Friday, January 19, 2024

A Government that Sows Division and Subsidizes Madness


If I believe myself to be a fork, must society be made to agree?  Should I be encouraged to hang out near salad bars with the expectation that diners will trust me with their food?  If I continue to get passed over for other silverware, should I be allowed to sue for discrimination?  Or worse, if someone has the nerve to call me a spoon, will the government step in to punish that “bigot” for mis-utensiling me?

Of course not.  Then why should a man in makeup and a dress be given extra legal rights to sue anyone who sees through his delusions?  Why should rational men be expected to allow mentally unstable men to use public restrooms with their wives and daughters?  Why should parents be expected to entrust their children’s welfare with psychologically troubled men who have sought out jobs at schools, amusement parks, and daycares?  Why would government agents intervene to support the fantasies of people inclined to mutilate their bodies and traumatize others with their deceptions?  How can any government maintain its legitimacy for long when it embraces insanity as reality and condemns reality as imaginary?

For a long time, psychologically balanced people have done their best to ignore the government’s increasingly psychotic behavior.  When pressed, they have even reluctantly played along: You need me to wear this filthy paper mask that does nothing to prevent the transmission of viral particles floating in the air, so that you know that I know that this is somehow all Trump’s fault?  Fine, don’t break down in tears or start screaming or call the cops.  I’ll play along.  

Playing along, however, has gotten psychologically healthy people nowhere.  For every insane concession they make to government authorities, those authorities invent half a dozen new insane demands of society.  Remember when all those Trump voters exercised their First Amendment rights to assemble together and petition the U.S. government to address the rampant mail-in-ballot fraud of the 2020 election?  Yeah, even though all those people were unarmed and expressed no interest in overthrowing anything, that was totally a violent “insurrection” just as bad as 9/11 and the Civil War.  Joe Biden even swears that those darned “insurrectionists” murdered five, or ten, or maybe fifty police officers that day.  (That never happened, but one unarmed Trump-supporter was shot in cold blood, and another was beaten to death.)  The government and its lapdog media need people to believe insane things.  Facts are dangerous and reserved for people who live in reality.

In another cockamamie example proving how “playing along” only invites further government psychopathy, the United Kingdom is now telling government employees that they must actually “believe” in the “transgender” delusions flooding the workplace with cray-cray.  That’s right: it is no longer enough to merely play along with someone’s unhealthy fantasies.  Using an unbalanced person’s “preferred pronouns” does not sufficiently demonstrate one’s submission to the coercive State.  If you want to keep your government job in the U.K., you must commit yourself to “thinking of the person as being the gender that they want you to think of them as.”  That virtue-signaling, shared madness even requires a dogmatic faith in biologically impossible things — such as the government’s assertions that men can go through menopause and have babies!

Back in the days before the mentally unwell were put in charge of the West’s mental health organizations (WHO just added a bunch of “transgender” activists to a policy committee intended to set global rules for children), playing along with someone’s mental delusions was discouraged because doing so harmfully enables dangerous and self-destructive behavior.  Now refusing to play along can get one sacked.  How long before those who should be committed to mental institutions instead commit sane people for not sufficiently pretending to believe in things that are not true?  When the choice is between reality and a paycheck, desperate people will accept insane things to get paid.  (Add this observation to the growing list of reasons why freedom-minded people should not only thwart the introduction of central bank digital currencies, but also embrace forms of money free from government-induced inflation and manipulation.)

It would be some small comfort if this kind of insanity remained isolated in the leftist enclaves that manipulate minds by manipulating language.  Alas, as leftists successfully captured the West’s major institutions, they saw no reason not to capture those institutions that were once staunchly conservative as well.  Churches, family values organizations, and even prestigious medical journals have all thrown reason and science out the window to supplicate before the priests of “political correctness.”  How widespread is the “transgender” delusion today?  When asked bluntly whether a man can say, “Abracadabra” and magically transform into a woman, Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley — hailing from conservative South Carolina — couldn’t decide what to say.  That is the corrosive influence the left’s delusions have on even those who should know better.

The “ruling class” defends all these government-imposed delusions as some kind of “justice.”  Of all the words that the Marxist globalists have misappropriated and subversively redefined, their torture of “justice” has been most heinous.  Whenever a person in a position of power says something about “justice” these days, you can be pretty sure that the government is either orchestrating a crime in plain sight or issuing a new wave of malicious propaganda dressed up in false virtue and empathy-baiting psychobabble.  When you think about it, governments have done to “justice” what delusional men do with castration, boob jobs, and hormone therapy: they have mutilated reality in order to play pretend.

In the name of “social justice,” San Francisco’s Democrat-controlled government has responded to rising violent crime and general lawlessness in the city by attacking police officers as “white supremacists” (even the non-white ones) and reducing the penalties for and enforcement against violent crimes.  (As the economists say, when you want more of something, subsidize it.)  Because citizens and businesses have been left defenseless against organized theft (and, in fact, are even told not to resist the robbers and thieves who assault them), businesses and entrepreneurs have had no choice but to move away.  Now that San Francisco’s remaining residents (the ones who keep voting for poop-covered streets and subsidized crime) are finding it difficult to find (and maybe steal) basic necessities, they are very upset that grocery and convenience stores refuse to be perpetual victims.  Have Democrats learned a lesson?  Of course not.  They demand, “food justice,” because the left’s perversion of language has indoctrinated several generations with a malevolent disregard for others and no sense of justice at all.

On the other side of the country, the Biden administration is putting New England’s lobster and fishing industries in jeopardy in pursuit of “ocean justice.”  What the hell is that?  It’s the Democrats’ way of implementing costly and ineffective “green energy” programs while playing the race card: “Ocean communities with a significant proportion of people who are Black, Latino, Indigenous and Native American, Asian American, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander may be disproportionately affected by ocean-related health and environmental harms and hazards,” the White House lies.  When “social justice,” “racial justice,” “climate justice,” and “ocean justice” come together, it means a lot of people who make their living from the sea will lose their jobs, so that the race-hucksters can harm families and pretend to fight “white supremacy.” 

When “justice” loses all meaning, injustice becomes pervasive.  When delusional behavior is celebrated and honesty is outlawed as “bigotry,” insanity thrives.  Why are Western governments pushing irrational, unscientific, ludicrous nonsense that is physically and emotionally harmful, socially dangerous, and economically destructive?  Perhaps because those with power find it useful to sow division and subsidize madness.  Do not comply.



X22, And we Know, and more- January 19

 




The Hysterical Style in American Politics ~ VDH


To enact its unpopular agendas, the progressive movement must scare the people silly and gin up chaos to destroy its perceived enemies—any crisis it can.


The post-Joe McCarthy era and the candidacy of Barry Goldwater once prompted liberal political scientist Richard Hofstadter to chronicle a supposedly long-standing right-wing “paranoid style” of conspiracy-fed extremism.

But far more common, especially in the 21st century, has been a left-wing, hysterical style of inventing scandals and manipulating perceived tensions for political advantage.

Or, in the immortal words of Barack Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste.”

The 2008 economic emergency crested on September 7, with the near collapse of the home mortgage industry.

Obama took office on January 20, 2009, more than four months after the meltdown. In that interim, the officials had finally restored financial confidence and plotted a course of economic recovery.

No matter. The Obama administration never stopped hyping the financial meltdown as if it had just occurred. That way, it rammed through Obamacare, massive deficit spending, and the vast expansion of the federal government. All that stymied economic growth and recovery for years.

In 2016, Donald Trump was declared Hitler-like and an existential threat to democracy.

Amid this derangement syndrome, any means necessary to stop him were justified: the Russian collusion hoax, impeachment over a phone call, or the Hunter laptop disinformation farce.

Eventually, the left sought to normalize the once unthinkable: removing the leading presidential candidate from state ballots and indicting him in state and local courts.

Nothing was off limits—not forging a federal court document, calling for a military coup, rioting on Inauguration Day, or radically changing the way Americans voted in presidential elections.

In October 2017, allegations surfaced about serial sexual predation by liberal cinema icon Harvey Weinstein.

The #MeToo furor immediately followed.

At first, accusers properly outed dozens of mostly liberal celebrities, actors, authors, and CEOs for their prior and mostly covered-up sexual harassment and often assault.

But soon, the once legitimate movement had morphed into general hysteria. Thousands of men (and women) were persecuted for alleged offenses, often sexual banter or rude repartee, committed decades prior.

#MeToo jumped the shark with the left-wing effort to take down conservative Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Would-be accusers surfaced from his high school days, 35 years earlier, but without any supporting evidence or witnesses for their wild, lurid charges.

#MeToo hysteria ended when too many liberal grandees were endangered. Most dramatically, former Joe Biden senatorial aide Tara Reade came forward during the 2020 campaign cycle with charges that front-runner Joe Biden had once sexually assaulted her—and was trashed by the liberal media.

The outbreak of COVID-19 in the United States during the winter of 2020 prompted an even greater hysteria.

Without scientific evidence, federal health czars Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins were able to convince the Trump administration to shut down the economy in the country’s first national quarantine.

Suddenly, it became a thought crime to question the wisdom of six-foot social distancing, of mandatory mask wearing, of the Wuhan virology lab’s origin of the COVID virus, or of off-label use of prescription drugs.

Left-wing politicians and celebrities, from Hillary Clinton and Gavin Newsom to Jane Fonda, all blurted out the political advantages that the lockdowns offered—from recalibrating capitalism and health care to ensuring the 2020 defeat of Donald Trump.

The COVID hysteria magically ended when Joe Biden won the 2020 election. Suddenly, the lies about the bat or pangolin origins of the virus faded. The damage from the quarantines could no longer be repressed. And herd immunity gradually mitigated the epidemic.

The lockdown caused untold economic chaos, suicides, and health crises.

One result was the 120 days of looting, arson, death, destruction, and violence spawned by Antifa and Black Lives Matter in the aftermath of the tragic death of George Floyd while in police custody in May 2020.

Suddenly, a hysterical lie took hold: American police were waging war against black males.

The details around Floyd’s sudden death—he was in the act of committing a felony, resisting arrest, suffering from coronary artery disease and the after-effects of COVID, and being high on dangerous drugs—were off limits.

The riot toll reached $2 billion in property damage, over 35 deaths, and 1,500 injured law enforcement officers. A federal courthouse, a police precinct, and a historic church were torched.

Police forces were defunded. Emboldened left-wing prosecutors nullified existing laws.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion commissars spread throughout American higher education as meritocracy came under assault.

Racial essentialism triumphed. Racially segregated dorms, campus spaces, and graduations were normalized.

Everything from destroying the southern border to dropping SAT requirements for college admission followed.

Sometimes real, sometimes hyped crises lead to these contrived left-wing hysterias—like the January 6 violent “armed insurrection” or the “fascist” “ultra-MAGA” threat.

Otherwise, the progressive movement cannot enact its unpopular agendas. So it must scare the people silly and gin up chaos to destroy its perceived enemies—any crisis it can.



Hawley Blasts DHS Propaganda Grant To ‘Counter’ Conservatives

Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley is blasting the Department of Homeland Security for funding propaganda programs to ‘counter’ conservatives.



The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is prioritizing dystopian censorship programs over defending homeland security along the southern border.

On Wednesday, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas condemning the department’s $700,000 grant to an activist left-wing group. According to The Daily Wire, DHS deployed counterterrorism resources “to pay activists to write blog posts that criticized Donald Trump and other conservatives under the guise of ‘media literacy.'”

“Your Department has consistently weaponized the federal government to attack conservatives using taxpayer dollars, first by colluding with private social media companies to censor conservative viewpoints and now by funding private actors to create affirmative propaganda to ‘counter’ conservatives,” Hawley wrote Wednesday. “All these funds should be clawed back by the federal government immediately, and anyone involved in making this grant should be fired.”

The grant was awarded through the department’s Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention (TVTP) Program to the University of Rhode Island’s Media Education Lab. The university’s application for federal funding suggested deploying “community-created counterpropaganda to raise public awareness” about supposed “disinformation.”

“There’s no doubt that propaganda is effective as a form of warfare, which is why terrorism has long been called ‘the propaganda of the deed,'” the application reads. “But propaganda can also be used for socially beneficial purposes. Indeed, because the public has long been recognized as being suggestible, the United States has long made use of beneficial propaganda during WWI, WWII, and the Cold War.”

The Daily Wire reported last week that the University of Rhode Island’s Media Education Lab was involved in coordinating propaganda workshops by German censorship practitioners funded by the U.S. State Department. The Federalist, The Daily Wire, and the state of Texas are collectively suing the State Department over the federal government’s censorship regime.

In his letter Wednesday, Hawley also called out DHS for providing more than $350,000 to the University of Dayton through the TVTP to combat “domestic violent extremism and hate movements.”

“The year prior to the grant award,” Hawley wrote, “the university’s Human Rights Center — which runs the program — hosted a seminar during which the Christian Broadcasting Network, the National Rifle Association, Fox News, and other mainstream conservative organizations were included in a ‘pyramid of far-right radicalization’ with neo-Nazis and white supremacists.”

“This amounts to the use of government funds to further President Biden’s political agenda,” Hawley added.

For years, the Department of Homeland Security has been at the center of the federal government’s “Censorship-Industrial Complex” to suppress dissident speech as “disinformation.” In December, House lawmakers on the Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability held a hearing on the agency’s censorship programs featuring collusion with Silicon Valley tech giants.

“When the government coerces or pressures a company with inducements or threats and the company responds by crushing private individuals, that is state action, and the First Amendment forbids it,” said Mark Chenoweth, president of the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), at the hearing.



Remember What Joe Biden Said About Hunter's DOJ-Confirmed Laptop From Hell?


Spencer Brown reporting for Townhall 

As Katie reported this week, the Biden Department of Justice finally confirmed what we at Townhall had known and reported for literal years: Hunter Biden left his laptop at a computer repair shop, it was full of gross and wild details about the Biden family, and it was not any kind of Russian disinformation. 

Despite the obvious truth about Hunter's laptop from Hell, then-candidate Joe Biden peddled piles of lies about his son, the cursed laptop, and what was found within its contents.

During debates and on the campaign trail in 2020, Joe Biden called Hunter's laptop and reporting on its contents a "bunch of garbage" and a "Russian plant" that "nobody believes." Biden also pointed to the since-completely-debunked letter from former officials to claim "there's overwhelming evidence from the intelligence community that the Russians are engaged." No such evidence, of course, existed. 

Characterizing Hunter's laptop as a "smear campaign" and a "last-ditch effort" to attack the Biden family, candidate Biden claimed that "Putin is trying very hard to spread disinformation about Joe Biden" as the would-be president himself — along with his campaign and Democrats — worked quite hard to spread disinformation denying the veracity of Hunter's laptop.  

WATCH:

It's not like these are Biden's only lies, nor his most serious ones. But this situation again piles more evidence on the mountain of Biden's falsehoods which means believing a single word from his mouth is little more than a fool's errand. 



7 Takeaways From Arguments In The SCOTUS Case That Could Slay The Administrative State

Wednesday’s arguments were about whether the Supreme Court should do away with the unworkable Chevron deference.



The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two companion cases, Relentless Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Commerce and Loper Bright v. Raimondo on Wednesday. The bottom-line question before the court concerned whether Congress authorized the Department of Commerce to charge fishing businesses the cost of government-mandated observers on their rigs. 

But answering that question requires the Supreme Court to first decide whether to overturn the landmark case of Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the namesake for the Chevron doctrine, which requires courts to defer to an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute so long as the agency’s interpretation is “reasonable.” That’s what Wednesday’s arguments were all about — Chevron and whether the Supreme Court should do away with Chevron deference.

Here are your top takeaways from the hours-long arguments. 

1. What Does Chevron Deference Mean? 

    A blackletter law definition of Chevron deference is easy to provide. As noted above, it is a legal principle that requires courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. But Wednesday’s hearing showed the contours of the doctrine are far from clear, with the justices jousting with the solicitor general, who represents the Department of Commerce, over the meaning of “ambiguous.” 

    A statute is “ambiguous,” Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said, “when the court has exhausted the tools of interpretation and hasn’t found a single right answer.” But as Justice Gorsuch noted in response, just the prior year, a government attorney claimed he could not define “ambiguous.”

    The meaning of “ambiguous” is key to the doctrine of Chevron deference, which requires two steps. At step one, a court is to “employ[] traditional tools of statutory construction” to determine “whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue.” According to Chevron, “[i]f the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter,” and the court must enforce the clear meaning.” But if “the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue,” then the court proceeds to step two, which requires the court to defer to an agency’s interpretation so long as it reflects a “permissible construction of the statute.” 

    So defining “ambiguous” matters, several of the justices stressed, pointing to the confusion of the lower courts on the question — something that would justify overturning Chevron

    2. Justice Kavanaugh Was a Star

      Heading into Wednesday, court watchers knew three justices had already expressed disagreement with Chevron, including Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. To date, Gorsuch has made some of the most resounding attacks on Chevron deference. And while Gorsuch landed some blows during oral argument, it was Kavanaugh who seemed to throw haymaker after haymaker.

      Kavanaugh returned to ground zero — the Chevron decision — and pushed the solicitor general on what he saw as “an internal inconsistency in Chevron itself.”

      “It related to footnote 9,” he explained. That footnote provides that “the judiciary is the final authority on issues of statutory construction and must reject administrative constructions which are contrary to clear congressional intent.” Accordingly, the Chevron court continued, “[i]f a court, employing traditional tools of statutory construction, ascertains that Congress had an intention on the precise question at issue, that intention is the law and must be given effect.”

      Referencing that footnote, Kavanaugh continued, “if you use all the traditional tools of statutory interpretation, you’ll get an answer,” and therefore, there is no step two and no deference. And we know you get an answer, the Trump appointee stressed, “because, in cases where we don’t have an agency involved and we use those same traditional tools, we get an answer.”

      Kavanaugh reiterated that point several times throughout the argument, namely that courts interpret statutes regularly, both ambiguous and unambiguous ones, implying that if judges did the tough work of statutory interpretation, there would be no step two deference required. 

      3. Stakes Are Enormous 

        Another notable theme from Wednesday was the effect of reversing Chevron

        Soon after arguments in Relentless began, Justice Elena Kagan monopolized the questioning by peppering the fishing company’s attorney with hypotheticals. What was most striking, though, were not the difficult scenarios posed, but her assertion that “the court is very rarely in the situation in which you’re talking where it thinks the law means X and instead it says Y,” because of deference under Chevron. “If it thinks it means X, under Chevron, as we’ve understood it and made clear and reigned it in a little bit over these last few years, it’s supposed to say X,” Kagan continued. Chevron really only applies, the Obama appointee suggested, when the “law runs out” and “there’s a genuine ambiguity.”

        Kagan’s efforts to portray Chevron as a tie-breaker contrasted sharply with the sky-is-falling arguments the government presented. Overruling Chevron would “shock” “the legal system,” the solicitor general argued in her opening comments to the court. Yet later in her argument, she too seemingly acknowledged that many of the cases are resolved at the first step of Chevron, meaning deference is not even required. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to take seriously the worst-case-scenario prognoses presented by Chevron’s champions. 

        4. Congress Needs to Do Its Damn Job 

          Another common theme pushed, especially by Kagan, concerned the question of “who decides?” If there is an ambiguity, Kagan posed several times, do we want the agency or the courts to make the policy decision?

          The correct answer, however, is neither: Congress should make policy decisions and draft statutes that provide clarity on the law. When Congress delegates authority to administrative agencies, such authority should similarly be clear. 

          Chevron deference has allowed Congress for far too long to avoid making tough calls, and while some of the justices seemed fine with that approach, it is inconsistent with our constitutional structure.

          5. Stare Decisis

            The prudential principle of stare decisis also featured heavily in oral arguments, with the government arguing it cuts against overturning the Chevron doctrine. Businesses need certainty, the solicitor general argued, and overturning Chevron would destroy the predictability of the law.

            On the contrary, the fishing businesses’ attorneys stressed, what creates uncertainty is Chevron deference, which allows for each new administration to reverse prior regulations. Several justices seemed to share that viewpoint as well. Further, as several of the justices noted, the unworkability of a legal rule can justify its reversal, notwithstanding stare decisis — and several of the exchanges on Wednesday showed Chevron deference, in its current iteration, is unworkable.

            6. Oh, the Humility!

              Another key exchange originated when Kagan pushed Paul Clement, attorney for the fishermen in Loper Bright, on humility.

              Chevron is a doctrine of humility, Kagan began, noting that in that doctrine the court “recognize[s] that there are some places where congressional direction has run out, and we think Congress would have wanted the agency to do something rather than the courts.”

              “We accept that because that’s the best reading of Congress and also because we know in our heart of hearts that Congress — that agencies know things that courts do not,” she continued. 

              On top of that, Kagan noted that overturning Chevron conflicted with the principle of stare decisis — another doctrine of humility — which, as she put it, says “we don’t willy-nilly reverse things unless there’s a special justification.” Then came her talking point: “And you’re saying blow up one doctrine of humility, blow up another doctrine of humility, and then expect anybody to think that the courts are acting like courts.”

              Kagan’s comments suggest she sought to sell Chevron to her fellow justices based on concerns over institutional integrity, while implying a vote to overturn that landmark case could only come from hubris.

              Gorsuch, who filled the vacancy on the court left by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death and was having none of Kagan’s argument, called on his predecessor’s name in retort: “One lesson of humility is [to] admit when you’re wrong. Justice Scalia, who took Chevron, which nobody understood to include this two-step move as originally written, turned it into what we now know, and late in life, he came to regret that decision.”

              7. Predictions

                From oral argument, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh seem definite votes for reversing Chevron deference. Thomas, given his past writings, seems a likely vote for reversal. In one exchange, Justice Samuel Alito seemed to mirror much of Kavanaugh’s thinking, namely that the courts already interpret statutes in other areas, and can do so here too, without needing to defer to agencies.

                Both Justices Roberts and Barrett were more coy in their questioning, creating uncertainty about their positions. Conversely Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson all favored the Chevron framework. 

                Bottom line: There is no sure-fire forecast of the outcome. But something Gorsuch said might provide the best insight into the likely result.

                During one exchange, the solicitor general suggested that the court merely reiterate to the lower courts the importance of undertaking a robust step-one inquiry. Gorsuch pointedly protested that the court had already on multiple occasions reminded the lower courts of their responsibility under Chevron to conduct an extensive analysis of the statute to resolve the question prior to deferring to the agencies. What good is another reminder likely to do?

                Right there could be the reason two undecided justices join to form a majority to overturn Chevron — it is just not workable because the lower courts won’t do the work required.


                Playing the Democrats' Game - Lawsuits Filed in Illinois to Keep Biden Off the Ballot


                We have learned over the years that Democrats love to play games with voting and election processes. For Republicans, the ideal would be that election day is a national holiday, everyone votes on election day, by paper balloting, all the ballots are counted openly on election day, and a winner is declared the same day. How hard could it be? Well, plenty hard, as Democrats attempt to have Donald Trump removed from several state primary ballots, citing "insurrection!" Now, the tables may be turning on the Democrats because, in at least one state, there is a challenge to Joe Biden being on the ballot. 


                Terry Newsome is among several Illinois voters who have filed a lawsuit claiming that, under the 14th Amendment, President Joe Biden is unqualified to hold any public office, saying he has "given aid or comfort to the enemies" by throwing open the southern border and with the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. He added:

                "He left $75 billion of military equipment and weaponry in Afghanistan for the Taliban, who is our enemy. My niece's husband is back in Iraq. What are they doing in Iraq? They're using some of the weapons Biden left behind. So our weapons are being used against our own men and women because of Joe Biden.”

                In an interesting twist, the lawsuit does not necessarily cite the presidential oath of office that Biden took, but the oath he took as a Senator and Vice President nine times. The Senatorial Oath specifically states the individual taking the oath will "support and defend" the Constitution. Newsome acknowledged that there is a good chance, like the pending ballot cases against Trump, that the suit will be thrown out, but cited equal treatment under the law and stated: 


                There is also another separate attempt to remove Biden from the ballot that involves the notarization of statements of candidacy. Beth Findley Smith is a LaSalle County District 4 Board member. She claims that because Biden's statement of candidacy was notarized by a notary accredited in the District of Columbia and not in Illinois, the statement is invalid. State law requires the statement of candidacy to be notarized by an accredited Illinois notary. Smith stated she just wanted to make sure state election laws were being complied with, but also, put very bluntly, what Republicans are going to have to do, saying, "We filed last Friday, which was the last day. It was a good strategy … so the other side couldn’t see what we were doing. It’s a game. You have to play by the rules but you have to play the game.”

                Maine recently followed Colorado's lead by declaring Trump ineligible to appear on the state primary ballot, citing "insurrection." But Democrats may have started a risky game of tit for tat, as several red states have now made moves to remove Joe Biden from their primary ballots. Besides Illinois, officials in Texas, Missouri, Florida, and the crucial swing states of Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania have all floated the idea that Joe Biden is ineligible to hold office, and most of them cite the wide open southern border and the roughly eight million illegal immigrants who have come across it. 

                South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem nixed the idea, saying she did not believe she had the authority to remove Biden from the ballot. But it brings up the question of just how many election schemes Republicans are willing to put up with from Democrats. Republicans are slowly figuring out that they need to embrace things like early and absentee voting, mail-in voting, and legal ballot harvesting. As stated above, it might not be how the GOP wants to play the game, but until it can be changed, we have to be as good or better than Democrats at it. Trump himself said before the Iowa Caucus:

                “I will secure our elections, and our goal will be one-day voting with paper ballots and voter ID. But until then, Republicans have to compete, and we have to win.”

                As for the Illinois lawsuits, arguments both for and against will be held before the Board of Elections on January 30. Ballot certification is also expected that day. The Illinois primary is March 19.




                Like Trump Or Not, Republicans Must Accept The Reality Of The Imperfect Candidate

                Are voters blind to Trump’s flaws? His legal situation? Nope. 
                It’s that they have decided perfection isn’t the goal.



                Political purity contests are fantastic for social media and cable news, but not so great for conservatives who prioritize winning over perfection. On Monday, Iowa voters chose Trump, despite all his flaws. They didn’t just hand him a razor-thin victory, it was more like a historic tsunami.

                Why did they do that? DeSantis is more normal, Haley can bring the much-coveted college-educated suburban women that CNN is infatuated with, yet they broke hard for Trump. Are they blind to Trump’s flaws? His legal situation? Nope. It’s that they have decided perfection isn’t the goal.

                I have been wearing the GOP hat since I could vote. Don’t get me wrong, I have donned the jersey of my favorite primary candidate every four years, but I have never taken off my hat. My voting record reflects that philosophy: Bush, Dole, Bush x 2, McCain, Romney, Trump x 2. I am not the first person to say this, but for me, electoral politics is purely transactional. I don’t need a friend, parent, pastor, therapist, role model, hero, or savior when voting for a politician. My vote is cast for who is aligned closest to my views at every stage, first in the primary and then in the general.

                Who makes it out of the primary isn’t solely up to me or you. We are presented with a binary choice at the end of each cycle for the general election, and none of my personal choices have ended up being the eventual nominee on the GOP side in my voting life (except Trump in 2016). But as stipulated, we have to vote on who is left standing, with our GOP hat on, not the jersey of an individual candidate. It’s like going to a steak house, and the waiter says they are out of Japanese Wagyu. You don’t become a vegan. You ask for the filet mignon. If that’s gone, order the hamburger, not the tofu.

                Perfect Is the Enemy of Good

                Perfect candidate? Please. No such thing. We are a complicated people, all of us, and our preferences are equally complex. My perfect candidate would be a mash-up of Donald Trump (foreign policy, media relations, energy policy), Gov. Ron DeSantis (hiring cabinet members, results-oriented governance, and homelessness), Sen. Rand Paul (all things health and federal spending), Steve Forbes (flat tax), Sen. Ted Cruz (border, constitutional issues, and judges), Dr. Ben Carson (servant leadership, welfare state, and abortion), Former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (military-industrial complex lobby and armed forces recruiting), Mark Cuban (reduction of federal agency workforce, technology implementation, and AI matters), Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton (Diplomat protection and earthquake rebuilds … joking of course), and an open slot for law enforcement-related issues.

                Notice who isn’t on my mash-up list: Bush (both), Dole, McCain, or Romney, yet I voted for them anyway because all of them were better than the alternative. If Haley were to become the nominee, she would have my vote. No offense to Tucker Carlson, but Haley as vice president or president is infinitely better than the alternative. I won’t like it, but I will do it. Your list of what makes an ideal candidate is different, and that’s to be expected. We are rugged and unique individuals, but (hopefully) united in a larger purpose of living in a great country that is prosperous and peaceful.

                The Right’s Purity Tests

                Ann Coulter is wicked smart, she correctly predicted Trump would be the likely nominee in June 2015 to much laughter on Bill Maher’s show and among professional political pundits. Her 2007 book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, was both brilliant and prescient in many ways. She isn’t helping the average voter with the rants about Trump not living up to her political purity tests. Trump is deeply flawed, but he isn’t alone in that space.

                All charismatic leaders are flawed. That’s the nature of the beast when we only have humans to nominate. I agree with much of what she detests about Trump, but let’s remember that come Nov. 6, 2024, a flawed individual will be presiding over our great nation, and it might as well be one who is closer to our values than not.

                One thing is certain, when a president (or any politician really) is termed out or loses office, his most ardent supporters have a list of things they didn’t like about his administration. It makes no difference which side you are on or who the person was, guaranteed you weren’t as happy with them when it was over as you were when it began. Political perfection is a myth, useful for those profiting off covering the races but unproductive for the citizenry.

                What does that mean for conservatives now post-Iowa? Love Trump, hate Trump, or indifferent to Trump, it’s becoming clearer by the day he is the likely GOP nominee. If the DeSantis and Haley voters refuse to back him in the general, we deserve four more years of Democrat ineptness.

                Does that mean we get four years of conservative bliss? Not a chance. Trump moves back into the White House dragging all his known baggage. We will get four years of chaos to be sure, but if he can stem the tide at the border, lower energy prices, reverse inflation, make mortgages more affordable, and unentangle us in Ukraine, it’s worth it to conservatives. It’s not perfect, but it’s worth it.