Nothingness. Stone. Monument to nature, Imagination, Aesthetic beauty, All that is soft and smooth, That which best comes in pairs, Creation of motherhood, All unaborted, suckling children, First nourishment for each and all of us once pulled from the womb,
Woodrow Wilson profoundly influenced today’s Progressive Movement. Most uptown Democrats now view themselves and their kindred of good birth as more adept at overseeing our country than constitutionally-inspired voters—-those rural bumpkins.
Heritage.org‘s Ronald Pestritto wrote of Wilson having envisioned an administration “properly the province of scientific experts in the bureaucracy. The competence of these experts in the specific technological means required to achieve those ends on which we are all agreed gives them the authority to administer or regulate progress unhindered (italics mine) by those within the realm of politics. Persons or institutions within politics can claim no such expertise.”
Wilson wanted the constitutionality of “popular consent” and “elected representatives” out of the way of his bureaucracies of unelected regulators.
Today’s Progressives, in the vein of New York Times’ Jill Lepore (her quote cited here by reason.com‘s Radley Balko), talk up Wilson as “an intellectual, the first U.S. president to hold a Ph.D., and not just any intellectual: he had a law degree.”
“Conformity will be the only virtue. And every man who refuses to conform,” Balko quoted from Wilson, “will have to pay the penalty.”
He “believed in an activist, imperialist presidency,” Gene Healy wrote (cited by Balko), stressing: “Wilson believed God ordained him to be president, and acted accordingly.”
Contemporary Progressives like astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye “the science guy,” and former Vice President Al Gore, garner esteem from the Left as Great and Powerful regarding predictions of climate change.
Dailycaller.com‘s Michael Bastasch reported an Instagram quote from Progressive, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) [AOC], who warned her supporters on May 23, 2019: “The climate crisis is real y’all. [G]uess we’re at casual tornadoes in growing regions of the country?”
Meteorologist Ryan Maue, Bastasch noted, quickly interjected: “I thought this was fake but it’s from @AOC Instagram story. No idea what she means with ‘casual tornadoes’ and how this line of severe thunderstorms is proof of any ‘climate crisis’. It’s just the weather in D.C. pic.twitter.com/r015cScVZg— Ryan Maue (@RyanMaue) May 23, 2019″
The next day, per Bastasch, Maue added: “The Congresswoman @AOC does not know the difference between weather and climate. Let’s try an easy analogy: Weather is what outfit you wear heading out the door. Climate is your closet wardrobe. pic.twitter.com/mmdLr6F2mD — Ryan Maue (@RyanMaue) May 24, 2019″
These Wilsonite, elitist experts peer down their noses at Hillary Clinton’s simple-minded, rural deplorables who dare to challenge Nobel-Prize worthy, climate-science equations.
A May 14, 2019 Zogby poll statistically supported Trump owning a 60% job-approval rating among rural residents.
In the 2016 presidential election, Hillary won a 48.2% plurality of the
countrywide popular vote. Trump won a 46.1% plurality of that vote.
Third-party candidates and non-voters made up for the rest. None of them
won a majority (more than 50%). Trump lost the popular vote, per above,
but he won the EC vote, 304 to Hillary’s 227.
Progressives, today, have prioritized abolishing the Electoral College (EC). Hillary lost the 2016 election to Trump largely due to the existence of the EC, so they have deduced that abolishing it will help eliminate the possibility of another presidential loss.
Citizens can’t vote on everything that needs voting on in government. They have jobs, families, and their own multitude of responsibilities. So, they elect qualified, full-time representatives to vote for them. Because America is a Representative Democracy, in 2016, Electoral College electors were voted for, in a purely democratic, popular-vote manner, to represent the citizen voters (you and me) within each state.
All of each state’s EC electors, then, were allocated to whichever candidate received the most citizen votes within their respective state (except in Nebraska and Maine, which have more complex, proportional rules). The candidate who gathered the most EC electors from the citywide and countrywide sum of states became the president.
There are good reasons for having a Representative Democracy with an Electoral College that represents all of the individuals within their states toward the election of our president instead of a purely democratic vote—minus the representative electors in-between.
Peter J. Wallison of realclearpolitics.com (after clicking on url, scroll down for article) warned: “If we abandoned the Electoral College, and adopted a system in which a person could win the presidency with only a plurality of the popular votes we would be swamped with candidates. Every group with an ideological or major policy interest would field a candidate, hoping that their candidate would win a plurality and become the president.
There would [be] candidates of the pro-life and pro-choice parties; free trade and anti-trade parties; pro-immigration and anti-immigration parties; and parties favoring or opposing gun control—just to use the hot issues of today as examples.”
Marc Schulman ofhistorycentral.com explains from the founders’ perspective: “Hamilton and the other founders believed that the electors would be able to ensure that only a qualified person becomes President. They thought that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry. It would act as a check on an electorate that might be duped. Hamilton and the other founders did not trust the population to make the right choice. The founders also believed that the Electoral College had the advantage of being a group that met only once and thus could not be manipulated over time by foreign governments or others.
The Electoral College is also part of compromises made at the convention to satisfy the small states. Under the system of the Electoral College, each state had the same number of electoral votes as they have a representative in Congress. Thus no state could have less than 3.”
Without the EC, the above Zogby poll’s recent 60% rural job-approval ratings for Trump, effectively, would be eliminated in 2020 along with any rural voting power. Progressives, solely, would steer our country for as long as cities remain larger and more progressive than rural areas, a fact that they’re no doubt aware of.
The Electoral College and Representative Democracy have worked just fine for over two-hundred years. Since America’s founding, there have been only five times that a president won the EC vote and lost the popular vote. The EC should not be abolished by unelected, progressive regulators.
THE GATHERING STORM
Ten years ago, in 2009, a rural storm gathered strength from the fury of the Tea Party and the 9-12 Movement. Balance of power in the government, after the November election, shifted positively for the Right as a result. That same fury is swirling again.
This new storm was conceived in the immediate days following two careless mistakes by the Progressives.
First came the heartless smiles and applause as New York Governor, supposedly Roman Catholic, Andrew Cuomo, proudly signed legislation allowing abortions up to birth.
The second came, not long afterwards, when the apparently mindless Virginia Governor, Ralph Northam, opened his mouth on a radio program about what really happens behind closed doors in Planned Parenthood-funded abortion clinics—abortions after birth.
Because of those two events, Eight states already have enacted (or
are set to enact) “heartbeat” legislations which
effectively make it a federal crime for doctors to perform abortions
after a heartbeat is detected.
Expect more rural-controlled states to follow. Expect the storm to build. Northam really helped out his fellow Democrats on that one—seemingly, for Progressives, a genetic trait of arrogance and naivety.
Perhaps under the spell of certain young, far-Left, House of Representatives members, Progressives have started pushing a too-far-Left agenda, too fast and too furious. What Cuomo and Northam did was to cross a line that the far Left doesn’t seem to think exists anymore. It does exist. Cuomo and Northam traveled way too far beyond Roe v. Wade, way too fast. Two big mistakes.
Whatever happened to the moderate Democrats from before the last
election? Suddenly, there doesn’t appear to be any left.
Here’s their biggest mistake of all. Hillary and the DNC screwed Bernie Sanders out of becoming the 2016 Democratic nominee to run against Trump. Bernie had the support to win the nomination. Hillary and the DNC cut a deal so that Clinton would become the nominee. Bernie, apparently with no guts to fight back, kneeled to their majesty.
High-powered Democrat, Donna Brazile (who is now, curiously, a “contributor” for Fox News Channel) actually opened up and wrote honestly about that fatal deal in her book, Hacks.
Bernie had the support to beat Trump. With Bernie as president, there presently would be no Benghazi scandal, no Hillary private-server scandal, no Fast and Furious scandal, no Wikileaks effect, no Mueller Report, no phony FISA dossier, no Russia hoax, no Uranium One scandal, no questions about Biden and son making millions in Ukraine, China, and Romania and leaving a crack-smoking pipe in a rental car, absolutely none of that at all. It would all have been swept under the rug by Bernie.
But, Hillary wanted it, and she wanted it all. She really helped out her fellow Democrats on that one, just like Northam did. Add greedy to the genetic makeup of Progressives.
Hillary’s loss to Trump in November of 2016 was, without doubt, the biggest mistake that the Democrats have made in decades, maybe even centuries. Democrats (actually just about every voter, despite their party affiliation) didn’t even conceive of a Hillary-loss. The Progressives should have gone with Bernie.
Democrats and Republicans alike agree that Trump is set to win the
2020 Republican nomination. If the House, before then, succeeds in
impeaching him, and they very likely will, then the Senate most
likely won’t complete the job.
With Trump’s positive job approval ratings, the highest of which are with rural states at about 60%, and with his stellar re-working of the American economy, the elitist-expert Progressives are set to run out of tricks from their bag sooner rather than later. That doesn’t mean they won’t keep dogging him, though. That will happen until the 2020 election and probably beyond. Add obstinate to their genetic makeup.
All because Hillary lost the election–we now have the coup-planners from Obama and Hillary’s DOJ and State Department within weeks, at the most, of going down with indictments and prosecutions from the grand jury that’s already been in session in Connecticut, the Inspector General (IG) Horowitz report that’s about to come out, the upcoming report from Utah’s U.S. Attorney Huber on the Clintons’ role in all of this, the zeal of Attorney General (AG) Barr for cleaning up the DOJ’s reputation, Barr’s recently appointed Special Council Durham (with prosecutorial power) for investigating the Obama/Clinton scandals and coup attempt, and Trump’s recent de-classification of the “Bucket 5” of DOJ evidence that certain House and Senate Committee members and Tom Fitton from Judicial Watch have been trying to obtain for years now to put the final pieces of the plot together.
Hillary wanted it all and lost it all, Then, Progressives stupidly attempted a coup to take Trump down, and the far-Left is traveling too far too fast. Arrogant. Naive. Greedy. Obstinate. Oh, and did I mention them being Wilsonite elitists? They have been and are self-destructing, while the new storm swirls, and abolishing the Electoral College won’t change the coming weather.
My post, from 12 August 2018, describes the History Department of Newton North High School in Newton, Massachussetts and its progressive history teacher, David Bedar, who holds a Master’s degree in Teaching from Duke University. Bedar complains: “I don’t feel good about protecting [a nativist] student’s right to a so‐called ‘political’ view. . . Do I really have to avoid saying ‘I think nativism is bad?[‘] The eugenics movement was based in large part on immigrants destroying our country.”
The Federalist writer Ilya Feoktistov corrects Bedar: “the early twentieth-century eugenics movement was based less in conservative nativism than in the same New England progressivism Bedar preaches today. The eugenicist Immigration Restriction League was founded in Boston by three Harvard progressives. As The Guardianwell puts it, eugenics is ‘the skeleton that rattles loudest in the left’s closet.’”
My post, from 12 August 2018, a science-fiction short story, invokes the voice of George Bernard Shaw, a firm believer in eugenics, who once advised: “When you are asked, ‘Where is God? Who is God?’ stand up and say, ‘I am God and here is God, not as yet completed, but still advancing toward completion, just in so much as I am working for the purpose of the universe, working for the good of the whole of society and whole world, instead of merely looking after my personal ends.’” Shaw believed in tweaking humanity toward his idea of perfection–toward becoming God. Eugenics.
In a third post, on 12 January 2012, I printed my response to a blaze.com article, titled: “NC to Recommend Compensation for Eugenics Victims.” That article, in part, had reported:
“Many states ended their eugenics programs because of associations with Nazi Germany’s program aimed at racial purity, but North Carolina in fact ramped up sterilizations after World War II. The state’s sterilizations peaked in the 1950s, with about 70 percent of all sterilizations performed after the war, according to state records. The program didn’t officially end until 1977. It is one of about a half-dozen states to apologize for eugenics programs.
Most victims were poor, black women deemed unfit to be parents. People as young as 10 were sterilized for reasons as minor as not getting along with schoolmates or being promiscuous. Although officials obtained consent from patients or their guardians, many did not comprehend what they were signing.”
Now comes Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. who today, after “the [Supreme] Court denied to review an Indiana law prohibiting abortions on the basis of race, sex, or disability,” published his opinion in response to the court’s denial. Following are extensive excerpts from that opinion, published today by firstthings.com. In the most controversial section, Thomas argues that we can deny dealing with it now, but eventually, it will have to be dealt with by the Supreme Court. –s.a. bort
Thomas writes in that section: “Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex, or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the twentieth-century eugenics movement. In other contexts, the Court has been zealous in vindicating the rights of people even potentially subjected to race, sex, and disability discrimination. Although the Court declines to wade into these issues today, we cannot avoid them forever.”
FIRST THINGS is published by The Institute on Religion and Public Life, an interreligious, nonpartisan research and education institute whose purpose is to advance a religiously informed public philosophy for the ordering of society.
In the Supreme Court’s May 28 decision in Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, the Court denied to review an Indiana law prohibiting abortions on the basis of race, sex, or disability. Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion, excerpted below, describes the connections between abortion advocacy and eugenics, and the ways in which abortion is a tool of modern-day eugenicists.
This case highlights the fact that abortion is an act rife with the potential for eugenic manipulation. From the beginning, birth control and abortion were promoted as means of effectuating eugenics. Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger was particularly open about the fact that birth control could be used for eugenic purposes. These arguments about the eugenic potential for birth control apply with even greater force to abortion, which can be used to target specific children with unwanted characteristics. Even after World War II, future Planned Parenthood President Alan Guttmacher and other abortion advocates endorsed abortion for eugenic reasons and promoted it as a means of controlling the population and improving its quality. As explained below, a growing body of evidence suggests that eugenic goals are already being realized through abortion.
Like many elites of her day, Sanger accepted that eugenics was “the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.” She agreed with eugenicists that “the unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit’” was “the greatest present menace to civilization.” Particularly “in a democracy like that of the United States,” where “[e]quality of political power has . . . been bestowed upon the lowest elements of our population,” Sanger worried that “reckless spawning carries with it the seeds of destruction.”
Although Sanger believed that society was “indebted” to “the Eugenists” for diagnosing these problems, she did not believe that they had “show[n] much power in suggesting practical and feasible remedies.” “As an advocate of Birth Control,” Sanger attempted to fill the gap by showing that birth control had “eugenic and civilizational value.” In her view, birth-control advocates and eugenicists were “seeking a single end” “to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit.” But Sanger believed that the focus should be “upon stopping not only the reproduction of the unfit but upon stopping all reproduction when there is not economic means of providing proper care for those who are born in health.” Thus, for Sanger, forced sterilization did “not go to the bottom of the matter” because it did not “touc[h] the great problem of unlimited reproduction” of “those great masses, who through economic pressure populate the slums and there produce in their helplessness other helpless, diseased and incompetent masses, who overwhelm all that eugenics can do among those whose economic condition is better.” In Sanger’s view, frequent reproduction among “the majority of wage workers” would lead to “the contributing of morons, feeble-minded, insane and various criminal types to the already tremendous social burden constituted by these unfit.”
Sanger believed that birth control was an important part of the solution to these societal ills. She explained, “Birth Control . . . is really the greatest and most truly eugenic method” of “human generation,” “and its adoption as part of the program of Eugenics would immediately give a concrete and realistic power to that science.” Sanger even argued that “eugenists and others who are laboring for racial betterment” could not “succeed” unless they “first clear[ed] the way for Birth Control.” If “the masses” were given “practical education in Birth Control”—for which there was “almost universal demand”—then the “Eugenic educator” could use “Birth Control propaganda” to “direct a thorough education in Eugenics” and influence the reproductive decisions of the unfit. In this way, “the campaign for Birth Control [was] not merely of eugenic value, but [was] practically identical in ideal with the final aims of Eugenics.”
Sanger herself campaigned for birth control in black communities. In 1930, she opened a birth-control clinic in Harlem. Then, in 1939, Sanger initiated the “Negro Project,” an effort to promote birth control in poor, Southern black communities. Noting that blacks were “‘notoriously underprivileged and handicapped to a large measure by a “caste” system,’” she argued in a fundraising letter that “‘birth control knowledge brought to this group, is the most direct, constructive aid that can be given them to improve their immediate situation.’” In a report titled “Birth Control and the Negro,” Sanger and her coauthors identified blacks as “‘the great problem of the South’”—“the group with ‘the greatest economic, health, and social problems’”—and developed a birth-control program geared toward this population. She later emphasized that black ministers should be involved in the program, noting, “‘We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.’”
Defenders of Sanger point out that W. E. B. DuBois and other black leaders supported the Negro Project and argue that her writings should not be read to imply a racial bias. But Sanger’s motives are immaterial to the point relevant here: that “Birth Control” has long been understood to “ope[n] the way to the eugenist.”
To be sure, Sanger distinguished between birth control and abortion. For Sanger, “[t]he one means health and happiness—a stronger, better race,” while “[t]he other means disease, suffering, [and] death.” Sanger argued that “nothing short of contraceptives can put an end to the horrors of abortion and infanticide,” and she questioned whether “we want the precious, tender qualities of womanhood, so much needed for our racial development, to perish in [the] sordid, abnormal experiences” of abortions. In short, unlike contraceptives, Sanger regarded “the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year [as] a disgrace to civilization.”
Although Sanger was undoubtedly correct in recognizing a moral difference between birth control and abortion, the eugenic arguments that she made in support of birth control apply with even greater force to abortion. Others were well aware that abortion could be used as a “metho[d] of eugenics,” and they were enthusiastic about that possibility. Indeed, some eugenicists believed that abortion should be legal for the very purpose of promoting eugenics. Support for abortion can therefore be found throughout the literature on eugenics.
Abortion advocates were sometimes candid about abortion’s eugenic possibilities. In 1959, for example, Guttmacher explicitly endorsed eugenic reasons for abortion. He explained that “the quality of the parents must be taken into account,” including “[f]eeblemindedness,” and believed that “it should be permissible to abort any pregnancy . . . in which there is a strong probability of an abnormal or malformed infant.” He added that the question whether to allow abortion must be “separated from emotional, moral and religious concepts” and “must have as its focus normal, healthy infants born into homes peopled with parents who have healthy bodies and minds.” Similarly, legal scholar Glanville Williams wrote that he was open to the possibility of eugenic infanticide, at least in some situations, explaining that “an eugenic killing by a mother, exactly paralleled by the bitch that kills her misshapen puppies, cannot confidently be pronounced immoral.” The Court cited Williams’ book for a different proposition in Roe v. Wade.
But public aversion to eugenics after World War II also led many to avoid explicit references to that term. The American Eugenics Society, for example, changed the name of its scholarly publication from “Eugenics Quarterly” to “Social Biology.” In explaining the name change, the journal’s editor stated that it had become evident that eugenic goals could be achieved “for reasons other than eugenics.” For example, “[b]irth control and abortion are turning out to be great eugenic advances of our time. If they had been advanced for eugenic reasons it would have retarded or stopped their acceptance.” But whether they used the term “eugenics” or not, abortion advocates echoed the arguments of early twentieth-century eugenicists by describing abortion as a way to achieve “population control” and to improve the “quality” of the population. One journal declared that “abortion is the one mode of population limitation which has demonstrated the speedy impact which it can make upon a national problem.” Planned Parenthood’s leaders echoed these themes. When exulting over “‘fantastic . . . progress’” in expanding abortion, for example, Guttmacher stated that “‘the realization of the population problem has been responsible’ for the change in attitudes. ‘We’re now concerned more with the quality of population than the quantity.’”
Avoiding the word “eugenics” did not assuage everyone’s fears. Some black groups saw “‘family planning’ as a euphemism for race genocide” and believed that “black people [were] taking the brunt of the ‘planning’” under Planned Parenthood’s “ghetto approach” to distributing its services. “The Pittsburgh branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People,” for example, “criticized family planners as bent on trying to keep the Negro birth rate as low as possible.”
Today, notwithstanding Sanger’s views on abortion, respondent Planned Parenthood promotes both birth control and abortion as “reproductive health services” that can be used for family planning. And with today’s prenatal screening tests and other technologies, abortion can easily be used to eliminate children with unwanted characteristics. Indeed, the individualized nature of abortion gives it even more eugenic potential than birth control, which simply reduces the chance of conceiving any child. As petitioners and several amicus curiae briefs point out, moreover, abortion has proved to be a disturbingly effective tool for implementing the discriminatory preferences that undergird eugenics.
In Iceland, the abortion rate for children diagnosed with Down syndrome in utero approaches 100 percent. Other European countries have similarly high rates, and the rate in the United States is approximately two-thirds.
In Asia, widespread sex-selective abortions have led to as many as 160 million “missing” women—more than the entire female population of the United States. And recent evidence suggests that sex-selective abortions of girls are common among certain populations in the United States as well.
Eight decades after Sanger’s “Negro Project,” abortion in the United States is also marked by a considerable racial disparity. The reported nationwide abortion ratio—the number of abortions per 1,000 live births—among black women is nearly 3.5 times the ratio for white women. And there are areas of New York City in which black children are more likely to be aborted than they are to be born alive—and are up to eight times more likely to be aborted than white children in the same area. Whatever the reasons for these disparities, they suggest that, insofar as abortion is viewed as a method of “family planning,” black people do indeed “tak[e] the brunt of the ‘planning.’”
Some believe that the United States is already experiencing the eugenic effects of abortion. According to one economist, “Roe v. Wade help[ed] trigger, a generation later, the greatest crime drop in recorded history.” On this view, “it turns out that not all children are born equal” in terms of criminal propensity. And legalized abortion meant that the children of “poor, unmarried, and teenage mothers” who were “much more likely than average to become criminals” “weren’t being born.” Whether accurate or not, these observations echo the views articulated by the eugenicists and by Sanger decades earlier: “Birth Control of itself . . . will make a better race” and tend “toward the elimination of the unfit.”
Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex, or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the twentieth-century eugenics movement. In other contexts, the Court has been zealous in vindicating the rights of people even potentially subjected to race, sex, and disability discrimination. Although the Court declines to wade into these issues today, we cannot avoid them forever.
Clarence Thomas is a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
The following sage instructions are from Book One of an eighteen-booklet course entitled Roth Course in Mental Power: Clear thinking, memory, quick decision, and good judgement in business and everyday life. I found the series of booklets at a library used-book sale. –sab
1. As you go about your business today, select five different subjects that attract your attention, and give a little intensive thought to every subject. Think a great deal about every subject. Instead of thinking carelessly or aimlessly, put your whole mind on every one of these five subjects, one by one, so that you can say to yourself of every subject: “I have thought it out,” or, “I have begun to think it out.”
2. The next day, select five other kinds of subjects and think
about every kind in the same intensive way.
3. In the days that follow, continue to select five subjects every
day, taking different kinds of subjects and giving really hard
thought to every subject.
4. Try to learn something new about every subject.
5. When you try to learn something new, you will soon find that
five subjects a day call for too much work. You will do well to learn
about one subject a day.
6. In order to learn, you will find that you need an encyclopedia,
or some other book of information. Any periodical, any book, will
help you to learn.
7. The more you try to learn, the more you will find there is to
learn. You will become an investigator–a reader–a thinker.
8. You will soon find that one subject a day is altogether too
much, and you will devote many days to a single subject.
9. By fixing your mind strongly on five subjects at first, and
later on one subject a day, and later still for a long time, on a
single subject, you will become Interested in life; you will become a
better thinker; you will wish to learn more and more; you will find
the Universe opening up before you as an inexhaustible storehouse of
learning. As one philosopher said: “You will pick up only a
few pebbles from the vast shore of knowledge.”
BUT IT IS THE GREATEST PLEASURE IN LIFE TO PICK UP THOSE FEW
PEBBLES OF WISDOM.
MAKE YOUR INTERESTS BROAD; OPEN YOUR MIND; BE INTERESTED IN
EVERYTHING YOU SEE; THINK ABOUT IT; WONDER . . . WHY? . . . HOW? . .
. WHEN? . . . WHERE?
excerpted from: Roth, David M. / Roth Course in Mental Power New York: Independent Corporation. Book one, pages 17-18. 1921.
Check out Your Spiritual Growth, on Robert Sylvester’s Spirlaw WordPress site, which nicely expands on David Roth’s advice. Sylvester offers an essential (I believe) spiritual dimension, encouraging readers onward and inward: “Ask questions,” he agrees. “Aim them particularly at yourself. In this, you grow in the Spirit and peace, understanding and wisdom emerge.” –sab
President Trump rang out his highest job approval rating EVER, 46%, in the newest Gallup Poll between 4/17-4/30 of 2019.
For the period of 4/26-5/12 (yesterday), Trump marked a 45.3% overall job approval rating in the Real Clear Politics Poll of Polls, his highest number there since February 4th of 2017 (46% on that day).
[ 16 May 2019 UPDATE: 51% Job Approval in Zogby polls. Highest of Trump’s entire presidency. 60% among rural voters!!
“majority of millennials (18-29) approve of the president (51%); even more of the age group from 25-34 approves of him (53%), and even more of those aged 35-54 (59%). 58% of men approved of Trump, a slim minority of women (48%) approved of him.
48% of suburban voters approved of Trump and a whopping 60% of rural voters approved.” ]
The red-state voters–his core plus those others who are likewise impressed by his overall economic majesty–have begun rallying up the strength of his re-electability in 2020.
Nietzsche wrote in Ecce Homo (1908): “What does not kill him makes him stronger.” My May 5th blog post of the same title described, through a reprint of “All the Progressive Plotters” by Victor Davis Hanson, attempt after attempt after attempt, each calculated by blue-state Democrats and Republican NeverTrumpers to bring Trump down, from the time before his inauguration to now.
Their present attempt aims at bringing down perceived Trump-ally, Attorney General Barr, in order, somehow, to get to Trump. They’ve had no success in more than two years, with millions of dollars and the payrolling (with our tax money) of, likely, more than a hundred lawyers and congressional committee members.
Now comes the latest two strategies. First, Thomas Friedman (opinion writer for the NYT and three-time Pulitzer Prize winner), in a May 9th New York Times (NYT) article, stated outright: “For America to stay America, Trump has to be defeated. . . . How did we let this grifter take over our party?”
Our party? Where exactly are all of the November 2016, election-winning deplorables in his equation? In reality, Donald Trump was duly elected in a Constitutionally valid election. He did not steal the election, as many blue-state voters still believe to the pit of their souls. One may not want the Electoral College to exist, but it does, and it did, and it mattered in the last election. No thievery or predicate for an endless, criminal manhunt occurred.
Friedman, incredulously, then proposed: “We need a Republican third-party candidate who won’t just primary Trump but will get on the general election ballot and challenge him in 2020 in all 50 states — from his right, not from the center.” He continued, “we need a Republican who will do the most high-minded, patriotic thing I can imagine today — fall on the Trump grenade. That is, run against Trump from the right in the national election as, say, a libertarian — who could oppose Trump . . . This could siphon off just enough Republican votes for Trump to lose close races in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Nevada and Florida.”
A Republican who would patriotically fall on a “Trump grenade?” One who would run to the right of Trump so that a Democrat could win? Who, exactly, exists to the right of Trump? Neo-Nazis? White-supremacists? Friedman, I would wager, already believes that Trump fits into those two categories.
He concluded his argument, calling for “a Democratic candidate who can appeal not only to Democrats but also hold the independents, moderate Republicans and suburban women whose votes shifted the House to the Democrats in the 2018 midterm elections and whose support will be vital for any Democrat to win the presidency.”
NeverTrumpers don’t take Friedman completely serious, but the gears have been turning in their minds toward a similar plot. That’s where the second strategy comes in. They–politicians like Mitt Romney or Ben Sasse–already have been whispering of running someone to the left of Trump as a moderate, third-party candidate (everyone pretty much accepts that Trump, in fact, will become the Republican nominee in 2020).
If that moderate candidate then campaigned hard enough in middle-American states like Ohio and Wisconsin, those that played a crucial role in electing Trump, then those NeverTrumpers, conceivably, might draw enough moderate votes away from Trump, like in Friedman’s plan, in order to allow a Democrat to win. That’s how deep the roots of Friedman’s, the Democrats’, and the NeverTrumpers’ obsessions to bring down Trump have traveled. They all recognize that there are, in fact, many Republicans who would rather have a Democrat win than to have Trump, a Republican, re-elected.
Three-time Pulitzer Prize winner Friedman, dead-serious in his quest for justice, had his proposal published less than a week ago on the NYT op-ed page.
It could be argued that these Democrats, NeverTrumpers, and media icons like Friedman are mirroring, pathetically, Inspector Javerts, in Victor Hugo’s Les Miserables (1862). Javerts pursued the thief, Jean Valjean, for years and years and years, believing that, one glorious day, he would catch and imprison him. Valjean had been a thief. Trump did not, however, steal an election from “our party.”
Javerts ended up slipping into madness and committing suicide. Let’s all hope the blue-state Jaberts‘ don’t mirror that final plot twist.
Living at 8,750′ elevation in the mountains of Colorado, Spring is here for Jean and I, finally! (Although, it’s May 10th, and it has been snowing for two days.)
We saw our first aspen tree catkins of the year on Saturday, April
20. Above is a photo I took of them on April 27. We have quaking
aspens, by the way, as opposed to the other two mentioned in the
We heard hummingbirds for the first time and saw one briefly on the feeder, also on April 27. We always see the Broad-tailed Hummingbirds first, pictured below: “Migratory hummingbirds usually in [their] breeding territory about mid-April. They breed across mountain forests and meadows throughout the Western United States from eastern California and northern Wyoming south through Great Basin and Rocky Mountain states to southern Arizona and western Texas. In September, they generally move south to winter in Mexico, Guatemala and, occasionally, El Salvador.” Soon afterwards, the Rufous species of hummingbird shows up here, at our elevation, in Bailey.
As far as Maibocks, I love good beer. These beauties “are brewed in winter and released in late April and May. They are rich yet not overbearing, and are enjoyed before the searing throes of summer.” Aside from that, they are very good to my taste buds at just this time, when the aspen catkins grow, then fall away, after which little green aspen buds appear. Those buds then transform into the quaking, green aspen leaves that most people associate with aspen trees.
But, what of the too-often overlooked, too-little-reflected-upon
catkins? The following article, hopefully, will nurture such
The Aspen Catkin:
What will become of this fuzzy little thing?
Kara Rogers – April 13, 2011
Aspens, of which there are three species—the American quaking
aspen (Populus tremuloides), the American big-tooth aspen (P.
grandidentata), and the European aspen (P. tremula)—exhibit several
curious traits when it comes to reproduction. For example, each tree
is either male or female, a condition known as dioecism, and while
both male and female aspens produce catkins, only the male catkin has
pollen, which is transferred to a female by the wind. And when the
right breeze comes along in early summer, the pollinated female will
release her seeds, which parachute along through the air, swept away
to some distant place.
Aspens have a low rate of reproductive success. Indeed, it takes
trillions of seeds being dispersed on the wind each year to ensure
that a percentage sufficient for species propagation happens to
parachute into a suitable environment, where they can germinate and
sprout. Reproductive success is limited in part because aspens have
strict germination constraints. For example, aspens are
shade-intolerant, and therefore a seed needs a sunny spot to grow.
That spot also must be free from seed-eating animals and able to
Another constraint on reproduction actually is imposed prior to
pollination and has to do with the distance between male and female
trees. Each aspen grove is a clone, meaning that all the trees in a
grove are identical to the founder sapling. Hence, if a female
sapling happened to give rise to the grove, all the individual trees
in the grove will be female. This means that pollination can occur
only if groves of the opposite sex are relatively close to one
another. If they are separated by too great a distance, pollination
between them is unlikely.
The future of each species of aspen hinges on its tufted catkin
seeds, new generations of which face the perilous wind-borne journey
every spring. Most do not make it. The ones that do, however, spawn
entire groves of aspens—stands of trees that may survive for
hundreds or possibly thousands of years.
Just an observation. In the 1960s and early 1970s, when I grew up in Gruver, Texas, in the Panhandle north of Amarillo, more than a handful of high school students kept rifles in their pickup-truck gun racks, above the front seat and behind their heads. Guns were everywhere, including the high school parking lot. Back then, we had pretty much never heard of school shootings, much less had even conceived of such events.
What’s wrong with this picture? What has changed between then and now?
Back then, students, parents, teachers, school administrators and the kind of politicians generally elected at that time in that part of Texas, pretty much knew the difference between right and wrong. They taught that difference to their children. That’s not the case in too many cities and towns today across America.
Today, unlike then in Gruver (and in American high schools overall, really), there are way too many stupid students, stupid parents, stupid teachers, stupid school administrators and, most of all, stupid politicians–unlike the ones our parents’ elected back then (across the country, really), which translates to both Democrats and Republicans. After all, back then, we pretty much had never heard of school shootings, much less had even conceived of such events, not just where we lived but throughout America. Rifles were in our high school parking lots with no concerns.
Movies back then, by the way, had plenty of spurting blood. Just watch Sam Peckinpah’s The Wild Bunch or More Dead Than Alive with Clint Walker. No school shootings that I can think of though.
The difference between right and wrong, mostly, is just no longer taught in schools or in homes. Blame who (or what) you want, but the one reality I see as clear as a mountain lake is that too many students today have not been taught the difference between right and wrong–but, they used to have that knowledge! Why did they have it back then, and why don’t they have it today? A failing educational system, the failing politics of education as a whole and the failure of parents (singular and plural) to personally insure a proper education for their children!
The girl and boy arrested yesterday for the shooting death of one student and the wounding of many others in Highlands Ranch, Colorado did not know the difference between right and wrong. I think we all can agree on that. Why did those two students lack that knowledge? Follow the path leading from them to their parents to their teachers to their school administrators to our legislators. Failure to know the difference between right and wrong can be learned by students from any of the above–or all of the above. There was little to no failure before. There is way too much failure now.
The difference between right and wrong must be taught. It just doesn’t appear out of thin air, like we have here in Colorado. It was taught then. Why is it not being taught today?
written by: s.a. bort / 8 May 2019 / Bailey, Colorado
Concisely written, wry and too true not to read, this article gives wisdom one has come to expect from Hanson, a Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. –sab
AG / American Greatness
All the Progressive Plotters
By Victor Davis Hanson| April 7th, 2019
Right after the 2016 election, Green Party candidate Jill Stein—cheered on by Hillary Clinton dead-enders—sued in three states to recount votes and thereby overturn Donald Trump’s victory in the Electoral College. Before the quixotic effort imploded, Stein was praised as an iconic progressive social justice warrior who might stop the hated Trump from even entering the White House.
When that did not work, B-list Hollywood celebrities mobilized, with television and radio commercials, to shame electors in Trump-won states into not voting for the president-elect during the official Electoral College balloting in December 2016. Their idea was that select morally superior electors should reject their constitutional directives and throw the election into the House of Representatives where even more morally superior NeverTrump Republicans might join with even much more morally superior Democrats to find the perfect morally superior NeverTrump alternative.
When that did not work, more than 60 Democratic House members voted to bring up Trump’s impeachment for vote. Trump had only been in office a few weeks. Then San Francisco billionaire Tom Steyer toured the country and lavished millions on advertisements demanding Trump’s removal by impeachment—and was sorely disappointed when he discovered that billion-dollar-fueled virtue-signaling proved utterly bankrupt virtue-signaling.
When that did not work, celebrities and politicians hit social media and the airwaves to so demonize Trump that culturally it would become taboo even to voice prior support for the elected president. Their chief tool was a strange new sort of presidential assassination chic, as Madonna, David Crosby, Robert de Niro, Johnny Depp, Snoop Dogg, Peter Fonda, Kathy Griffin, and a host of others linguistically vied with one another in finding the most appropriately violent end of Trump—blowing him up, burning him up, beating him up, shooting him up, caging him up, or decapitating him. Apparently, the aim—aside from careerist chest-thumping among the entertainment elite—was to lower the bar of Trump disparagement and insidiously delegitimize his presidency.
When that did not work, during the president’s first year in office, the Democrats and the media at various times sought to invoke the 25th Amendment, claiming Trump was so mentally or physically impaired that he was not able to carry out the duties of president. At one point, congressional Democrats called Yale University psychiatrist Dr. Bandy X. Lee to testify that Trump was unfit to continue. In fact, to prove her credentials, Lee edited The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump that offered arguments from 27 psychiatrists and other mental health experts. In May 2017, acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein met secretly in efforts to poll Trump cabinet members to discover whether they could find a majority to remove Trump from office—again on grounds that he was mentally unbalanced. According to McCabe, Rosenstein offered to wear a wire, in some sort of bizarre comic coup attempt to catch Trump off-guard in a confidential conversation.
When that did not work, 200 congressional Democrats in late 2018 sued in federal court to remove President Trump, claiming he had violated the esoteric Emoluments Clause of the Constitution that forbids federal officials from taking gifts, jobs, and titles from foreign governments. They alleged Trump’s presidency has enhanced his overseas real estate holdings and interests. Yet, according to some sources, the various Trump companies have lost some $1 billion in value after he took office—to the delight of the same critics who swore he has profited enormously as president.
When that did not work, the ongoing “Resistance” both covertly and overtly sought ways to retard or destroy the Trump presidency—often by leaking presidential memos, conversations, and phone calls. An anonymous op-ed published in the New York Times on September 15, 2018 boasted of a plan of resistance to his governance and initiatives from those in the administrative state from inside the Trump Administration, most of them allegedly establishment Republicans.
When that did not work, progressive heartthrob lawyer and now indicted Michael Avenatti reintroduced pornographic film star Stormy Daniels to the public. He claimed that Daniels had somehow been tricked into signing a supposedly improper and now invalid non-disclosure agreement not to talk about an alleged sexual encounter of a decade earlier with private citizen Trump in an exchange for a payment of $135,000.
Allegedly, Trump’s acquiescence to Daniels’ veritable blackmail demands had now impaired her own opportunities of further profiting to a far greater degree from the past alleged tryst with a now President Trump. Until his recent indictment for a number of felonies, Avenatti himself had translated his work with Daniels into media celebrity-hood, appearing over 100 times on cable news shows to damn Trump, predict his impeachment, and prep his promised 2020 presidential run against Trump.
When that did not work, federal law enforcement officials stormed the offices of Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, in search of incriminating materials. Cohen quickly was leveraged by federal attorneys, flipped, and offered anti-Trump testimonies and documents in exchange for leniency. He produced stealth tapes of private conversations with his own client Trump—and shortly afterward was disbarred by the New York State Supreme Court for pleading guilty to a series of felonies.
When that did not work, Russian collusion hysteria continued to sweep the country. The moribund phony Steele dossier (that had failed to derail the Trump campaign and transition) was reignited by the media and progressive politicos after the firing of FBI director James Comey, leading to the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and the emergence of Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein.
Rosenstein then appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel—in a series of events prompted by none other than fired James Comey, who admitted that he illegally leaked confidential, if not some classified, presidential memos to create the conditions necessary for such a special appointment. Mueller’s subsequent media darling attorneys—praised as the “dream team,” “all-stars,” “army,” “untouchables,” and “hunter-killer team”—of mostly Democratic partisans, some Clinton donors, and a few who had defended either the Clinton Foundation or Clinton aides then spent 22 months, and between $30-40 million trying to build a case. In the end, they leveraged mostly minor Trump satellites on process crimes, misleading testimonies, or past business deals in hopes of finding collusionary guilt. Leaking was a Mueller team trademark as each week the collusionary media announced another “bombshell” or “noose tightening” around the neck of Donald Trump—or mysteriously showed up at the home of the next Mueller victim, to wait for the arrival of SWAT teams to swoop into make an arrest.
When that did not work, congressional committees and the left-wing mob next went after William Barr, Trump’s “hand-picked” attorney general (are not all AGs “hand-picked” by the president?). Barr’s crime was that he had followed the law to the letter. And so Barr spent a few days after the arrival of the exonerating Mueller collusion report to ensure first, before releasing it to the public, that it did not endanger national security or besmirch the reputations of innocent named individuals. If in a blink, “collusion” had died, soon in its death throes it birthed “obstruction”—as if Trump’s objections to vast resources wasted on chasing an imaginary non-crime of collusion was obstruction
When that did not work, congressional committees mobilized to sue and force Trump to release at least six years of his private income tax records, elements of which already in bits and pieces had been leaked.
Are such efforts in the future to be institutionalized?
Will the Left nod and keep still, if Republicans attempt to remove an elected Democratic President before his tenure is up? Are appeals to impeachment, the 25th Amendment, the Emoluments Clause, the Logan Act, and a Special Counsel the now normal cargo of political opposition to any future elected president?
Is it now permissible in 2020 for Trump’s FBI director to insert an informant into the campaign of the Democratic presidential nominee? If Joe Biden is the 2020 nominee, will the Trump Justice Department seek FISA warrants to monitor the communications of Biden’s campaign team—in worries that Biden son’s business practices in the Ukraine had earlier compromised Biden who had intervened on his behalf by threatening to cut off aid to Ukraine? Will they investigate Biden’s propensity to hug and kiss under-aged girls? Will Trump’s CIA director contact foreign nationals to aid in spying on Biden’s aides? Will National Security Advisor John Bolton request that the names of surveilled Biden campaign officials become unmasked as a way of having them leaked to the media? Will Trump hire a British ex-spy to gather together rumors and gossip about Biden’s previous overseas trips and foreign contacts, especially in the Ukraine, and then see them seeded among the Trump CIA, FBI, Justice Department, and State Department? Is that the sort of country we have now?
America over the last half century had been nursed on the dogma that the Left was the guarantor of civil liberties. That was the old message of the battles supposedly waged on our behalf by the ACLU, the free-speech areas on campuses, and the Earl Warren Court.
Not now. The left believes that almost any means necessary, extra-legal and anti-constitutional or not, are justified to achieve their noble ends. Progressive luminaries at CNN and the New York Times have lectured us that reporters need not be disinterested any more in the age of Trump—or that it might be a crime to shout “lock her up” at a Trump rally. Will those standards apply to coverage of future Democratic presidents?
No reporter seems to care that Hillary Clinton hired a foreign national to work with other foreign nationals to sabotage, first, her opponent’s campaign, then his transition and his presidency, along with the wink and nod help from key Obama officials at the Department of Justice, State Department, National Security Council, FBI and CIA.
The final irony? If the CIA, FBI, and DOJ have gone the banana republic way of Lois Lerner’s IRS and shredded the Constitution, they still failed to remove Donald Trump.
Trump still stands. In Nietzschean fashion what did not kill him apparently only made him stronger.
Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact:
Victor Davis Hanson is an American military historian, columnist, former classics professor, and scholar of ancient warfare. He was a professor of classics at California State University, Fresno, and is currently the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He has been a visiting professor at Hillsdale College since 2004. Hanson was awarded the National Humanities Medal in 2007 by President George W. Bush. Hanson is also a farmer (growing raisin grapes on a family farm in Selma, California) and a critic of social trends related to farming and agrarianism. He is the author most recently of The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict was Fought and Won (Basic Books).