Recently the U.S. government – under pressure from the Trump administration – compiled and presented a list of words that are forbidden on federal web sites and other documentation. They include such terms as “biologically male”, “clean energy”, “inequality”, and “woman”. This is real! I have a tendency towards creating outrageous stories, but I’m not intoxicated or deranged. Well…not yet.
Regardless, the list definitely isn’t a manifestation of liberal outrage at the most right-wing president in decades. It’s a result of years of conservative ideology designed to put people and institutions in categories and re-enshrine bigotry and hatred into the American conscience. The leftward shift in culture and politics in the U.S. beginning in the late 1950s eventually met the hostility of Reaganesque antipathy towards anything viewed as different or the other. The Trump era is the culmination of it all.
Those in formerly marginalized groups who also voted for Trump and his ilk shouldn’t be surprised – but they are. For example, Cuban-Americans voted overwhelmingly for Trump, as they often have for the Republican Party. As Cuba has been under communist rule since 1959, those fleeing the country have been given special protection from American law. The same luxury hasn’t been granted to people fleeing war and violence in other Latin American nations, such as El Salvador and Guatemala. However, the Trump Administration’s efforts to reform immigration law have started to impact thousands of Cuban immigrants. Now, Cuban-Americans have the audacity to be horrified at the betrayal. Remember the adage: be careful what you wish for; you might just get it.
“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.”
Trump and his cronies appear to be going after anyone who doesn’t fit the narrow definition of who he is. His hypocrisy is glaring. He never outwardly espoused any religious fervor until he first ran for president, but now says Christian ideology should be taught in schools. If he believes in true biblical content, then consider the Christian Bible’s 7th commandment: “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Exodus 20:14.
There are others.
“I am a stranger and an alien residing among you; give me property among you for a burying place, so that I may bury my dead out of my sight.”Genesis 23:4
“The sinless one among you, go first. Throw the stone.”John 8:6-11
“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these.”Mark 12:30-31
I’m sure this would be too much for him to handle. It’s too much even for some devout Christians to handle!
Whatever words someone wants to use, they shouldn’t be frightened into compliance. Russia, Iran and North Korea do that. No truly democratic society wants to echo such autocratic leadership.
Anyone who watched the debate last Thursday between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump surely has a variety of words to describe it. Mine are sad, pathetic, hopeless and frightening. And those are the highlight adjectives!
I didn’t see it. I had to do some writing and other work on my personal computer. Plus, my genitals needed some extra attention, and I just couldn’t ignore them to watch two cantankerous old men exchange pithy barbs. One good feature about the debate is that the microphone for whichever of the two candidates not speaking was muted. I know that was incorporated strictly after the fiasco of the first Trump-Biden debate in 2020 – the one where a frustrated Biden blurted to Trump, “Would you shut up, man!”
If only both men could be muted now, I think we’d all be better off. Americans – and people across the globe – pretty much know where they stand on particular issues. Or where they don’t stand.
I recall the questions surrounding the health of Ronald Reagan when he ran for president in 1980; he was 69 at the time, and the voting populace (along with the media) verbalized their concerns about his welfare. For the most part, seniority is respected and appreciated in certain fields. Politics isn’t necessarily one of them, but experience does hold a certain value. Reagan made the most of his age, even joking about it on occasion. He held the distinction of being the oldest president until Trump. In November of 2022, Biden crossed a new threshold when he became the nation’s first octogenarian Chief Executive. And here we are.
I’ve always said the Democratic Party’s biggest mistake in the 2020 election cycle was to let Biden and Bernie Sanders run for president. After leaving the White House as vice-president in 2017, I feel that Biden should have retired into the realm of a senior statesman; giving speeches, writing books and propagating democracy every reasonable chance he had. The Democrats began the 2020 campaign with the most diverse collection of candidates, including more women than had ever attempted to run for president at one time and an openly queer man in their ranks. Then they ended up just like the Republican Party – with two old White men at the top, Biden and Sanders. Of course, one of those Democratic candidates, Kamala Harris, has become the nation’s first female and non-White vice-president, and another, Pete Buttigieg, has become the first openly queer cabinet official.
Like many people, I’d often mock older individuals in my youth. Now I’m 60 and I know how that feels. I don’t consider myself “old” in the traditional sense; my body has definitely aged, but I won’t let my mind collapse into senility. But even I know this nation is in trouble with the likes of Biden and Trump as the primary presidential candidates. And yes, it is because of their age.
The U.S. is rapidly approaching the 250th anniversary of its official birth as a nation. Right now the future just doesn’t look too bright for us.
The U.S. Supreme Court commenced its latest term October 2, and after the previous two years of drama and shocking decisions, the American populace is wondering what’s next. Among the upcoming decisions:
Lindke v. Freed – A case in which the Court will decide whether a public official’s social media activity can constitute state action only if the official used the account to perform a governmental duty or under the authority of his or her office.
Murray v. UBSSecurities LLC – A case in which the Court will decide whether, under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, a whistleblower must prove his employer acted with a “retaliatory intent” as part of his case in chief to succeed on a retaliation claim.
Rudisill v. McDonough – A case in which the Court will decide whether a veteran who has served two separate and distinct periods of qualifying service is entitled to receive all of the education benefits at once from programs associated with both periods of service.
United States v. Rahimi – A case in which the Court will decide whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment. (Both domestic violence experts and gun rights supporters are closely watching this particular case.)
Vidal v. Elster – A case in which the Court will decide whether the refusal to register a trademark under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(c) violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure.
The 2022 Dobbs decision upended the long-standing belief the High Court always moves the nation forward. It wasn’t akin to the 1954 Brown decision, which reversed the 1896 Plessy ruling. It was such a regressive move that even legal scholars remain stunned. Afterwards, Justice Clarence Thomas – the longest-serving member of the Court and a conservative darling – declared the Dobbs decision opened the possibility for reversals of other cases, such as Obergefell v. Hodges that legalized same-sex marriage. Curiously he said nothing of the 1967 Loving v. Virginia case that legalized interracial marriage. (Thomas is currently married to a White chick.)
As upsetting as the Dobbs decision was, I know the case that will galvanize Americans; that is, the decision that – if reversed – will incite a revolution. It is the one case that will drive Americans into the voting booth more than abortion, education, guns, queers or voting itself – Miller v. California, the 1972 decision that technically legalized pornography. (Also see United States v. Reidel.) Yes, among all the sentient issues plaguing our modern society, denying people the right to view sexual activity will culminate in a revolution that could rival the collapse of the Roman Empire. In the mid-1980s, President Ronald Reagan – perhaps still angry about the Miller decision – launched a war on pornography. His then-Attorney General, Edwin Meese, commissioned associates to investigate the adult film industry under the guise of protecting children, which is indeed a noble effort. But in reality, Reagan’s self-righteous demeanor drove his efforts to limit free speech; to stifle those who dared to disagree with him. We saw much of the same two decades ago as critics of President George W. Bush were assailed. Both extremist conservatives and liberals just don’t like when people have something negative to say about their lifestyles. The same groups don’t have any problem, though, dictating what’s appropriate for others. Conservatives, in particular, don’t like anything sexual. It sends them into epileptic fits.
Regardless I can assure everyone that any U.S. Supreme Court assault on pornography will be taken seriously. It has a lot to do with finances. As of 2022, the adult film industry in the U.S. profited about $97 billion. And that kind of money buys a certain amount of power.
The Reagan Administration failed to shut down pornography in the U.S. Despite the AIDS epidemic, the adult film industry forged ahead in the 1980s and continued growing. And I can assure even the most ardent of conservatives can’t stop it. Then again, many of those same conservatives often view pornographic material – they just won’t admit it. They really can’t because it would undermine their own limited credibility.
No matter what happens with the High Court, I doubt few other matters will resonate with voters as the X factor. There are few things more obscene to me than war and unfettered censorship.
SWAT officers take Solomon Peña into custody in Albuquerque, New México. (Photo: Roberto E. Rosales/Albuquerque Journal)
Earlier this week New México police arrested a failed Republican congressional candidate and charged him with hiring some men to shoot up the homes of Democratic opponents. Solomon Peña allegedly was dissatisfied with the results of his race last year and decided to seek revenge in the worst possible way: through violence. Like his idol, former President Donald Trump, Peña is an election denier and claimed fraud in his own run for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. He lost to his Democratic opponent by more than 3,600 votes.
In the U.S. many elected officials – mostly Democrat and liberal – have been the targets of political violence over the past 5 or 6 years; which (not surprisingly) coincides with the rise of Trump. The animosity reached a feverish crescendo on January 6, 2021, when a mob of Trump loyalists stormed the U.S. Capitol Building in a failed attempt to undermine the 2020 presidential election, as well as democracy itself. I’m still angry at the sight of hundreds storming into the building and even angrier at those who continue to support Trump and dismiss the severity of that day. Like most Americans, the rampage reminded me of images of developing countries in the throes of political chaos. While various groups in the U.S. have threatened to inflict such carnage over previous decades, no one really thought it would happen.
We have Donald Trump to thank for that.
Threatening election officials and taking out opponents with bullets is what used to happen in places like Colombia and the Philippines. Even as recently as 1995, Israel experienced political violence when Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated. The act stunned the international community and roiled the only truly democratic state in the Middle East.
Americans have always had a love-hate relationship with their elected officials, whether or not they actually voted for them, or even voted at all. But I’ve always believed the Watergate fiasco was a major turning point in our nation’s disillusionment with politicians overall. That a sitting president would seek to gain an advantage over his adversaries by concocting a burglary scheme shocked most people. They always sort of knew politicians weren’t necessarily the most moral of individuals, but an actual break-in?
A greater sense of partisanship began to take hold in the ensuing decade and became more pronounced in the 1990s, as Republicans did everything they could – and failed – to undermine Bill Clinton’s agenda. The scandalous (and genuinely corrupt) 2000 presidential election widened the chasm of discontent. The GOP’s blatant disrespect for President Barack Obama was even more egregious and appalling – but not really unexpected from conservatives, as far as I was concerned.
Then came Donald Trump, and the haters suddenly had a license to lash out with unabashed vigor. All the social upheavals of the 1960s were the result of tensions that had been brewing for decades; people had grown tired of just waiting for change and hoping for the best. In a similar, yet twisted manner, the right-wing extremism that exploded under Trump also had been fomenting in the souls of angry (mostly White male) conservatives for years; that is, since…well, since the 1960s. Ronald Reagan once said he wanted to return America to the time before the 60s screwed up everything. As a relic of his past, he naturally didn’t understand we can’t go backwards in time. That’s science fiction. But that’s why I call most conservatives preservatives – they want to preserve the old ways of life; ways that were good for them, of course, but not everyone else.
Trump revised that futile dream with his “Make America Great Again” mantra; claiming he wanted to “take America back”. Back to where, those of us with more than half a brain asked, and how far? Back to the Civil War? Back to the Gilded Age?
Peña is just one cog in the wheel of America’s political vitriol. Think of this for a few moments. Acting like a drug cartel leader, Peña (who already had a felony criminal record) hired some thugs to fire gun shots into the homes of people he thought had snatched victory from him. At least one of those bullets ended up in a child’s bedroom. Just as with drug cartels, Peña and his henchmen cared nothing about their intended victims and any collateral damage – i.e., innocent bystanders. Drug lords only care about their profits; everyone and everything else be damned. Peña only cared about exacting personal revenge over what he perceived to be a corrupt system. We’re not supposed to do that in civilized societies.
But that is Trump’s legacy. That is what he’s done to the overall concept of democracy.
“We establish no religion in this country. We command no worship. We mandate no belief nor will we ever. Church and state are and must remain separate.”
Abortion-rights and anti-abortion demonstrators gather outside of the Supreme Court in Washington, Friday, June 24, 2022. The Supreme Court has ended constitutional protections for abortion that had been in place nearly 50 years, a decision by its conservative majority to overturn the court’s landmark abortion cases. (AP Photo/Gemunu Amarasinghe)
It has been one dream of conservatives for decades: overturning Roe vs. Wade. The landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision guaranteed women the right to abortion, in accordance with the 9th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Now that goal has been achieved: earlier today, June 24, the Court has overturned Roe; thus gutting nearly a half century of reproductive freedom for women in the U.S.
It’s a stunning move and it’s left abortion supporters shell-shocked. It doesn’t seem to matter that the majority of Americans support abortion to some extent. Six justices on the Supreme Court have decided they don’t like the concept of abortion, so no woman should have access to it and no one should help a woman burdened with a crisis pregnancy. It is the first time in U.S. history that a constitutional right has been granted and then rescinded.
Social and religious conservatives are ecstatic about this decision. Although the Roe decision startled many people in 1973, the ruling didn’t really become an issue until the 1980s; when the evangelical Christian movement started to make its intrusive presence known. They saw the election of Ronald Reagan as assurance that abortion would be outlawed in the U.S.
At least 26 states were ready to outlaw abortion under most circumstances, should Roe be overturned. Now that it has, they are moving towards the annihilation. Last year the legislature in my home state of Texas passed the so-called “Heartbeat Act”, which bans abortion after 6 weeks (before many women know they’re pregnant) and only allows it in cases where the mother’s life is endangered. That means rape and incest victims will be forced to carry their pregnancies to term. Any woman (or girl) who obtains an abortion and/or anyone who assists in that procedure could face up to $10,000 in statutory damages and face prison time. Noticeably it doesn’t say anything about prosecuting men who rape women or girls.
The overturning of Roe perhaps will be one of Donald Trump’s greatest legacies, aside from his dismal handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and the violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. But it won’t so much be his legacy as it will be that of right-wing extremists – the people who loudly proclaim to cherish personal liberty and freedom, but in practice, mean it only for themselves. Everyone else’s personal liberty – that is, people who aren’t exactly like them – is somehow subjective.
Abortion opponents are now presenting – as they always have – what they consider viable solutions to the dilemma of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies; quick fixes that are ridiculously quaint and utopian. They recommend creating a society where every child comes into the world loved and respected; that women always have a safe and effective way to carry out their undesired pregnancies. It’s tantamount to beauty pageant contestants expressing their wish for the blind to see and the lame to walk. It’s wonderfully idealistic, yet extraordinarily delusional. Such answers to some of life’s most complex issues are typical of the conservative mindset: simple and unencumbered. That’s why I always say my brain is too big to be conservative.
In the 49 years since Roe was passed, it’s estimated that some 60 million abortions have taken place in the United States. Abortion adversaries groan that it means some 60 million children never got a chance to grow up and have fulfilling lives. But millions of children have come into the world under the best of circumstances and have never lived fulfilling lives. The future is always uncertain, and occasionally things go awry in families.
It’s also possible that those estimated 60 million children could have been subjected to abuse and neglect. Children who come into the world unwanted often end up being unloved. I have to wonder if abortion opponents are going to dish out any additional cash to help support all those children. It’s easy for them to lounge in their ivory towers – the way religious leaders often do – and bestow well wishes upon troubled souls. Good intentions don’t pay diaper and formula bills; they don’t provide housing and education; they don’t deal with the daily angst of raising children. They’re glossy words that lack substance, unless solid and concrete action is taken to make those lives better.
Liberals and moderates are already concerned that other Supreme Court decisions are at risk, such as Griswold and Lawrence. Even Brown and Loving may come under similar attack. As part of his decision to overturn Roe, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” referring to decisions on contraception, sodomy and same-sex marriage respectively.
Remember, the original Roe decision developed under the auspices of the right to privacy and equal protection under the law. Those are essential and undeniable features of a truly democratic society. Stripping any particular group of basic human rights isn’t a sign of a moral culture, as many social conservatives would have us believe. It’s more emblematic of a totalitarian world; a universe where a handful of people have blessed themselves with the power to decide what is and what is not appropriate for everyone else.
If abortion opponents think this Dobbs decision will end abortion in the United States once and forever, they are mistaken. After the initial shock has worn off (which is already happening), people will begin to fight back and find ways around it. Whether right-wing extremists like it or not, abortion will happen. There will always be women who find themselves in very difficult situations and feel they must end a pregnancy. It’s been happening for centuries and it will continue happening, even though a band of self-righteous elitists demand otherwise.
Many of the cases that arrive before the U.S. Supreme Court begin with individuals either trying right a wrong or make their own lives better. They rarely expect to launch a national movement. That was pretty much the case when Norma McCorvey found herself pregnant with her third child in 1969. An unemployed carnival worker living outside Dallas at the time, McCorvey apparently had led a rough life and had given up her first two children for adoption. She didn’t need – and couldn’t afford – to bring another child into the world. However, the state of Texas didn’t allow for abortions except to save the life of the mother. Even rape and incest victims couldn’t end their unwanted pregnancies. Like so many women in her situation, McCorvey was too poor to travel to another state where abortions were safe and legal. She even tried to obtain an illegal abortion, but again the cost was prohibitive. She sought legal help and ended up under the guidance of attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington.
In 1970, after McCorvey had given birth and given up the baby, Coffee and Weddington filed paper work challenging the Texas law and bestowed the name “Jane Roe” upon their client. They targeted then-Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade. Wade had entered the national spotlight nearly a decade earlier when he prosecuted Jack Ruby for killing Lee Harvey Oswald who had been accused of assassinating President John F. Kennedy. (Wade would later come to light as a ruthless prosecutor who engaged in unscrupulous legal maneuvers to ensure criminal prosecutions, no matter the cost and despite evidence to the contrary.)
After McCorvey’s suit was filed, a Texas district court ruled the state’s abortion ban violated the constitutional right to privacy under the 14th Amendment. Wade persisted, however, and vowed to prosecute any doctor who performed what he deemed unnecessary abortions in the state. The case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court and, in a 7-2 ruling on January 22, 1973, abortion was fully legalized in the United States.
That was pretty much the end of the issue until the 1980s, when right-wing religious leaders began stoking the fires of anti-abortion rhetoric. It accompanied the presidency of Ronald Reagan who openly stated he wished for a return to an America before the 1960s. That should say enough about his bigoted state of mind, but it aligned with a growing hostility towards progressive ideology and civil rights legislation.
Earlier this week the unexpected news arrived that the Supreme Court may overturn Roe vs. Wade by the end of its current term in June. We wouldn’t know anything about this if it wasn’t for the leak of a draft opinion by Associate Justice Samuel Alito who declares the Roe decision “egregiously wrong” in terms of constitutional practicality. Chief Justice John Roberts has confirmed the veracity of the statement, but has joined many others in condemning the leak.
For many of us the leak isn’t the main concern. It’s what it says. There is now a very real possibility that nearly a half century of protection for that part of women’s overall health care could end because a handful of conservative extremists on the High Court want to inject their personal views into it.
For their like-minded ilk in the American public, the overturning of Roe marks the end of a long-fought battle in their alleged “pro-life” agenda; a perverted early Mother’s Day gift. It doesn’t matter that a majority of Americans don’t want to see a complete ban on abortion. They’ve been working for this moment over the past four decades.
For liberals, though, this is a much more dire situation. While the current case that brought Roe back into the forefront is limited to just abortion, progressives see other seminal SCOTUS decisions in the judicial crosshairs. It really isn’t extraordinary to see such cases as Obergefell vs. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage, reversed. Along with abortion, queer rights have been a target of far-right conservatives. But, if the Court sees fit to outlaw abortion at the national level (and leave it up to individual states), it could also reasonably overturn Griswold vs. Connecticut, which ruled that states could not deny birth control to married couples. Before that decision, married residents of Connecticut (and a few other states) couldn’t legally purchase birth control.
To some conservatives, abortion has become another form of birth control, which is not what contemporary feminists who jump-started the modern women’s movement desired. The latter group had always declared that abortion should be a woman’s last choice. But, with the overall concept of birth control in mind, is it possible a woman who has a tubal ligation could be criminally prosecuted? For that matter, could men who have vasectomies be subject to criminal jurisprudence? How about condoms or IUDs? Could those be outlawed?
Why stop with Roe? Aside from Obergefell and Griswold, could the Court target Loving vs. Virginia, the case that struck laws against interracial marriage? How about Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education, which outlaws racial desegregation in schools?
Remember that, when Antonin Scalia died in 2016, Republicans in the Senate displayed their usual contempt and disdain for President Obama by refusing to hold hearings on his nominee to the Court, until after Donald Trump got into office. They stated that, since Scalia’s death occurred during an election year, the incoming president should select his replacement. Yet, upon the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2020, they rammed through the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett – a character straight out of “The Handmaid’s Tale”.
That social and religious conservatives want to dictate what women can and cannot do with their own bodies conflicts with the long-held American vision of individual freedom. Many of these people screamed at the thought mandatory mask-wearing or forced vaccinations at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic; crying they should have autonomy over their own bodies. Really? What an original concept.
The reasons why an individual woman wants to end a pregnancy are myriad, but it is no one else’s business. As painful a decision as it may be, I’d rather see a woman end a pregnancy she doesn’t want than give birth to a child she doesn’t want. Children who come into the world unwanted are often unloved. That’s an awful fate for someone.
Regardless, pregnancy and birth are individual choices. No one – not the Supreme Court and not a politician – has the right to interfere with that.
“If he’s gonna tie them together, he can forget it! I’m not doing that. That’s extortion! I’m not going to do that. The Dems are being told you can’t get your bipartisan work product passed unless you sign on to what the left wants, and I’m not playing that game.”
“President Donald Trump is also one of a kind. He too disrupted the status quo, he challenged the establishment… and now, as then, there is no going back.”
Pence went on to say, “Under President Trump’s leadership we were able to achieve things Republicans have been talking about since the days of Barry Goldwater. It’s true.”
For the record, Goldwater lost the 1964 U.S. presidential election to Lyndon B. Johnson in the largest landslide in U.S. election history.
I’ve often noted that conservatives can be incredible hypocrites. For years they said no divorcee would be elected to the presidency. Then they got Ronald Reagan, the nation’s first divorced Chief Executive, whose wife was the nation’s first divorced First Lady. They dubbed Bill Clinton a draft dodger and condemned him for protesting against the Vietnam War while he was in college. Then they elected George W. Bush who earned a comfortable spot in the Texas National Guard in 1968 and failed to complete his tenure. They also elected Dick Cheney who claimed he had “other priorities” during the 1960s.
Conservative hypocrisy has reared its bigoted head once again – this time in a letter to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland. Republican Senators Ted Cruz, Ron Johnson, Mike Lee, Rick Scott and Tommy Tuberville submitted the correspondence to Garland complaining about what they perceive to be a double standard in punishment by the U.S. Department of Justice against the January 6 Capitol Hill rioters. In contrast, they declare, many of the various protestors to the George Floyd killing who became violent haven’t met the same degree of discipline.
In part, the letter states:
“DOJ’s (U.S. Department of Justice) apparent unwillingness to punish these individuals who allegedly committed crimes during the spring and summer 2020 protests stands in stark contrast to the harsher treatment of the individuals charged in connection with the January 6, 2021 breach of the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. To date, DOJ has charged 510 individuals stemming from Capitol breach. DOJ maintains and updates a webpage that lists the defendants charged with crimes committed at the Capitol. This database includes information such as the defendant’s name, charge(s), case number, case documents, location of arrest, case status, and informs readers when the entry was last updated. No such database exists for alleged perpetrators of crimes associated with the spring and summer 2020 protests. It is unclear whether any defendants charged with crimes in connection with the Capitol breach have received deferred resolution agreements.”
Please. Spare me the anxiety.
The five angry White male senators don’t seem to understand the difference in the two events. While some of the Floyd protestors devolved into rioting and vandalism, the original intent was to demonstrate against police violence; a recurring dilemma in the U.S. The intent of the Capitol Hill rioters, however, was to disrupt congressional business and kill someone – most notably Vice-President Mike Pence.
Conservatives have warned about threats to national security posed by Islamic vigilantes and illegal immigrants for as long as I can remember. But, these weren’t the people who stormed Capitol Hill on January 6, 2021, as Pence oversaw certification of the 2020 presidential election. The rioters were mostly White people – many of them former military and/or law enforcement – from across the country who felt their dear leader, Donald Trump, had been cheated out of a second term by a corrupt electoral system. I can almost hear Al Gore and Hillary Clinton laughing.
But I don’t recall bands of angry liberals storming Capitol Hill in January 2001, demanding Al Gore be lynched. I also don’t remember seeing similar renegades bursting into Capitol Hill in January 2017, calling for Joe Biden’s head. And it’s obvious to most of us with more than half a brain that the 2000 and 2016 presidential elections were fraudulent. Yet conservatives denounced anyone voicing their disdain to those two events as whiners and sore losers. We were justified, though, in protesting. But we never got violent. No one smashed windows, kicked in doors and hollered for blood to be spilled. Neither Al Gore nor Hillary Clinton stood before angry supporters, urging for violent retribution against Congress.
It’s ironic, however, that Merrick Garland is in a leadership position. Five years ago President Obama nominated him to replace Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court. Republicans – who held a majority in the Senate – refused to grant Garland the decency of a fair hearing. Yet, they rushed through the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett last year, following the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Chief Writing Wolf 