Biden: Hardly A Shoo-in….

Biden is hardly a shoo-in. There are serious concerns and questions about his ability to run and win. If he does win, it is almost universally acknowledged that he will be unlikely to finish his term. Many powerful dems don’t want him to run.

Kennedy is too controversial.

Pritzker is just another dem billionaire who is soft on crime.

Harris is fighting her inability to get anything done on the border, as well as her past as Cali AG, during which she jailed record numbers of minorities.

In short, the DNC has no real consensus candidate.

No, I think the likely candidate will be a draftee, Gretchen Whitmer. Despite her assertions that she has no presidential ambitions, I believe the DNC will convince her to run against Trump. She checks off all the DNC boxes, especially the recent run of gun control bills.  She will be credited with turning Michigan blue, signing in a number of liberal agenda laws.  She is the DNC’s anti-Trump.  I believe the DNC will give her a few more months to really establish her bona fides, then they will prevail on her, “for the good of the party” and as the person Trump labeled, “that woman from Michigan”, to throw her hat into the ring.  At this moment, Whitmer is the closest the DNC has to a consensus candidate.

Heaven help us all; having her as governor has been bad enough.

History Repeating….

 So Biden is once again trying to force medical practitioners to perform procedures that violate their First Amendment right to religion, their beliefs, and their sincerely held religious convictions.

“Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise thereof [of religion - NOT WORSHIP, as Barack and Hillary tried to spin it, RELIGION].”

Congress can make no law infringing on this right, and the president cannot set it aside through executive order. 

The Supreme Court determined generations ago that any law affecting First Amendment rights must apply strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny means the government must prove that the law meets a compelling government interest based on OBJECTIVE, QUANTIFIABLE DATA, and that the regulation is being implemented using the least restrictive means possible. It is the most difficult benchmark to satisfy. While the government may argue that it has a compelling interest in making abortion or other objectionable procedures accessible, the least restrictive standard means individual practitioners may not be compelled to violate their religious convictions; an individual is free to find other practitioners who are willing to provide the desired procedure. It is that simple.

Words Have Meaning….

Ok, given the ongoing debate regarding gun control, I’m going to repost a response I just gave for the following contrarian post: “the language of the 2D does not mention firearms.”

You are absolutely right.  It doesn’t mention any SPECIFIC weapon.  It simply says, “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms…”

The word, Arms, btw, is spelled with a capital A in the original text.

Arms.

Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language was first published in 1755. It defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”

Cambridge Dictionary: “weapons and explosives used in fighting wars”

Merriam and Webster: “a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense, especially : FIREARM”

Oxford dictionary: “weapons and ammunition; armaments.”

MacMillan Dictionary: “weapons, for example guns or bombs”

BTW, the word, arms, is short for the word, armaments.

Definition for the word, armaments.

Oxford Dictionary: “military weapons and equipment.”

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary: “Weapons, arms”

Cambridge Dictionary: “weapons or military equipment”

Notice anything?  Contrary to current definitions, the word, Arms, as used in the Second Amendment, refers specifically to MILITARY WEAPONS owned by and in the hands of PRIVATE CITIZENS.

“…Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people," Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

BTW, this destroys Biden’s continuing lie that the Second Amendment placed limitations on the kinds of weapons that can be owned by civilians.

“… No amendment — No Amendment To The Constitution Is Absolute…“

 So according to Pres. Biden, NO Constitutional right is unrestricted:

“But no amendment — no amendment to the Constitution is absolute…,” April 8, 2021.

No amendment is absolute.  Those are his words.

On that basis, he and a slew of others have proposed what THEY consider to be “common sense” limitations on the Constitutionally protected (NOT GRANTED - that’s a critical distinction) Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms (some of these are already law, others have been proposed):

*No firearms purchase on demand, without limitations 

*Universal background checks

*Emergency protection orders (aka “red flag” laws)

*Minimum purchase age 21

*Licenses required to purchase/own/carry firearms

*Mandatory training as a prerequisite to purchase/own/carry a firearm

*Track multiple handgun purchases

*Register handguns and other specified weapons with the government

*Limitations or outright bans on entire classes of firearms

*Limitations or outright bans on specific accessories 

*Psychological assessment 

*Require all transfers to be made by federal firearms licensees 

These are just SOME of the limitations that have either been proposed or already exist at the federal level; they don’t take into account the limitations implemented by the states or even at the local level.  And these limitations affect a right that is EXPLICITLY PROTECTED by the Constitution.

Ok.  So what?

The president said NO amendment is absolute.  Those are his words.

We’ll set aside for the moment that the Constitution doesn’t actually EXPLICITLY give/protect a right to abortion; that “right” was created out of thin air by SCOTUS.  But for the sake of argument, I will stipulate some sort of Constitutional “right” to abortion.

So let’s consider what access to abortion would look like if we applied the same “common sense”, “reasonable” limitations to abortion.

Before we do that, let’s consider why the anti-Second Amendment lobby feels such measures are even necessary.

39,700.  

That’s the number of deaths attributed to “gun violence” last year.  Bear in mind that approximately 66% of those are suicides, but 39,700 deaths is considered reason to limit our Second Amendment rights.  That number, 39,000, per the federal government, has remained steady (with only minor fluctuations) for the last TWENTY-FIVE YEARS.  This, then, accounts for 975,000 deaths during that time period.

Terrible?

Absolutely.

But let’s now contrast that to the number of abortions that have occurred in that same 25 year period.

More  than sixty-four MILLION abortions have been performed since being legalized in 1972, averaging nearly 1.3 million per year.

That’s 32.5 million abortions for the last 25 years.

And those are just the SURGICAL abortions.  That number does not take MEDICINAL abortions into account.  

If 975,000 deaths over 25 years is reason enough to limit an explicit Constitutional right, then 32.5 million abortions should certainly be reason to place limitations on an inferred Constitutional “right.”

So what would that look like if we placed the same kinds of “common sense” limitations on the “right” to abortion?

First, there would be no unlimited, on-demand abortion - yet, that is EXACTLY the kind of access demanded by the abortion lobby and the Biden administration.

Any woman wanting an abortion would have to be at least 21 years old (that’s the new magic age many in the federal government want to impose on ALL firearms purchases; some states already do that).

She would be required to attend training delivered by a licensed doctor (not a PA or nurses) detailing what actually happens during an abortion and the long term affects on her body, including medical imagery of her pre-born child (the equivalent of mandatory firearms purchase/carry training) before EVERY abortion (background checks are run by federal firearms licensees before EVERY firearm purchase).

She would have to submit to psychological testing, after which she would receive a permit/license to have an abortion if she is deemed psychologically fit to receive one and does not pose a danger to herself or others (requirement to receive a license to purchase/own/carry).

She would have to wait a minimum of 10 days before having an abortion in order to reconsider her choice.

Her abortion would have to be performed at a licensed hospital by a surgeon (the equivalent of requiring all firearms transactions to be facilitated by a federal firearms licensee at their registered and licensed place of business.)

She would need to register her abortions with health departments (mandatory firearms registration).

Family members and the baby’s father would have the legal right to petition a judge to intervene to stop the procedure (red flag laws).

Certain classes of surgical abortion procedures could be limited or banned altogether (the equivalent of limiting/banning entire classes of firearms)

Over the counter abortifacients could he limited or banned altogether (think limiting/banning firearms accessories, especially those that make using the firearm easier or more effective).

This is all considered to be “common sense” to prevent future “gun violence” deaths.  Our Second Amendment rights are limited.

But, contrary to what the president claimed about “reasonable limitations“ on that right, he believes that the “right” to abortion should be completely  un-infringed/unlimited.

Which is it?  If “…no amendment — no amendment to the Constitution is absolute…”, then the “right” to abortion is likewise subject to limitations.

VP Biden: "Undocumented aliens are already Americans"

March 28, 2014

Vice President Joe Biden
The White House
Washington, DC

Mr. Vice President:

You recently took a phrase out of Pres. Theodore Roosevelt's remarkable editorial, "True Americanism," "Americanism is not a question of birthplace or creed or a line of descent. It’s a question of principles, idealism and character…,” as if to imply that Pres. Roosevelt would have agreed with your position. 

With all due respect, you need to read Pres. Roosevelt's editorial in its entirety. Pres. Roosevelt also said, 

"The third sense in which the word “Americanism” may be employed is with reference to the Americanizing of the newcomers to our shores. We must Americanize them in every way, in speech, in political ideas and principles, and in their way of looking at the relations between Church and State. We welcome the German or the Irishman who becomes an American. We have no use for the German or Irishman who remains such. We do not wish German-Americans and Irish-Americans who figure as such in our social and political life; we want only Americans, and, provided they are such, we do not care whether they are of native or of Irish or of German ancestry. WE HAVE NO ROOM IN ANY HEALTHY AMERICAN COMMUNITY FOR A GERMAN-AMERICAN VOTE OR AN IRISH-AMERICAN VOTE, AND IT IS CONTEMPTIBLE DEMAGOGY TO PUT PLANKS INTO ANY PARTY PLATFORM WITH THE PURPOSE OF CATCHING SUCH A VOTE. We have no room for any people who do not act and vote simply as Americans, and as nothing else… 

BUT WHERE IMMIGRANTS, OR THE SONS OF IMMIGRANTS, DO NOT HEARTILY AND IN GOOD FAITH THROW IN THEIR LOT WITH US, BUT CLING TO THE SPEECH, THE CUSTOMS, THE WAYS OF LIFE, AND THE HABITS OF THOUGHT OF THE OLD WORLD WHICH THEY HAVE LEFT, THEY THEREBY HARM BOTH THEMSELVES AND US. IF THEY REMAIN ALIEN ELEMENTS, UNASSIMILATED, AND WITH INTERESTS SEPARATE FROM OURS, THEY ARE MERE OBSTRUCTIONS TO THE CURRENT OF OUR NATIONAL LIFE, AND, MOREOVER, CAN GET NO GOOD FROM IT THEMSELVES. In fact, though we ourselves also suffer from their perversity, it is they who really suffer most. It is an immense benefit to the European immigrant to change him into an American citizen. To bear the name of American is to bear the most honorable titles; and whoever does not so believe has no business to bear the name at all, and, if he comes from Europe, the sooner he goes back there the better. Besides, the man who does not become Americanized nevertheless fails to remain a European, and becomes nothing at all. The immigrant cannot possibly remain what he was, or continue to be a member of the Old-World society. If he tries to retain his old language, in a few generations it becomes a barbarous jargon; if he tries to retain his old customs and ways of life, in a few generations he becomes an uncouth boor. He has cut himself off from the Old World, and cannot retain his connection with it; and if he wishes ever to amount to anything he must throw himself heart and soul, and without reservation, into the new life to which he has come. IT IS URGENTLY NECESSARY TO CHECK AND REGULATE OUR IMMIGRATION, BY MUCH MORE DRASTIC LAWS THAN NOW EXIST; AND THIS SHOULD BE DONE... TO KEEP OUT LABORERS WHO TEND TO DEPRESS THE LABOR MARKET… 

From his own standpoint, IT IS BEYOND ALL QUESTION THE WISE THING FOR THE IMMIGRANT TO BECOME THOROUGHLY AMERICANIZED. MOREOVER, FROM OUR STANDPOINT, WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEMAND IT. WE FREELY EXTEND THE HAND OF WELCOME AND OF GOOD-FELLOWSHIP TO EVERY MAN, NO MATTER WHAT HIS CREED OR BIRTHPLACE, WHO COMES HERE HONESTLY INTENT ON BECOMING A GOOD UNITED STATES CITIZEN LIKE THE REST OF US; BUT WE HAVE A RIGHT, AND IT IS OUR DUTY, TO DEMAND THAT HE SHALL INDEED BECOME SO and shall not confuse the issues with which we are struggling by introducing among us Old-World quarrels and prejudices. There are certain ideas which he must give up. For instance, he must learn that American life is incompatible with the existence of any form of anarchy, or of any secret society having murder for its aim, whether at home or abroad; and he must learn that we exact full religious toleration and the complete separation of Church and State. Moreover, he must not bring in his Old-World religious race and national antipathies, but must merge them into love for our common country, and must take pride in the things which we can all take pride in. HE MUST REVERE ONLY OUR FLAG; NOT ONLY MUST IT COME FIRST, BUT NO OTHER FLAG SHOULD EVEN COME SECOND... ," True Americanism, Theodore Roosevelt.

Pres. Roosevelt would NOT have agreed with your stance, or that of the administration.  In point of fact, his essay is a repudiation of this administration’s immigration policy.  His essay is based on 1) the premise that such individuals come to our country in accordance with our laws, and 2) that they fully integrate themselves into American society.  What you offer is a caricature of True Americanism.

Sincerely,