Tag: History

Justice Clarence Thomas’s Ominous Warning

Recently, as Americans were busily filing their taxes, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani was hard at work on an ad campaign, which was about to launch on social media.

The self-described democratic socialist soon let loose with an off-the-wall video ad, titled “Happy Tax Day, New York. We’re taxing the rich.”

In the clip, he lauded the passage of the city’s first-ever pied-à-terre tax,which is an annual levy on luxury second homes that are valued at $5 million or more and are not considered primary residences.

Mamdani framed the bill’s passage as a big victory, carrying on about “taxing the rich” and the “fairness” of it all, while claiming that the revenue raised would fund numerous so-called progressive priorities.

At the same time any concerns about wealthy residents fleeing the city were quickly dismissed as “imagined.”

In the real world, such a confiscatory tax drives out investment, crushes the real estate industry, and decimates the city’s already beleaguered economy.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, who had previously resisted broad tax hikes on the wealthy, has done a massive turnaround and is now totally on board with Mayor Mamdani.

The theatrical Marxism of Gotham’s mayor affects more than just the city of New York. His video ad is a textbook exhibit of the very leftism that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas recently warned against in a powerful speech, which was delivered at University of Texas’s Austin campus.

Speaking on the 250th anniversary of The Declaration of Independence, Justice Thomas described the code word that radicals prefer these days; i.e., “progressivism,” as an “existential threat” to America’s founding principles.

“Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence, and hence our form of government,” the justice said. “It holds that our rights and dignities come not from God, but from government.”

In other words, so-called progressivism, or what increasingly appears to be communism in disguise, has nothing to do with progress.

Instead the implementation of the ideology turns back the clock on limited government, individual liberty, and the self-evident truths that built the most prosperous nation in the annals of history.

Mayor Mamdani’s video ad embodies the insidious slide toward tyranny to which far too many unfortunate countries before us have succumbed.

It’s a kind of trickle down ideology that celebrates a forced redistribution of wealth that is camouflaged as moral virtue.

A smidgen of real history is helpful in aiding our understanding of what is going on.

The United States of America did not have a permanent federal income tax for the first 137 years of its existence.

From our nation’s founding until the ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913, the federal government operated without routinely confiscating a portion of every citizen’s earnings.

In fact, America grew into an economic powerhouse precisely because individuals and businesses were free to create, invest, and retain the fruits of their personal labor.

The free market, rooted in property rights, voluntary exchange, and limited government interference, is what drove innovation, lifted millions out of poverty, and rewarded those who were willing to take a risk.

Much like humanity itself, the capitalist system is not perfect. However, it is far better than any alternative that has been tried.

Economic freedom has unleashed human potential and achieved greater success than the best of central planners ever could.

Like Mayor Mamdani, the Marxist-minded among us are aggressively dismantling our freedoms.

For every fiscal shortfall, their solution is never to place a cap on spending. Rather, it is to foment more class envy and/or assign additional victim status to those who are vulnerable.

New York’s fancy sounding pied-à-terre tax is simply being sold as the pinpointed targeting of luxury homeowners and global elites.

But like a freight train with no brakes, history has demonstrated that policies such as these have no stopping point. Instead they cavalierly race forward, smashing into things, distorting markets, squelching investments, and sending wealth sailing off to better shores.

When those in power punish success and fund their agenda on the backs of producers, an erosion of the incentives that make the free market work begins to feed upon itself.

Slower growth sets in. Fewer jobs are created. Opportunities for everyone diminish at an accelerated rate. And the collapse of a once-solid system begins to look inevitable.

Justice Thomas is correct. This malignant ideology doesn’t improve on the Founders’ vision. It wholeheartedly rejects it.

The Declaration’s promise of unalienable rights, endowed by our Creator, stands in direct contrast to the non-progressive notion that rights are doled out by politicians, are revocable at the ballot box, and are able to be axed at any local budget hearing.

Mayor Mamdani’s smirk says it all.

Look at it as a cultural signal that the deconstruction of free-market principles is marching on, that government gets to be the one that picks winners and losers, and that wealth is a public resource available to be harvested on a Marxist’s whim.

As we approach the 250th anniversary of our nation’s founding, may we take heed of Justice Thomas’s call to reject cynicism and stand firmly for first principles.

And may more and more of us help Lady Liberty hold up the torch.

The Crawl toward Communism

Communist ideology should have been sidelined decades ago.

That’s what so many of us thought was going to happen after the Soviet Union collapsed back in 1991.

Instead the malignant ideas and strategies of communism, derived from the twisted mind of Karl Marx, gained a significant academic, institutional, and cultural foothold in the Western world.

Here’s a brief summary of how things played out.

Just about the time when the 1970s counterculture appeared to be fading away, a quiet yet insidious revolution was set in motion here in the United States.

There was no red flag waving in the air bearing a hammer and sickle. Rather, a long march through American universities began to take place.

New Left radicals weren’t storming barricades. Instead they were earning PhDs. Humanities and social science departments became ideological echo chambers.

Drawing from Antonio Gramsci’s theory on how the ruling class maintains power, and also the Frankfurt School’s critical theory that derided capitalism and promised social liberation, communist principles became the blueprint for how to deconstruct a societal framework, with the ultimate goal of supplanting it with a Marxist one.

In order to accomplish this, a battlefield had to be set up. The one chosen was that of “The Oppressors vs. the Oppressed.”

Through the fomenting of class envy and the assigning of victim status, members of society were pitted against one another.

What was already entrenched in the halls of our universities quickly spread to our elementary and high schools. Then like dominoes in a row, our federal and local governments, corporate boardrooms, news agencies, internet platforms, and even our Hollywood studios simply gave way.

Communism has been described by some as progressivism, democratic socialism, etc. But call it what you will, it’s just plain old communism, forever seeking the gradual ideological capture of the systems that comprise our societal pillars.

Which systems? Government, legal, education, economic, business, and media, to name some major ones.

Looking back, it seems that for America communism was custom-tailored to focus on culture and identity, a relatively easy way of conditioning our society to turn against neighbor.

It was then marketed, i.e., propagandized, to an already-primed public in order to reshape institutions from within.

We need look no further than our universities to see how the reshaping from within worked to our country’s immense detriment.

The faculties of almost all of the elite universities in our nation have come to lean decidedly to the far-left politically. In most cases, there are entire departments that are devoid of any dissenters to the dominant ideology.

As would be expected, graduating students of these institutions are highly knowledgeable on the topics of “systemic oppression,” “equity,” and “decolonization.” But they are woefully ignorant with regard to the death toll in the millions, which occurred at the hands of history’s most notorious communist regimes.

Sadly, the same communist-laced curriculum easily made its way into our preschools, elementary, and secondary schools. Consequently, far too many of our youth now find socialism and communism acceptable, and sometimes even preferable, than the representative republic that has secured our freedom for just short of 250 years.

Of course, a sizable portion of our Democrat politicians, major corporations, news media outlets, entertainment industry, and internet platforms have played a major role in the crawl toward communism.

We have heard a whole lot of talk over the last few years about existential threats.

It appears that we are currently facing a potential “Mother of All Existential Threats”; that being that communism could seep into our hearts, minds, and souls under the cover of virtue.

Whether the unthinkable occurs in a single stroke or bit-by-bit, the end result is the same. The America we love and cherish ceases to exist.

This is why we are duty-bound to reverse the trajectory.

A good place to start is to hold accountable the politicians who are already out of the communist closet.

This is an imperative since having avowed communists holding public office is a fairly new occurrence. Even Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders didn’t cozy up to communist candidates until somewhat recently.

Another idea is to join in on the religious revival that’s been going on, if you haven’t already. Nothing like faith, hope, and love to turn your world around.

May God bless America, now and forever.

The Big California Redistricting Scheme

California’s state legislature recently came up with a proposed redistricting plan, which is spearheaded by Governor Gavin Newsom.

Democrats are taking a democracy-destroying approach in order to supposedly save democracy. Wobbly-headed, but after all, this is the Left Coast.

The whole thing is a dangerous step backwards for the state, and even more importantly, for the nation at large.

Here’s the skinny. In 2008 and 2010, California voters decisively approved Propositions 11 and 20, creating the Citizens Redistricting Commission (CRC). The goal was to draw fair and impartial district lines for future state and congressional elections.

The bipartisan citizen-led body was designed to remove the taint of political self-interest from the redistricting process. The CRC’s maps, drawn after extensive public input and certified in 2021, were crafted to reflect California’s diverse population and to ensure competitive representative districts.

Polls indicate that Californians overwhelmingly support the independent commission, with 64% favoring its continued authority over line-drawing as compared to only 36% that back legislative control.

The results of the poll make sense because the voters themselves created the CRC to keep the hands of politicians off congressional maps.

With the backing of former President Barack Obama and other Democrat figures, California Democrats moved full steam ahead, opting to dismantle the system and sideline the CRC in order to allow Dem lawmakers to draw new congressional maps that favor their own party.

It is a blatant underhanded way to bypass the current system. Here’s how the whole thing went down.

Democrats introduced a constitutional amendment that would suspend the CRC’s authority, ostensibly temporarily.

Then they proceeded to draft maps behind closed doors, without any public hearings and minus the all-important input from the community.

With political dissecting tools in hand, they split counties a hefty 16 times, and cities over 100 times.

The map will only take effect if voters approve it in a special election that is scheduled for November 4, 2025.

The election will be a referendum on whether Californians are going to value their own democratic reforms and protect the independent CRC, or whether they will fall prey to the same partisan gamesmanship they once rejected.

Ironically, implementation of the Dem’s plan will end up shredding the very democratic reforms that Californians fought so hard for. Adding insult to injury, the purported tab for the financially-strapped state may run as high as $250 million.

The tortured redistricting approach is a complete betrayal of voter intent. In addition, it is a logistical and ethical nightmare.

Here’s why. The design requires that a constitutional amendment be passed, which would have to be rushed through via a questionable legislative tactic that would bypass the state’s 30-day public review rule.

Republican lawmakers have already filed a lawsuit, which contends that the legislative process violates California’s constitutional requirement that bills be in circulation for at least 30 days prior to a vote by the legislature.

The plaintiffs also contend in the lawsuit that the new map was drawn in secret without meaningful public input, which undermines transparency and democratic participation.

There are broader legal concerns as well, due to a 1983 California Supreme Court ruling that prohibits mid-decade redistricting. It is this prohibition that Democrats seek to override via a new amendment to the state constitution.

The Dem’s game plan is likely to face additional legal challenges. The National Republican Congressional Committee has vowed to fight it “in the courts and at the ballot box.” Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton, a former Fox News host, is launching a “legal war” against it as well.

Dems have enlisted some support from former President Obama, who has chimed in, endorsing the plan and characterizing it as a “responsible approach” and a “smart, measured approach.”

Proponents argue that it is a necessary counter to Republican redistricting in Texas. By overriding the CRC, the new maps will eliminate five Republican seats, tilting California’s already left-wing legislature even further to the left, creating a hyper-partisan map that stifles competition and marginalizes voters.

So it looks as though the scheme may actually kick off a redistricting war nationwide, inviting both parties to manipulate congressional maps to the max. This is a game that Republicans will likely win, since most blue states have already been highly distorted by previous gerrymandering.

In truth, the California Democrat plan doesn’t really deserve to succeed. Internal polling shows a thin 52% level of voter support, which is likely to sink even lower due to a well-funded information campaign backed by former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican donors, and a coalition of groups that includes Common Cause.

But the more important reason it doesn’t deserve to succeed is because it’s one more in a series of schemes, courtesy of a party that just can’t bring itself to even want to win elections on merit.

A party that is top-heavy with members who are way too busy admiring themselves in the mirror to notice their constituents have left the room.

Al Franken’s Future

171116-al-franken-leeann-tweeden-airplane-se-1105a_cdbd11d4ba4f856a53dca9fe3803882f-nbcnews-ux-2880-1000

The Harvey Weinstein revelations and their cumulative impact have given rise to countless Hollywood sexual misconduct scandals, which have altered the cultural atmosphere of our times.

A group of individuals with compelling stories of abuse have come forward with accusations against a number of the rich and famous, including one previously celebrated figure who is currently a member of the United States Senate, “Saturday Night Live” alumnus Al Franken.

Soon after Los Angeles radio anchor Leann Tweeden brought forward detailed allegations that, without her consent, Franken had forcibly kissed her with open mouth and subsequently offensively touched her while she slept, Franken issued multiple apologies and followed up with a request that an ethics committee investigation be conducted regarding his own wrongdoings.

“I understand why we need to listen to and believe women’s experiences,” Franken said. “I am asking that an ethics investigation be undertaken, and I will gladly cooperate.”

Some of Franken’s defenders praised him for submitting himself to an ethics probe. However, from a public relations perspective, Franken had no choice but to take the action he did because of one powerfully strong piece of evidence, which has been widely distributed by the conventional and social media.

A photo depicting a smirking Franken placing his hands on the upper body of Tweeden as she slept is immediately recognizable for what it is, clearly incriminating in nature, and impossible to reasonably defend.

Despite claims by some defenders that the activity in the photo was merely a joke, when taking into account the context that Tweeden has set forth, it is highly likely that Franken intended the action and attendant photograph to be a deliberate provocation.

It is also highly likely that, under the circumstances, Franken has taken the ethics probe approach because it has historically provided a shield to members of Congress who have been accused of corrupt or abusive behavior.

Such an investigation opens up a path for the accused legislator to nurture the image of cooperation while slowing any pending resignation demands. Point of fact: Franken has already been asked by members of his own party to resign. The rules of the ethics committee were written by politicians and seem to have been designed to assist those embroiled in scandal.

Current Senate rules mandate that there be six members on the committee, evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, with the chairman being a member of the majority party.

After the committee finds that “there is substantial cause for the committee to conclude that a violation within the jurisdiction of the committee has occurred,” it will proceed to conduct a full adjudicatory review. An adjudicatory review normally consists of interviews and sworn statements and can also involve a public hearing. When the committee finishes its review, it will issue a final report to the Senate, which may include a recommendation of disciplinary action. Both the final report and recommendations may be kept confidential at the discretion of the committee.

The committee’s options, with respect to potential disciplinary action, are typically censure, payment of restitution, or expulsion. A censure of a senator is merely a formal scolding for misconduct. Payment of restitution is essentially a fine imposed in order to compensate the victim in a monetary manner. Expulsion is the more difficult option to carry out, since it requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Consequently, the Senate has not expelled a member in more than a century.

If we look to history, we see that ethics committee investigations do not usually end up with the accused senator being held fully accountable for his or her actions. In the early 1990s, after only a few months of investigation by the ethics committee, Republican Senator Dave Durenberger was censured and ordered to pay $120,000 in restitution. Durenberger did not run for reelection in 1994 and the next year pleaded guilty to charges of misuse of public funds while in office. He was sentenced to one year of probation.

During the same time period, the Senate ethics panel made the decision not to investigate Democrat Senator Brock Adams, who was accused of sexual harassment and rape. The Ethics Committee sent a letter to the National Organization for Women, which had actually called for the investigation, stating that the investigation would not be pursued for the following reasons: the incidents had occurred before Adams had taken office, the alleged rape had already been investigated by the U.S. Attorney, and the committee had not received a request to initiate proceedings from the alleged victim.

Brock denied the allegations and declined to tender his resignation; however he did end up dropping out of his reelection race.

Around the same time period, Republican Senator Bob Packwood, a public advocate for women’s rights, was accused of multiple instances of sexual harassment. The related ethics investigation lasted nearly three years. Only after the bipartisan committee voted unanimously to recommend that Packwood be expelled did the senator resign.

In 2009 Republican Senator John Ensign acknowledged having an extramarital affair with a campaign aide. The following year an ethics committee began to investigate whether the Senator tried to buy his former aide’s silence. Ensign resigned in 2011, while the investigation was still ongoing. After probing for twenty-two months, the committee concluded that Ensign broke federal laws, and it referred the case to the Department of Justice. The department decided not to prosecute.

Because it is a highly politicized internal Senate process, an investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee generally takes a significant length of time to complete and, unless evidence of misconduct is overwhelming, results in little or no accountability.

More likely than not, an ethics committee investigation of sexual misconduct on the part of Franken will provide a way for the Democrat senator to wiggle out of any repercussions for his reprehensible behavior.