Posts Tagged → gun
Janelle Stelson vs Scott Perry for Congress
We have a real contest for the congressional seat here in Southcentral Pennsylvania, currently held by Scott Perry. Former Republican, now-Democrat Janelle Stelson is the Democrat Party nominee to challenge Scott Perry, and how this will end is anyone’s guess.
Years ago, I met Janelle Stelson a few times in social settings, mostly arranged by her then-fiance. We met for dinner or lunch once, in Hershey, I think, and then at a Pennsylvania Environmental Council awards dinner in Harrisburg, where we sat together. Might be a third time, but my memory is hazy about things that happened earlier today, let alone meetings years ago. Point is, I have met Janelle and have a feel for her as a person.
My impression of Janelle Stelson: She is obviously a very attractive woman, poised, and often charismatic, and as a former reporter she has lots of experience in front of the studio news cameras. She is also very smart, very bright, highly articulate.
I do recall her political opinions running Moderate Republican. Like pro business, pro free markets, pro gun rights. She also held some liberal views on abortion and what I used to consider moderate views on environmental quality, but which have now (like so many other political issues) skewed hard to the far Left.
In sum, Janelle Stelson was a really impressive and enjoyable person to meet. Had she remained a moderate Republican, she would have been really attractive as a candidate. However, Janelle decided to toss all that moderate stuff over the side of the boat she was in, and become an arch Leftist Democrat. I do not really understand this choice, nor do I really believe it, or even respect it. Janelle’s decision to become a Democrat, and a very liberal one at that, who is way out of step with Central Pennsylvania voters, reeks of political opportunism.
And that scares me.
By definition, political opportunists are not settled people. They are not being forthright. They are subject to the whims of political tides and political machines, instead of captaining their own ship. And as I have received copious literature from Janelle’s campaign, my impression is that she is simply seeking power. Sorry Janelle, but I have to say Yuck. Had she remained the thoughtful moderate Republican, and challenged Scott Perry in the primary, I would have had total respect for her.
Scott Perry has been in political office a very long time. He and I ran in separate but congruent primaries at the same time in 2012, I for state senate and he for congress, and we shared a stage together several times in that process. At the time he was a state representative in the PA House. Scott has always been ambitious, which I have no real issue with. But I do have an issue with career politicians of either party, and I think this is the one criticism Janelle has leveled at Scott that is real.
However, on balance, I prefer a damned career politician I know, and mostly agree with, to someone like Janelle whose campaign is being run by one of the arch Leftists out of Washington DC, and whose financial support comes from the far Left. If she is elected, Janelle looks like she will be a puppet of the far Left, to which I say No Thank You. America cannot afford more of that, and Central Pennsylvania has never embraced that kind of extremist philosophy.
And no, Janelle, Scott Perry does not advocate for zero abortions, goodness gracious. What a silly allegation. Man, political campaigning really brings out the worst in people, the biggest piles of horse carp…any lie to win, I guess. Yuck.
I hope that Scott Perry wins this race, and then retires from politics. Maybe take a role in the next Trump administration. Hand the baton on to some other citizen who has not yet had an opportunity to serve in elected office. No more stepping stone step ladders for wannabe careerists, this congressional seat should be open to someone new to politics.
Yes, Scott has been a leader of the anti-establishment anti-DC Swamp Congressional Freedom Caucus, which has been refreshing, but in my mind, all congressmen are like milk in the refrigerator…they just need to be drunk up when they are fresh, and poured out when they have been there too long.
I voted for Scott Perry already, but I sat and looked at the ballot a good long time before I colored in his name. Oh, the things that could have been with Janelle, had she remained Republican and not joined the ever-farther-lefter Democrat Party of Lenin and Stalin and Marx.
Who knows, maybe Janelle Stelson will win and happily surprise us with her more moderate personality and high intelligence, but I doubt it. I felt safer betting on and voting for the person I already know and trust, and that was Scott Perry.
Gun owners prevail against lawless Harrisburg City
Gun owners have finally prevailed against the lawless and dishonest City of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, in a case that was first filed in January 2015, and now, over nine years later, has finally reached a conclusion favorable to logic, to the rule of law, and to fealty to the various federal and state constititional clauses enshrining firearms rights as “Shall not be infringed” and “Shall not be questioned.”
The case was originally brought by Kim Stolfer of Firearms Owners Against Crime, against Harrisburg City, as a result of Harrisburg City openly, brazenly, lawlessly disregarding superseding state law when the city passed and implemented a number of anti-gun ordinances.
In Pennsylvania, state law holds that no political subdivision can enact its own gun regulations, for the same reason that no one wants to go to jail for having an abortion that is legal in the township next door, but illegal in your own township, same state, and because no one wants to encounter different driver’s license requirements in East Succotash, PA, than those found in Wild West Philly, PA. Such a fractured arrangement would be untenable, unsustainable, a legal catastrophe. The law must be unified across the state so that the citizens can live there normally.
And so many years ago, Pennsylvania enacted a pre-emption law that says only the state can pass firearms restrictions, not municipalities. Oh, for lawless leftists this kind of common sense law is a challenge, and of course Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Harrisburg had to test the citizenry. And they have lost time and again, every time one of these places places an innocent gun owner in handcuffs. As a result, numerous large sum financial judgments have been generously granted to gun owners discriminated against by these lawless political subdivisions over the years.
Think about this: Democrat-run Philadelphia, Harrisburg, and Pittsburgh not only wantonly waste taxpayer’s limited dollars by trying to defend the indefensible here in court, they then have to pay out huge awards to aggrieved victims. None of this has to happen, but the mindset of Democrats everywhere seems to be so hell-bent on lawlessness and abusing political opponents.
And we here in Harrisburg are about to begin that financial award phase of our lawsuit, now that it has been successfully decided just days ago, when Judge Andrew Dowling decided that Harrisburg City’s gun ordinances violated state law.
In addition to Kim Stolfer there is another hero here, Attorney Joshua Prince, who has climbed Mount Everest a hundred times over the past nine years in his hard work to keep the city accountable and the rule of law alive. I do not know what the payment arrangement betwen FOAC and Josh Prince is, but I am sure Josh is not getting much more than a few bucks an hour at the present. A financial award commensurate with appropriately smacking down the city’s lawlessness might and hopefully will reset the ledger in favor of Joshua Prince. Josh also maintains a stable of attorneys helping him.
Other people involved in this lawsuit are Kim Stolfer’s successor at FOAC-ILLEA, a dogged and articulate ex-cop named Jim Stoker, a plaintiff named Howard Bullock, who works in the City of Harrisburg, and yours truly, moi, Josh First, who lives in the City of Harrisburg. Part of my sometimes colorful testimony in court last month is highlighted below.
Josh Prince’s blog post today about this important holding is here. The actual court decision is here.
If you are a gun owner, or a freedom lover, or a good government believer, definitely donate some bucks to FOAC-ILLEA. They have earned your support!
Should conservative Americans travel abroad?
Earlier this year several news stories circulated about American tourists being jailed in Caribbean island nations, because one or two loose and forgotten hunting bullets were found lodged deeply in remote seams and pocket corners of their luggage.
While firearms are mostly illegal in these Caribbean island nations, American tourists vacationing on Caribbean beaches were treated as violent criminals when single stray bullets were discovered in their luggage upon entering the islands. Reportedly, these bullets were left over from prior hunting trips, and they had escaped the scrutiny of USA TSA security personnel during the first leg of their trip.
Despite having committed a simple mistake, with the help of the TSA mind you, these travelers were roughly handled by island police, jailed, and held without much due process. Their dream vacations turned into nightmares, and spawned a lot of online discussion about whether or not Americans should risk traveling abroad these days. We are clearly no longer valued for our tourist money in these tiny places, but rather we are valued as political prisoners, symbols of an impotent laughingstock America run by a demented old man and his bribery-plagued family. That American government refuses to flex a little muscle to extract innocent US citizens from these ridiculous destinations is yet another indication of our empire’s forced decline.
Were I president of the USA, and one of these microscopic places dared to lay their filthy hands on an American tourist for some silly mistake, I would sail one or two large US Navy ships into their main harbor, and dispatch several thousand armed US Marines to forcefully re-acquire our illegally detained citizen, by any means necessary. Maybe it’s about time an American flag fly over these local places, anyhow.
Shifting gears to another big tourist destination, Americans have always felt most comfortable and welcome in the “United Kingdom” aka Britain, Wales, Scotland, and formerly Ireland, now its own nation. Because English is the native language or the common language in these places, countless American tourists have traveled there to sight-see, see relatives, marvel at world class museum collections. However, one must openly wonder if these destinations are also now tainted and dangerous for us to visit.
Not too long ago, several American hunters in different parts of Scotland ran into unexpected and undeserved criminal charges for doing exactly what Scottish law allowed, exactly following the directions of their hunting guides. These hunters, both women, had done nothing criminal. What they were guilty of was hunting and having anti-hunters get angry about it. Mind you, paid hunting is about eighty percent of the economic activity in rural Scotland, which is about 80% of Scotland itself. I have hunted in Scotland, and the views there are unbelievably majestic, the animals plenty wild and difficult to take, the “stalkers” (hunting guides) and “ghillies” (hunting assistants) incredibly talented.
But what happens if you follow all the laws, all the rules, and still get in trouble with the government? This bizarre official behavior at odds with the basic rule of law is the very core of lawless arbitrary and capricious government, and it is about the most evil sort of criminal law for a government to engage in. After all, how can you trust a government to host you as a tourist if you follow their laws and they put you in jail anyhow?
I don’t think I would return to hunt in Scotland. And while we are on the subject of the United Kingdom and its environs, I am not sure I would return to Scotland, or England or Ireland or Wales for any reason, for the simple reason that these jurisdictions are now enforcing unbelievably arbitrary speech laws.
In fact, over the past two weeks Britain has descended into complete tyranny, with senior police officials threatening to arrest Americans and others living abroad “wherever you live” for violating Britain’s new arbitrary and capricious speech laws. Britons are being jailed right now for posting simple questions on Fakebook, and apparently even criticizing the current government there can get you handcuffed and taken to jail, for years. Even little kids!
Canada’s lawless and violent customs officials are notorious for their brutality towards Americans who even question why their vehicle is being strip searched at the beginning of their family vacation. American families traveling to Canada have had their family dog shot dead in front of the kids by hyper aggressive Canadian customs agents, who unnecessarily but nonetheless sadistically revel in their complete power over helpless Americans. I would avoid Canada if possible, because it is a place that is also presently descending into lawless tyranny, run by people eager to unfairly make examples of political opponents.
(I wonder why the hell America has not turned Canada into our 51st state by now, but again, I am the kind of proud American who believes in using American military force for the benefit of America and Americans, and to send clear messages to our adversaries)
France just arrested the CEO of the social media company Telegram, because he believes in the free speech of his users. Screw France! France does not believe in individual rights or free speech. France also is descending into tyranny, for your own good, as the British tyrant Keir Starmer also asserts.
So one cannot help but wonder if Americans should refrain from traveling abroad much right now. Maybe this is not a good time for us to be tourists abroad. It seems that no one fears us, no one fears our government or military, and we Americans, used to our personal freedoms and free speech rights, and used to expressing ourselves plainly on every topic we wish, are placing ourselves in harm’s way by traveling abroad.
I don’t think the risk is outweighed by any possible benefits. The benefits of traveling abroad are outweighed by the risks right now.
Here in America we have an incredible array of national and state parks and monuments just begging for tourists and appreciative visitors, beautiful beaches from Maine to Texas, and all within the confines of a nation that at least will respect our right to have opinions. And by vacationing within America you don’t get ripped off by the money changers preying upon us in every other nation.
Americans, you and your tourism dollars belong here in America for the foreseeable future. The upsides are many, not the least of which are that you will see just how incredible this huge and majestic nation is, and why so many of us want to keep it free.
Tomorrow is PA Primary Election Day
Candidates Josh Prince and Patricia McCullough are the key votes you can cast in tomorrow’s primary election, and you should vote for them. Josh is running for Commonwealth Court, and Patricia is running for Supreme Court. They each face a PAGOP-endorsed insider establishment opponent who is either not qualified at all or not nearly as qualified as Josh and Patricia.
Running against Patricia is GOPe-supported Carolyn Carluccio, a Montgomery County trial court judge, who, I am told by attorneys who have argued cases in front of her, cannot point to a single case where she she has upheld the constitutional rights of We The People. Carluccio + RINO = spineless jellyfish = The People Lose Again.
McCullough is the opposite, having spent her time on the bench doing what judges are supposed to do, which is protect the rights of The People.
Josh Prince is a well-known attorney in Pennsylvania, who has devoted himself to protecting our individual rights. We wrote about him earlier. He has been my guardian angel battling a lawless Harrisburg City’s illegal anti-gun ordinances. Incredibly, his opponent has never even argued a case in a court room. How does the political establishment even come up with candidates like this? So lame.
Please vote for Prince and McCullough tomorrow, Tuesday May 16th. You will not be sorry.
The king you got, not the king you wanted or needed?
Two days ago was Coronation Day in England, whereupon the former very very longtime Charles Prince of Wales became Charles King of England AKA King Charles III. Even in The Year of Our Blessed Freedom From Monarchy 2023, this is still a big deal, because like it or not, kings and queens can matter when they want to, for better or worse.
This new king follows on the heels of his most amazing and impactful mother Queen Elizabeth, whose traditional values and top notch leadership skills many people miss. It appears Charles also wants to matter, like his mother, to be of consequence, to make what he believes is a positive difference on Planet Earth. So, we take note of his ascendence. He may not be the high caliber of his mother, who many would have liked to have seen replaced by another woman or man of equal qualities (good luck finding such a person anywhere in Western Civilization today), but Charles is nonetheless now the monarch. For better or for worse, or most likely a mix of both really bad and some good, King Charles is not going to be invisible.
Setting aside the die-hard monarchists for a moment, there was still a lot of worldwide public interest in Saturday’s coronation, if only because several mini-dramas played out in the coronation process. One being the role of His Most Spoiled Brattiness Prince Harry (strategically blocked from camera view at the actual coronation by a tremendous red feather plume in his aunt Anne’s hat in front of him), two being the marked absence from the coronation of Harry’s horrendous harridan of a wife, MeGain Markle, three being the final and hard public point being put on Charles’ longtime relationship with Priscilla, which had been openly maintained even while Charles was married to the most glamorous human being ever to grace the earth, Princess Diana Spencer. Many people never forgave Charles for his affair and disrespecting of Diana, but now, it’s officially all over. Charles and Priscilla are officially married and officially King and Queen of England.
Surely there are other notable features of this coronation, but to me, the one that matters most is the one that almost no one (that I could find) took notice of, and that is King Charles’ masculinity and his love of field sports, notably hunting. With guns, and occasionally spears. In a world of the establishment war against boys, against masculinity and manhood, of forced and artificial feminization of men at every turn (like Bud Lite’s Dylan Mulvaney debacle in the USA), King Charles’ quiet but absolute manliness is a crucial symbol for normal people and for those who should want to return to being a natural, normal, healthy human.
If nothing else, King Charles may end up being a potent symbol of How To Be A Man. Laugh if you want about this, but at one time not too long ago, 99% of boys naturally wanted to become masculine men when they reached adulthood, to be service-minded police officers, brave firefighters, adventurous cowboys, heroic soldiers, and hunting was a bedrock experience that trained many boys for these fields. In a western world now under siege from within our borders and from within our own governments that are captured by our worst enemies, who among other things are doing double duty to weaken us by erasing manhood and masculinity from our population, having public symbols of masculinity and manhood, like King Charles, is more important than many people realize.
Setting aside his many bad policy positions, King Charles is no dithering dandy, no fop. Quite the opposite. He speaks firmly, rides tall in the saddle, properly and expertly handles rifle, pistol, and shotgun, and is not afraid to kill his own dinner or get blood or dirt on his hands or clothes. This is a king I could like and who we all need, if only because he is a real man. Long live this manly king.
Liberal Democrat mass murders children in Nashville
Another liberal Democrat mass murder has happened in America, this time in a Nashville, Tennessee, school.
No question about it, there is an ongoing dispute on how to categorize and describe violence committed with firearms. The longtime dodgy approach by the mainstream establishment corporate media and the Democrat Party is to describe it as “gun violence,” and so their message is always “guns are bad, guns are inherently violent, don’t own guns, take away guns from the citizens.”
But the beauty of using our innate critical thinking skills is that any clear headed person can easily look at the same set of facts in a violent crime scene and come to a totally different conclusion than the corporate Democrat Party media. It is easy to see that their “gun violence” narrative is actually the opposite of the factual truth.
Let us consider yesterday’s bloody mass murder in a Nashville, TN, school, by 28-year-old transexual Audrey Hale. Hale was a former student at a Presbyterian Christian school, The Covenant School, and she apparently bore a big grudge about what she had learned there. So big was her grudge that she heeded the recent public call by transexual activists in Tennessee for acts of violence against traditional Americans and their institutions there. Audrey Hale took several firearms into a school and had shot and killed three little children and three adult teachers until local police killed Hale.
The cause of Hale’s murderous depravity may be something personal, but I think we can squarely hang the responsibility for her mass murder on the shoulders of liberal Democrats everywhere. This is because the Democrat Party is a full-blown advocacy vehicle for transexual everything, without any cautions or any limitations, as well as being the main promoter of anti-Christian narratives and apologetics for transexual malfeasance against Christians. There is a huge pile of evidence for this in the way the Democrat Party is the official sponsor of and get-out-of-jail card for ANTIFA, whose most violent and destructive members are overwhelmingly transexual.
Child murderer Audrey Hale was transexual, yes, but even more than that, she was a liberal Democrat who heeded the recent call of other liberal Democrats to commit acts of violence against Christians, in the name of promoting transexual identity. Guns have almost nothing to do with this, because without the liberal Democrat impetus to murder vulnerable children and teachers, the guns do nothing by themselves. It is that recent transexual battle cry that convinced Hale to commit her savagery.
I have a soft spot in my heart for transexual people, and for gay people. Having grown up with people who were born differently than me, whether it is a chemical or hormonal imbalance who knows, I personally witnessed the painful and frustrated personal struggles of these individuals well into their adulthood. They always had my sympathy and empathy, because in and of themselves they offered no threat to anyone. They are simply different. Being validated as full humans like the majority around us is something we all crave, and it is something we all deserve to a great degree, regardless of our differences. My gay and transexual friends and family members deserved to be treated equally, and I always stood beside them. But that degree of validation and acceptance ends when your personal political movement is fundamentally about inciting and committing acts of violence, arson, murder, and destruction.
Especially against practicing Christians, whose gentle teachings are simply different than the angry violence of the transexual Antifa mob.
The transexual movement started out like the gay rights movement, a call for equal treatment. And in America, we should treat everyone equally. Equal opportunity for everyone, absolutely. Core American principle there. But both the transexual and the gay rights movements have been co-opted by the Democrat Party, which is historically one of Planet Earth’s most insurrectionist and violent political movements, responsible for enslaving Africans, for the 1860-1864 Civil War, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, and the impoverishment and destruction of modern Black communities in every major American city.
So now that the transexual and gay rights movements are fully embedded in this destructive political party, we must be honest about not only Audrey Hale’s Covenant School shooting, but the vast majority of murders nation-wide: Liberal Democrats are fully responsible for all of this misery. The transexuals tormented by and incentivized by the Democrat Party to commit violence and murder are simply their cannon fodder, and the inanimate guns they use are like any hammer or molotov cocktail Antifa uses to destroy cities, businesses, homes.
Every murderous bullet fired in Chicago or Nashville, Tennessee, has the name LIBERAL DEMOCRAT clearly imprinted on it.
Post Office is a gun free zone, right? Nope!
Anyone who uses a US Post Office facility is probably aware of the many signs posted against bringing firearms into the premises. The signs show different types of handguns, from the iconic Colt Detective Special .38 Special snubnose, to the old Colt and Smith & Wesson Police revolver, to the Glock semiautomatic. All of these firearm depictions have a red circle and line slash across the firearm image, which is a loud and clear message: No firearms allowed here.
And although I have not researched the recent prosecutions against Americans for breaking this particular gun free zone law, I imagine that when people are prosecuted for it, they are absolutely hammered. Gotta make examples of these kinds of law breakers, is the thinking of the federal bureaucrats in charge of enforcing this law.
Yesterday I was in Uptown Harrisburg’s Post Office, and the man in front of me (there is always a long line at this postal facility) had a semiauto pistol sticking out of his left waist band. He also was speaking simultaneously into three different cell phones. His sideways baseball hat added a real confidence-inspiring impression of him as a law-abiding citizen of upstanding moral character.
The guy standing behind me had a pierced nose and earrings on both ears, but said quietly to anyone who was near enough to hear him “Jesus. Look at this guy. I don’t carry [my pistol] in here because I would get into trouble, and I can’t afford it.”
I concurred with the nose piercing guy, and said in return “I just want everyone else to follow the same laws that I have to follow,” to which nose piercing guy nodded in agreement. He rarely took his eye off the pistol grip sticking out for all in line to see.
When my turn to send the certified mail envelope came, I asked the teller/ clerk if she had seen the pistol out in plain view. “No I did not see it. And I am not a police officer,” she said.
And thus we have a prime example of how “Gun Free Zones” are total bullschiff. The only people who obey them are people like me, who do not break the law and who are afraid to break the law. The consequences of me and other good people breaking the law and getting in trouble would be catastrophic to our lives, to my life. So I was standing there, completely unarmed and defenseless against an obvious criminal flaunting his illegal firearm in a “Gun Free Zone.”
The only people who promote “Gun Free Zones” are those who actually want law-abiding citizens to cower in fear from law-breakers and aggressive criminals. As we saw in Biden’s crazy ‘F-15 versus AR-15’ speech last week, beating down and subjugating the good people in America is the goal of one political party. Apparently we good people are the threat to that political party, while violent criminals are not.
“Gun Free Zones” are BS, they mean nothing, no one enforces them against the bad people who violate them. They are meant just to limit the good law-abiding people who need guns for self protection against criminals.
Just say No to “Gun Free Zones.”
Roe v. Wade was never about abortion
Like so many other far-reaching court decisions, or laws, or executive orders emanating from Washington, DC, Roe v. Wade was originally cast publicly as something it actually wasn’t.
Yes, on its face Roe v. Wade was about abortion, the termination of human life while still inside the mother’s body. But in fact, the way the court’s decision was structured, it was the exuberantly creative legal theory behind the Roe decision that was most important. And it was that legal theory that laid the ground work for so much of the openly political activist behavior we see emanating from way too many judges and federal bureaucrats across America.
Roe v. Wade was decided within a time of great social turmoil and cultural change, and a lot of the contemporaneous political activism pressure from the Left is visible in Roe. Especially the twin evil sisters of moral relativism and intellectual relativism. One example is the in-artfully creative use of the word “penumbra,” a sort of shadowy shadow that reputedly lay over so many different amendments to the US Constitution that clearly listing them all was just too tiring to Roe’s authors. Yes, the Court majority invoked aspects of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and went on to stitch together a pseudo- logical framework for legal decision (then using the 14th Amendment) making that is still with us today.
Vagueness as a reason for heavy handed policy is now the Left’s standard. “Because we told you to do it” is the way that is spelled out.
Every professor who taught me constitutional law was a liberal, and every single time any one of them delved into Roe, a smirk was on their face. Lots of eye rolling and chuckling accompanied these professors’ analysis of the poor legal reasoning behind the decision. Which meant to me then, and even more so now, that no one with real constitutional law training believed Roe was a legitimate legal decision based on actual logic, law, and fundamental constitutional principles. Rather, all the liberals who exulted in Roe did so because it backdoor-attained a policy goal they could not achieve through the legislative process, and because it established a mush-headed standard for all future legal decisions.
So today, some fifty years after Roe v. Wade-type legal analysis has wafted its way throughout the legal profession, the courts, and the bureaucracy, we see the ultimate and inevitable result of such a “creative” legal approach: Although the Second Amendment says crystal clearly that citizens may both keep and publicly bear firearms, and that this right shall not be infringed, a zillion policy makers and courts blatantly ignore 2A’s plain wording and just start throwing anti-gun policy ideas into the pot. These judges give no respect to what the Constitution actually says; rather, they use their court rooms purely for writing policies that fit their political views. Same goes for ATF bureaucrats.
I blame Roe v. Wade for where our court system is now. And where it is now is not just political policy shops in black robes, but we have defiant leftist activists in black robes, who simply ignore the Supreme Court’s precedents and make their own damned ruling. Even if their damned ruling is totally contrary to a US Supreme Court decision from just weeks or months ago. This approach is junk law, and it calls into question the entire field of jurisprudence. It highlights in just one more way how the Left is hell bent for leather to implement its political policy goals, at whatever cost to America’s legal and cultural fabric.
In case you don’t know it, when a lower court openly defies the Supreme Court, the entire court system is thrown out the window. We then have nothing but anarchy.
So, when the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade two weeks ago, it was not surprising to see the Left melt down, as if their ability to kill babies had in fact been fully deprived of them. After all, when a person sees every branch of government as nothing more than a policy shop devoid of logical process, then everything becomes about winning or losing the policy war. Here the Left feels they have lost, when in fact, all this recent Court decision did was turn the issue over to the various states (No, Barack, there are not 57 states). Where actual voters get to choose how they want their state government to address what should be a sensitive subject.
(The same 1960s and 1970s people who had just protested against American soldiers as “baby killers” in Vietnam then became the biggest champions of killing babies…go figure).
To its proponents and supporters, Roe v. Wade was never really about abortion or babies, it was about introducing a weak-minded, unprincipled, grab-what-you-can “by any means necessary” approach to forming government policy. And in fact one of the main reasons I left my US EPA policy job in Washington, DC, was because I personally witnessed many regulations and rules being formed exactly this way, where (liberal/ Left) agency staff would literally just imagine a bunch of shit and put it in the regulation or rule. Justified or no, or extra cost to industry and consumers be damned. It is a terrible way to run representative government. But it is the way that Roe taught liberals and Leftists to think about government.
As a proponent of good government, where transparency and accountability are everyday occurrences for the taxpayers, I am glad that Roe is gone. Now the politically difficult part of democracy is upon all of us: Figuring out how many babies people can kill, when, and where. Based on my principles, I would expect this democratic process to follow a certain logic path. But we are not dealing with principles here, but rather a passion on the Left for absolute control. And they don’t like losing control. Or thinking hard. Or debating issues with evidence and cross-examination and due process.
Should be interesting going forward.