Wed, 27 Mar 2024 00:03:40 -0700WeeblyWed, 21 Feb 2024 17:37:56 GMThttp://tappintothetruth.com/blog/the-nudge-to-eat-bugs   We often discuss government efforts to control the behavior of the governed. We talk about censorship of the media (including social media and platforms like Amazon) to control the information available. We speak about lawfare weaponizing the judicial system against those who believe differently than the political agenda of the regime in charge. But we often overlook what is perhaps the most insidious form of crowd control, "the Nudge."
   I first started talking about the psychological attempt to control people's behavior back in August of 2013 when the Obama White House accidentally publicly admitted to forming a "Nudge Squad" when Maya Shankar, a White House senior adviser on social and behavioral sciences at the time, sent out recruitment e-mails to fill positions on their "Behavioral Insights Team." The goal of the group being to subtly influence people's behavior and "experiment" with various techniques to "tweak" behavior so the general public will do the things that the powers-that-be determine to be acceptable. (And just as an FYI, the group was modeled on a similar nudge group in the U.K. that was already in operation. Most developed nations now have publicly acknowledged Behavioral Insights Teams.)
   The World Economic Forum is an organization that is no stranger to controversy. The WEF has a political slant toward globalism with zero concern for individual liberty. This is why so many conservatives take issue with many of their "recommendations," and so many so-called progressives stand ready to champion their policy agendas. Many on the left, including legacy media, are ever-prepared to defend the WEF by calling anyone who points out the explicit threats to freedom that the WEF pushes... (wait for it) a conspiracy theorist. The WEF started an initiative named The Great Reset; Klaus Schwab writes books titled The Fourth Industrial Revolution, COVID-19: The Great Reset, The Great Narrative (The Great Reset), and Stakeholder Capitalism: A Global Economy that Works for Progress, People and Planet, each pushing the ideas of changing (using technological advancements and any excuses that present themselves) all of the economic systems that allow for class mobility and recognize individual human rights; and it is the people who point out the stated goals of the global elites (in the own words) who are "spreading disinformation" and engaging in trafficking of conspiracy theories. 
   The WEF has for some time been promoting the "man-caused" climate change narrative and, as an off-chute of that narrative, made claims that how we eat in the world's developed nations "must" change. One of the "recommended" changes is how we consume protein. They say that cattle ranching is especially hazardous to our environment due to the land and water requirements and the expelling of methane gas from the cattle. But don't worry, they have the solution to your protein needs after they put an end (that is one of their stated goals) to farmers raising animals for meat... bugs. 
   The WEF, along with other globalist organizations, has talked about substituting insects for more traditional meat sources for some time now, but they really caught the attention of a lot of people in July of 2021 when they published an article titled Why we need to give insects the role they deserve in our food systems, on their own website. They estimated worldwide population growth by 2050 and insisted that insect farming as a food source for people and animals is "environmentally friendly." Since the time "the nudge" has been on.
   The effort has been a two-pronged approach, with energy being spent trying to convince the consumer and various forms of pressure (often in the form of ESG scoring and "cancel campaigns") on food suppliers and manufacturers. Recently, the effort to change the manufacturing practices of food companies to include insects as ingredients has been stepped up via media like magazines and newsletters (both physical and digital) directed at the chief officers of food companies and quality and safety control officers. The idea being that if the companies start using insects, the end consumer only has two choices; eat the product or don't. And if enough food companies use insects, the choice for many becomes to eat or starve. By successfully nudging those who bring food to market, they no longer need to nudge the public; you are rich enough to go around the typical supply chain channels or settle for what's available.
   Much of the focus is on trying to convince manufacturers that the public will see insects as "normal food" soon, so the current customer's reluctance to consume insect protein will be overcome by introducing more products featuring those proteins. Food companies are also being told that other organizations (Universities, behavioral scientists, NGOs, and governmental "Behavioral Insights Teams" in Europe and North America) are working on nudging the consumers' attitudes toward insects as a food source. The overall message is to start making small changes now that most consumers won't notice, and before long, insect proteins will be more widely accepted than plant-based proteins. On that day, food companies can go full "bug burgers," save tons of money, and they will have helped the WEF save the world. (At least, that's what the WEF wants everyone to believe.)
   Look, insects are a significant part of the diets of large numbers of people around the world. But that is primarily due to a lack of options. If you want to eat bugs and worms, enjoy them as long as you follow safety standards. If you are a food company that wants to accommodate that niche market, then figure out how to make a profit and go for it. Just don't let the WEF, or anyone else, "nudge" you into it. As for me, a scorpion will never replace a nice thick steak. But you do you.
   The real issue here isn't what you eat or climate change; it's control. The WEF has told us that we will own nothing and that we will like it. (What they meant is "like it or not.") They are the elites, and we are just using up their resources. We must stand for individual liberty and against the "Tyranny of the Minority" (HT to Ed Brodow for using his phrasing but not the way he used it.) that the global elites represent.
   P.S. If you were to read Gregory Wrightstone's (Executive Director of the CO2 Coalition) books Inconvenient Facts: The Science That Al Gore Doesn't Want You to Know and A Very Convenient Warming: How modest warming and more CO2 are benefiting humanity, you might not be as easily nudged when they try to scare you with climate change.
]]>Wed, 03 Jan 2024 08:00:00 GMThttp://tappintothetruth.com/blog/is-there-more-to-democrat-support-of-iranian-theocracy-than-bad-policy  In 2009, then-President Barack Obama chose to ignore the pleas for support from the Iranian people as they were protesting in the streets against the Human-Rights violating, theocratic, despotic Iranian regime. Obama's excuse for not offering even some level of verbal support to people who were quickly "dealt with" by order of the Ayatollah was his concern that American intervention of any kind would serve as a rallying cause for the regime. This was, of course, accepted by left-leaning geopolitical "experts" as reasonable and heavily criticized by more conservative voices operating in the realm of foreign affairs policy. 
   The decision by the Obama administration not to speak up on behalf of the Iranian people who wished to see a return of freedom to their nation led to a swift ending of the protests. The regime did not need any other motivation to squash the movement than the visible challenge to their authority. At the time, many deemed this to be an error on the part of the administration or an inherent "softness" on the international stage. However, later actions brought that assessment into question.
   While not supporting "democracy" for Iran, Obama was personally very verbally supportive of the Arab Spring throughout 2010 and 2011 and, especially, the Muslim Brotherhood's short-term take-over of Eygpt in 2012 (as well as expressing disappointment at the quick ousting of the Muslim Brotherhood shortly after that). At that point, Obama was not concerned about the perception of American intervention in the region. Nor was he concerned about the will of Arabs or Persians and their "right to self-determination." It looked very much like he wished to promote the "right kind" of Muslim, not Islam in general, but a specific Islamic ideology. Still, many refused to make that connection, and the stage was set for the so-called Iran Nuclear Deal.
   The Iran Nuclear Deal was touted as a significant diplomatic victory for the Obama administration. It was officially announced on July 15th, 2015, and was sold as a way to stop Iran's nuclear weapon ambitions. It allowed Iran to continue to work on their "nuclear energy" program, plus sent a minimum of $400 million in cash (and a release of frozen assets estimated on the low end to be worth $150 billion) to Tehran along with the promise of relief of sanctions leveled against the regime, individuals in the government, and high ranking members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard. Many conservatives pointed out at the time that Iran's nuclear energy program was little more than a front for their weapons program, so even if you could trust the Iranian government's promises (given their open ambitions, not a wise thing to do), all that had been accomplished was slowing down the development of weapons. It was also pointed out at the time that money is fungible. Sending millions of dollars to the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism certainly did not seem to be in America's best interest or, the interest of our allies, or even just stability in the region.
   Those on the political left would have you believe that it is merely a coincidence that after the arrival of the "pallets of cash" from the Bank of Obama, the sophistication of weaponry in the hands of Hezbollah and the Houthis (who first rose to prominence in Yemen during the aforementioned Arab Spring) improved exponentially from what they had before; and that the Hamas terror tunnels morphed into a marvel of modern engineering. But the rest of us were saying a collective, unhappy, "We told you so." It was an easily predictable outcome.
   During the Trump administration, Iran continued to foster influence in the region by fighting a proxy war against Saudi Arabia through the Houthis, who currently control North Yemen, by supporting Hezbollah in their frequent attacks on Israel's northern towns and financing the development and planning of what culminated in the October 7th attack of Hamas on Israel. Iran also continued to hold sway in Syria as well, but Russia had a much more significant direct role in Syria going back into the late Obama administration, so it is rarely mentioned by commentators these days. Iran went about their business as low-key as possible during Trump's presidency. They still had to project power in the region, but other than a bit of saber-rattling after Iranian General Qasem Soleimani was killed in Iraq during a meeting with local militants that were targeting Americans, Iran went about the spreading of terrorism through their proxies. Iran was not as overt, out of respect, fear, or just the perceived unpredictability of Donald Trump.
   The Trump administration withdrew from the Iran Nuclear Deal, worked on re-establishing U.S. and international sanctions against the Mullahs, and in a move that would have won a Nobel Peace Prize for anyone else on the planet, they worked behind the scenes to join Arab nations and Israel together in what is known as the Abraham Accords. (The timing of the Hamas attack on Israel is widely believed to have been an effort to prevent Saudi Arabia from joining the Abraham Accords.)
   All of this is the past. A pattern of American acquiescence to the will of the Ayatollah emerged during the Obama years, including a "kissing of the ring" when two United States Navy riverine command boats were seized by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard. The projection of American strength returned under Trump, and the normalization of relations between Israel and Arab nations like the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco, Egypt, and Jordan brought the first realistic chance of peace in the Middle East. Now is the present, and we have the Biden Administration, a.k.a. Obama's third term.
   Since January 20th, 2021, Joe Biden has been on a mission to undo everything Donald Trump did. That includes getting Iran to enter an agreement similar to Obama's deal with them. Tehran, however, sensing Biden's politically motivated desperation, refused to even meet with representatives of the U.S. directly. After two meetings on the topic, where other nations negotiated on behalf of the Biden administration, it became clear that Iran had no intention of ever giving Biden anything. (Biden did manage to give Iran $6 billion to secure the release of 5 Americans who were being held by the Islamic theocracy during this timeframe. A move that had even some Democrats angered as it sent the message that this government is willing to pay if citizens are taken prisoner.)    
   On September 16th, 2022, a 22-year-old woman, Mahsa Amini, died in the detention of Iran's Morality Police. They had beaten and detained for an alleged transgression of the women's dress codes before her death (failure to wear her hijab correctly). This event set off widespread pro-women's rights and pro-democracy protests within Iran. These protests, in many cases, were also calling for the end of Iran's theocratic regime. Things are different this time; the Islamic Revolutionary Guard has engaged in their customary brutal tactics but, to this point, has been unable to end the protests. The harder they push, the stronger the resolve of the Iranian people has become. The Biden administration has barely commented on the situation, and the mainstream legacy media has stopped reporting on it. The newsroom editors act as if this is not a worthy story to share. Still, it seems far more likely that if the American people were to know the full extent to which the Ayatollah has gone to crush his people, they would be outraged at the continued Barbery and would, at the very least, demand the Biden administration do something in support of the oppressed people of Iran.     
   On October 7th, 2023, the most brutal attack on the Jewish people since the holocaust was carried out by Hamas. Israel had withdrawn from Gaza back in 2005. The people of Gaza elected Hamas to be their elected government in 2006. A ceasefire between the people of Gaza and Israel had been in effect since that 2005 withdrawal, with some skirmishes along the border fence that Hamas had orchestrated. After the inhuman actions of the Hamas terrorists on October 7th, Israel declared war on Hamas. At first, Biden said all the right things. Unquestioned support for our alley Israel, which looked suspiciously like Biden thought it would be a great excuse to divert more tax dollars to Ukraine while we were sending aid to Israel, but Biden's support quickly started to wane after both the Republicans refused to sign a blank check for Biden's pet projects tied to aid for Israel and the far-left activists started chanting, "from the river to the sea" in American cities, on college campuses and even in front of the White House.
   Naturally, no one was surprised when multiple members of "The Squad" came out in support of Hamas. Rashida Tlaib calls herself a Palestinian American; Ilhan Omar has, on numerous occasions, made antisemitic comments publicly; and don't get me started on the things that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is willing to say. (This matters in the context of my question because Hamas is a proxy for Iran against Israel. Support of these terrorists is support of Iran in the region.) But others in the Democratic party have been protective of Iran and their proxies in ways that work against American interests and often against the platforms that the Democratic party claims to represent.
   Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Sen. Cardin has recently made it clear that his committee will not be moving forward with the MAHSA Act, named after the aforementioned victim of Iranian violence against women, Mahsa Amini. The MAHSA Act was passed in the House overwhelmingly back in September 2023. It would impose sanctions on the Supreme Leader of Iran and the President of Iran and their respective offices for human rights abuses and support for terrorism. It calls out the actions of the Iranian security forces during their violent crackdown. Actions named specifically include mass arrests, well-documented beating of protestors, throttling of the internet and telecommunications services, and shooting protestors with live ammunition. Iranian security forces have reportedly killed hundreds of protestors and other civilians, including women and children. Why kill the bill?
   This may seem like a lot of different, barely - if at all - related events. But when seen together, it shows a long-running pattern by members of America's political left elevating Iran's status in the Middle East at the expense of the U.S. and our allies. I have heard some on the left suggest that this is an effort to get the U.S. out of politics in the region altogether. The idea being that a stronger Iran would serve as a counterbalance to Saudi Arabia and Israel, negating the need for U.S. influence in that part of the world. If true, that plan completely ignores the intentions of the Iranian regime and the hopes of Russia and China to further extend their influence in the natural resource-rich region. It is, at best, an incredibly naive and short-sighted idea. However, suppose the "counterbalance" idea is not the motivation. In that case, we really need to get to the bottom of why so many Democrats, since Obama was first in the White House, are working harder for the Ayatollah than for the American people.
   This question becomes even more critical now, with three recent events. Iran has moved a warship into the Red Sea, seemingly as a response to the U.S. military destroying three boats belonging to the Iran-backed Houthis. An Iranian with jihad terrorist ties was caught after he had illegally entered the U.S. near Niagara Falls, New York. And a pair of explosions killed nearly 100 people at a ceremony in Iran to commemorate the fourth anniversary of the death of General Qassem Soleimani, where the Iranian government has called it terrorism, blamed both Israel and the U.S. and promised "swift justice" for the perpetrators. If not handled properly, America and its allies may find themselves in a situation that never had to be. So, I'll ask again. Is there more to Democrat support of Iranian Theocracy than bad policy?
]]>Thu, 14 Dec 2023 08:00:00 GMThttp://tappintothetruth.com/blog/americans-who-need-medication-cant-afford-bidens-prescriptionBy Tim Tapp 


If the government wants you to buy something, it will try to bribe you into getting it using the tax system. These days, Washington bureaucrats desperately want you to buy an electric vehicle, and so they offer up to $7,500 in tax credits. State governments may pile on even more tax breaks (in California, it is another $7,500) to get you to do what they want. Buy a product you don't want to purchase for whatever reason (the cost, the lack of benefits, etc.). 


On the other hand, when the government doesn't want you to have something (for your own good, of course), it increases taxes on that product to dissuade you from buying it. That's why a pack of cigarettes costs so much. The District of Columbia's government recently calculated that taxes comprise 80 percent of the total wholesale cost of a pack of cigarettes.


That may make sense to you when it comes to cigarettes. Giving up smoking is better for your health, and you really should consider it if you are a smoker. (But that really should be your choice.) But now imagine that the government applied the same approach to important products like automobiles. It could place a tax that would effectively double the cost of a gasoline-powered car. The cost for a simple Honda Civic could change from about $25,000 to $50,000 overnight. Drivers wouldn't sit still for it. 


So why is the government considering jacking up prices on another crucial product, one that is vital to so many people's health: prescription drugs? Ironically, Washington may increase prices while lawmakers and the administration are claiming they want to make prescription drugs more affordable. The plan to make prescription drugs "more affordable" is a story that is so mixed up that it could only have been written in Washington, D.C. 


When the Biden administration enacted the ridiculously mistitled "Inflation Reduction Act'' in 2022, it actually ended up increasing inflation, as anyone who has shopped for anything in the last two years knows. It also included a provision that would impose a 95% excise tax on prescription drugs sold by companies that refuse to allow the government to set the price of that drug.


The bureaucrats call this "price negotiation," and they are careful to avoid more accurate terms like "price-fixing." But, of course, the federal government has all the power in this exchange. In the event that a drug manufacturer decides to charge more than the federal government is willing to pay for a drug, the IRS (and remember that the Biden administration is adding thousands of IRS agents to help it enforce its will) would collect the new tax. The additional cost would, as always, be passed along to consumers.


The problem is that this wouldn't make drugs more affordable. It would make them more scarce. (Scarcity equals higher prices.) It would also reduce future development, so the medicines of tomorrow might never be formulated. The tax would also limit the drugs available to seniors in Medicare Part D since the taxed drugs would only be available through the manufacturer – with the 95% tax added.


This taxing plan is taking us far away from effective health care policy. Instead of setting prices, the federal government should empower consumers through free market competition. Free markets are working, and over the decades, they have encouraged companies to develop and deliver effective new medications that help patients.


"Thirty-six percent of all NMEs (that is, 'new molecular entities' or 'new drugs') were developed in the United States," a federal report a few years ago found. "The United Kingdom was the next largest source of NME development (10.4%). Examination of drugs with patents (n = 288) revealed that 126 (43.7%) of the NMEs had their earliest patent filed by inventors in the United States." So roughly three times as many new drugs were developed in the U.S. as in England, the next largest country. 


That is largely because the U.S. does not fix prices, and price signals encourage drug makers to experiment and invent. This is precisely the sort of inventiveness that would dry up if free markets went away. 


The federal government tells us it wants to make drugs affordable and available to seniors. However, Biden's IRA is doing the opposite. We simply can't afford it.
]]>Thu, 21 Sep 2023 00:43:05 GMThttp://tappintothetruth.com/blog/a-girl-known-as-stBy Tim Tapp

​   I have waited a few days to put my thoughts down on this news story because of how raw my feelings are on the matter. However, it does not appear that my emotions are lessening, and if I were to wait until they did ..., well, I don't think my feelings are going to change. (This is based on the fact that I still get irate when the topic of Charlie Gard or Alfie Evans comes up. I periodically mention Charlie Gard as the best example of why single-payer medicine, aka socialized medicine, is undesirable for a free people and fails to be about health care.)
   On September 12th, 2023, a young woman from the United Kingdom died. Whenever a nineteen-year-old dies, it is a tragedy, but sometimes, the circumstances around that death make that tragedy worse. Due to a legal battle, we do not yet know this young woman's name. We only know her as ST. Her story has much in common with that of Charlie Gard, with one major exception: she was nineteen and coherent even as a court sided with the National Health Service and decided that ST could not make decisions for herself.
   ST was suffering from a rare genetic mitochondrial disease that is progressively degenerative, much like the disorder that took the life of Charlie Gard. She had spent a year in an ICU, dependent on a ventilator and a feeding tube, and required regular dialysis. Clearly, her body was succumbing to the disorder. However, her mind was still strong. Two psychiatrists that the hospital assigned to assess ST ruled that she was free from mental health issues and had the mental capacity to decide for herself. That assessment did not hold sway with the National Health Service Trust doctors, who said that ST was "actively dying" and there was nothing left to do but transition to end-of-life care.
   This matters because ST - attested by her family - was a committed Christian. And as such, she firmly believed that life is the most precious gift we have from God. ST believed that she should be free to pursue experimental options regardless of the odds because she chose to cling to hope. Hope that she had because of her faith. Hope that she had because she believed both in miracles and that "God's Will" would be done regardless of the outcome. But that wasn't good enough for the National Health Service Trust doctors.
   ST had hoped to travel to Canada and participate in medical trials for nucleotide therapy to help her survive. The NHS went to court to prevent ST from seeking care outside of their purview and to prevent her - or her family - from making many of the details of the case public, which is why we only know her as ST. The NHS claimed that ST was not capable of making this decision for herself based on the fact that she would not accept the "facts" that they had decreed. "She was dying! Nothing to be done. Shut up and die quietly because we say so." 
   On August 25th, 2023, Justice Jennifer Roberts of the High Court of England and Wales ruled that ST "lacked the capacity" to instruct her lawyers and said that the Protective Court should decide on her best interests. Roberts believes that ST was unable to make a decision for herself about her medical treatment, including the proposed move to palliative care, because she "does not believe the information she has been given by her doctors." Roberts sided with the NHS's authority over ST despite the determinations of not one but two psychiatrists who certified that ST was not suffering from mental health issues at the time and had the mental capacity to make choices for herself. 
   So, why would the Justice find on behalf of the NHS? It would appear that it must be one of two possibilities, if not a combination of both. Possibility one: in the court's view, no one has the right to challenge the power of the NHS over the "care" they choose to ration to you. Possibility two: the court sees the Christian faith as a mental health issue, thereby rendering ST mentally incompetent despite the determinations of the two psychiatrists who evaluated ST. Regardless, the natural human rights recognized by Western civilization for centuries are no longer acknowledged in the United Kingdom.
   Socialized medicine has always been packaged for the masses as if it should be a "human right." The problem with this utopian viewpoint is that it ignores several real-world facts. Looking past the limits on resources that may be available, the slowing of innovation in the field, and the best-case scenario of a modern indentured servitude for those working to provide health care for the moment, all decisions about the care that will be made available to you, will be made through the prism of budgetary and political concerns, not based on your well-being. And, like it or not, most people actively advocating for a single-payer system know full well the shortcomings of such a system. (That's why so many elected officials exempted themselves when they passed ObamaCare.) Those who support the move toward socialized medicine understand that it is a powerful tool for controlling the masses.
   The parents of Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans were denied their parental rights in the name of the authority of the NHS. ST was denied her right to believe in a higher power that can create miracles but, more importantly, offers hope beyond what any government entity can. And this was all done in the name of control. The political left must destroy the family and isolate people of faith. People of faith and people who believe in strong family bonds will never entrust their well-being or future to the State.
   Globalists, collectivists, socialists, or communists all require one hundred percent loyalty to the State. There can be no higher authority than the government. There can be no bond that might challenge or conflict with the will of the "community." To allow room for anyone to think, even for just a moment, that there may be things more important than their policies, that there may be authorities higher than theirs over you, is to invite overthrow. Compliance is required and must be ensured. If that means that children must die, then so be it. We are dealing with a political ideology that has as a primary tenant that "the ends justify the means."
   ST was most likely going to die an early death. (She had already outlived the projections of the NHS doctors treating her, so there is no certainty what a new treatment would have meant for her. And, while no person should be treated as a lab rat, the data collected from a willing trial participant could mean life or death for the next patient with this disorder.) But, ST's right to battle for her life was taken from her by state-assigned "experts." Justice Jennifer Roberts of the High Court of England and Wales used ST's Christian faith as an excuse to claim a mental defect where none existed. (Never forget, this is the true face of socialism.)
   I hope that ST's family wins their continuing court battle so that more details of this travesty can be made public and the "powers that be" can not hide their motivations. I also hope they win because someday, I hope to say the name of this young woman who bravely faced this debilitating disorder while fighting the State for fundamental rights for herself (and others) and never turning away from her faith. She deserves to be known.

]]>Wed, 23 Aug 2023 14:10:15 GMThttp://tappintothetruth.com/blog/the-rebranding-of-esg   Since 2006, a non-profit network known as B Lab has been growing internationally in Australia, East Africa, mainland Europe, and North and South America. B Lab claims to be working toward "transforming the global economy to benefit all people, communities, and the planet." Sound familiar? Their stated goals should sound like an overplayed pop song. The B Lab UK website says they seek to effect economic systems change to support their collective vision of an inclusive, equitable, and what they call a "regenerative" economy. Their purpose is to redefine "success in business" by building a community of engaged businesses. The goal is to shift the "global economy from a system that profits few to one that benefits all: advancing a new model that moves from concentrating wealth and power to ensuring equity, from extraction to generation, and from prioritizing individualism to embracing interdependence."
   Over the course of the last decade-plus, we have seen the efforts of conservative voices sounding the alarm about ESG scoring and how it was being used to pressure private businesses to ignore their fiduciary responsibilities in the name of the "woke" agenda. Companies like BlackRock used environmental, social, and governance scoring standards to elevate a company's "attractiveness" in what is often referred to in their circles as "ethical investing." They also used their proxy votes, gained by acquiring a sizable stake in publicly traded companies, to change broad membership to manipulate the focus of a company away from the "bottom line" to the change that the global political left is pushing. The idea has always been that private business, rather than government regulation, would make the changes look like a normal social evolution rather than elitist control of the masses. 
   Those efforts to raise awareness of ESG in action, along with missteps like Bud Light and Target, have finally started affecting the business world. We have begun to see States refuse to use BlackRock and other companies with similar agendas to invest state-funded pension funds. We have watched as sizable companies have started moving away from the DEI programs they had in place. DEI programs are designed to improve ESG scores while moving hiring practices away from merit-based decisions to create a higher level of "representation" of minority groups. The pushback against what may have begun as a well-meaning idea (however, I doubt it) but ended up in practice being a tool of anti-white, and in some cases anti-Asian, racism and a means to attack capitalism has gained enough traction to make the ESG catchphrase a less attractive acronym to see on your company websites and investment prospectus.
   The global political left has worked too long and hard to create the ESG framework, so they are not about to let it go. The political left is nothing if not predictable. They have been using the same playbook for centuries now. They go down the checklist until they find something they believe will work and then run with it until either they win, or the freedom-loving people of the world catch on, and they are forced to change tactics again. Sometimes, it is a matter of employing more than one tactic simultaneously. Demonize the other side. (Okay, that one is in effect.) Rebrand the current framework, hoping the new name will deceive you into believing it is something different. (They think we are all stupid.)
   That brings us back to the B Corp. It is a way to promote all of the same "virtue signaling" of a high ESG score without any of the negative baggage of the now-becoming "out of favor" acronym. Watch as this (hard to call something that has been around since 2006 new) term is pushed as something all businesses should seek to be certified. B Corp certifications will become investment criteria for the BlackRocks of the investment world and will be embraced by the "Green New Deal" crowd. And why shouldn't it be? After all, it is just a different name for the same old song and dance.]]>Wed, 16 Aug 2023 18:58:23 GMThttp://tappintothetruth.com/blog/legal-standing-meaningful-legal-principle-or-convenient-tool-for-activist-judges  Before a lawsuit is allowed to proceed in the United States, there is a question that must be answered to the satisfaction of the presiding judge. "Does the party seeking judicial relief have standing?" Okay, so what is "Legal Standing," and how is it determined? The definition is simple enough, but determining who meets that bar is often a matter of judgment of the judge or judges hearing the case.
   Standing is the legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To have Standing, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action. The judge must first decide if the person or group that has filed the complaint/challenge has been "sufficiently affected," which can sometimes be a simple matter - for example, I hit you with my car while I was driving, you have been "sufficiently affected" by that action - but then on other occasions, it's not as simple - for example; You are a taxpayer living in Florida, and the U.S. Congress raises taxes to pay for a program that will only operate in the Pacific Northwest, the court is likely to find that you are not "sufficiently affected" to sue to stop Congress from raising your taxes as all taxpayers are subject to the authority of Congress as they are operating within their Constitutional responsibilities. If the court rules that you are "sufficiently affected," then you are one step closer but still do not have standing yet. 
   Next, the court must decide if it is appropriate to intervene in the matter at hand. Is there clear, Constitutional law or legal case precedent that should be upheld and would end the dispute hand? Or, is the question outside the judicial branch's or government's preview altogether? Once both of the questions of "sufficiently affected" and "can be resolved by legal action" have been answered, the case may move forward.
   Standing is a Constitutional principle designed to prevent government overreach and protect individual rights. However, given the nature of determining the question of Standing, an effort to apply the principle in a consistent manner, requirements for Standing have been created in case law.


   Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife established three requirements for Article III standing:      
1.) Injury in fact, meaning an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. 
2.)A causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, meaning that the injury can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court.
3.) A likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, meaning the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative.


Warth v. Seldin found that in deciding Standing, a court must consider the allegations of fact contained in that person or group's declaration and other affidavits supporting that assertion of Standing. And when addressing a motion to dismiss due to lack of Standing, the court must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint and must construe the complaint in favor of the party claiming standing.


Over time, other cases have added more requirements via precedent, like  Associated General Contractors of California v. Coalition for Economic Equity found that when an individual seeks to avail themself of the federal courts to determine the validity of a legislative action, they must show that there "is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury." And that this requirement is necessary to ensure that "federal courts reserve their judicial power for 'concrete legal issues, presented in actual cases, not abstractions." Someone seeking injunctive or declaratory relief "must show a very significant possibility of future harm to have standing to bring suit." via Nelsen v. King County.


   So, as you can see, precedents have established cover for judges to use their judgment - and personal prejudices - rather than well-established law in making determinations about Legal Standing. This leads us back to the question asked in the title of this piece. Has "Legal Standing" transitioned from a Constitutional principle to limit governmental power to become a tool for activist judges who are no longer content with making rulings based on law? Two recent cases illustrate the need for the American people to ask this question.


   On August 14th, 2023, District Court Judge Kathy Seeley ruled in favor of sixteen young climate activists in a case dealing with the state's fossil fuel permits. Judge Seeley ruled that the state's approval process for fossil fuel permits violates Montana's state constitution because it does not consider the effects of carbon emissions. The plaintiffs, aged five to 22, sued the state, claiming Montana's fossil fuel policies contribute to climate change. Their lawsuit cited a 1972 clause in Montana's Constitution: "the state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations." Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen is planning to appeal the decision and will most likely win that appeal due largely to the question of Standing for the young activists who brought forth this case.
   It is clear from Judge Seeley's writing, "Montana's emissions and climate change have been proven to be a substantial factor in causing climate impacts to Montana's environment," and "Plaintiffs have proven that as children and youth, they are disproportionately harmed by fossil fuel pollution and climate impacts." that the judge did not apply law to the ruling but rather their own pro-climate change belief. Without a personal bias on the question before the judge, how does Seeley justify allowing Standing to these young people? Even if you buy into the idea that being young somehow makes you disproportionately impacted by the harms of "climate change," there is still the question of "what is the likelihood that a favorable decision will fix the injury." How does making Montana consider climate change when deciding whether to approve fossil fuel projects such as power plants protect these young people when China, India, and multiple African nations continue to use fossil fuel at ever-increasing levels? Plus, what if, after considering climate change, Montana decides that the good of such a project outweighs the potential harm? Based on requirement three established in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife and buying into the general dogma of the Climate Change religion, Standing should not have been granted; the week-long trial should have never happened.
   
Also on August 14th, 2023, U.S. District Judge Thomas L. Ludington of the Eastern District of Michigan issued an 18-page order dismissing a case challenging Joe Biden's latest version of a student debt bailout., concluding that the Cato Institute and Mackinac Center for Public Policy lacked the Standing to challenge the bailout. This is after the Supreme Court smacked down the Biden administration over their earlier effort at a bailout for student debt borrowers. 
   The Cato Institute and Mackinac Center for Public Policy's suit claimed that the administration violated federal law by failing to produce the forgiveness policy through the traditional rulemaking process and offering the public the opportunity to comment. (Which is accurate and, if you will recall, was the same grounds that Donald Trump's efforts to end DACA were overturned.) The groups also claimed the policy would harm their recruitment efforts, which is how the groups attempted to establish their Standing. If the filing makes it clear to the court that this policy does harm recruiting for these groups and that addressing the clear violation of the Administrative Procedure Act would correct that harm, then all of the criteria for Standing have been met. So why did Judge Ludington deny Standing? Reading through his 18-page order, at the bottom of page two, Ludington simply stated that "the Plaintiffs, in this case, cannot show such concrete particularized injury and, even if they could, Plaintiffs cannot show causation." No explanation as to why he determined this to be true, just a statement that it is the case. Did the original filing fail to prove the harm to recruiting or that a favorable ruling would correct the issue? Or did Judge Ludington not want to assist conservatives in stopping Joe Biden's attempts to bribe voters going into election season? Either way, it is an awfully convenient excuse not to address the obvious violation of the Administrative Procedure Act committed by the Biden administration. (Just as an FYI, Sheng Li, an attorney at the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which is representing the conservative groups in the lawsuit, said, "We disagree with the court's conclusion regarding legal Standing and are reviewing our legal options.")


   Given that we are now living in a time where it appears that the Department of Justice has been weaponized to attack political opposition and protect those in power, it feels vital that we restore integrity to all aspects of the judiciary system from the front line of law enforcement to each member of the highest court in the land. Officers and Agents can not behave as if they are above the law; attorneys and judges can not act as if they can re-write the law; personal politics can not be allowed to interfere with the execution of assigned duties. And most importantly, the Constitution must be recognized as the supreme law of the land, not just something to work around in order to get what you want. Otherwise, all is lost. Can we start by agreeing on defining who does and who does not have Standing?
]]>Wed, 30 Nov 2022 08:00:00 GMThttp://tappintothetruth.com/blog/when-one-groups-desires-conflict-with-another-groups-rightsBy Tim Tapp

​   In case you were under a rock or hanging out in a cave, the U.S. Senate passed a bill named the Respect for Marriage Act on November 29th, 2022. This bill, which will most likely easily pass in the lame-duck House session and then make it to Joe Biden's desk before December 9th, is said to provide federal protections for same-sex marriages as it repeals the Defense of Marriage Act. (The Clinton era law which legally defined marriage as between one man and one woman and permitted states not to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.) The bill, as currently written, would not force states to allow same-sex couples to marry under the Supreme Court's 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision. It would, however, make it so that any "person acting under color of State law" must fully recognize marriage between two people in another state and that the federal government must recognize marriages if they were valid in the state where the marriage occurred. In simpler words, if Obergefell should someday be overturned and some states then decided to no longer recognize same-sex marriage, those states would still be required to recognize same-sex marriages from states that do recognize them. (The people of California get to decide for the people of Alabama.)
   Democrats and activists have been saying the bill is necessary in an act of political theater as they were desperate to have any issue other than the economy going into the midterm elections. They jumped into full-blown fear-mongering that the Republicans are "coming for the gays" after the release of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. In his concurrence, Thomas stated that the Court "should reconsider" its decisions in Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges (which established a "right" to contraception, privacy in the bedroom, and same-sex marriage, respectively) on the same grounds as the Dobbs decision. Plainly put, the Constitution does not give the federal government any power to regulate any of these issues, and it is clearly stated in the Tenth Amendment that any authority not delegated to the federal government falls to the States and the people.
   Do LGBTQ activists have reason to worry about the fate of same-sex marriage? Well ... sort of, but not really. Let me start by expressing my personal view on the issue, which many conservatives do not like, but it is my thoughts, so you are welcome to disagree. I am opposed to the Obergefell decision for the same reason Justice Thomas cites in his concurrence on the Dobbs case. It is a State's rights issue. The federal government has no jurisdiction to interfere. I am, on the other hand, not opposed to same-sex marriage. My reasoning being that we are not actually discussing marriage. We are talking about government-recognized civil unions. Call that marriage if you wish, call it a civil union, or call it sunshine on a stick. It doesn't matter what you call it; it remains government recognized civil union. (As such, states have every right to define what constitutes these unions.) True marriage is a spiritual bond that no government entity has authority over.
   Back to the question of the fate of same-sex marriage, it is clear from the way the so-called Respect for Marriage Act is written that the bill's authors did recognize the State's rights issue to some extent. Remember, the bill does not force states to allow same-sex couples to marry. I would point out here that a SCOTUS that would overturn Obergefell would most likely overturn Respect for Marriage on the very same grounds; it is unconstitutional. (This is also true of the Defense of Marriage Act and for the same reasons.) However, the Democrat lawmakers know, that if made law, Respect for Marriage would add an extra legal buffer between overturning Obergefell and returning the issue back to the states. (It is not likely that both would be overturned simultaneously.) Respect for Marriage buys the federal government time to cling to extra-constitutional power and allows the Democrats to claim that they were "fighting" for the LGBTQ community the whole time. (Time that they would hope would allow for a change in the make-up of the court back in favor of leftist activists.) 
   Political manipulation at its best. The Democrats know that it is unconstitutional to start. They get to play the hero for a constituent group. They get to cast their political adversaries as villains, and they know that most of those "elected" adversaries either lack the stones for the fight (because someone will call them names) or, like the continued assault on the constitutional limits that are meant to constrain the federal government. They also know that it would take years to mount a serious challenge to the law, and they use that time as part of the defense of the law. They will argue about who even has "standing" to challenge the law. But there is more going on with Respect for Marriage making it unconstitutional than just the State's rights issue. 
   Religious liberty, a Constitutionally protected right as defined in the First Amendment, is stripped from individuals in this bill. The bill offers some low-level protection to you when you are at church, synagogue, or mosque but none to individuals, organizations, or other religious entities outside of church. You are no longer allowed to live your faith. (If you are a baker and do not wish to make a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding, too bad, do it or Colorado can fine you and take your business license. If you run a Christian adoption agency and believe you should only place children in homes where the parents are a married man and woman, well, you're a bigot and New York should shut you down.) Senators Marco Rubio, James Langford, and Mike Lee all offered amendments to the bill that would have addressed the religious liberty concerns, but all were voted down. You wouldn't be wrong to question why none of these amendments could be added to the bill if your true intent is to protect someone's "rights" since congress can not (constitutionally) prioritize one person's rights over another person's rights. 
   So what is the intent? I have already alluded to multiple reasons that the American political left would want to make the so-called Respect for Marriage Act law, but in the end, at least for a good number of the political players in this fiasco, it boils down to control. Our system was intentionally built to be adversarial and require debate, discussion, and agreement before advancing a bill to its next step of becoming law. This process is often criticized as being inefficient, but that too is part of the point. Without safeguards and stop gaps, it would be far too easy to use any "emergency" as an excuse to remove individual liberties from people. The elected could work their manipulatory magic on the populace to convince them to vote away their freedoms in the name of some sort of protection or safety. 
   Part of that manipulation requires the conditioning of the American people. Many Americans have already succumbed to conditioning. They have surrendered their freedom of expression to the woke mob to avoid being canceled. They have abandoned their bodily autonomy to travel freely or avoid losing their jobs. A once fiercely independent and liberty-loving people have, in large numbers, lost their value of faith and apparently their ability to think critically.
   For the proponents of the Respect for Marriage Act, when this bill becomes law, it is another opportunity to convince Americans that Congress has no limits on what it can regulate, even in your personal life. It conditions less-than-well-educated Americans into thinking that passing a law can trump the Constitution. It is one more chance to make people believe that Congress can strip people of their rights in the name of "equity." (Despite that word not meaning what they want it to mean.) Control through conditioning, manipulation, and no shortage of gaslighting.
   Do LGBTQ activists have reason to worry about the fate of same-sex marriage? If the system worked as it should and the issue got in front of the SCOTUS, both Obergefell and Respect for Marriage would be struck down. You might be tempted to say that gives the activists good reason to worry, but that ignores a lot of facts on the ground. Let's start with the fact that there are currently no court cases "in the pipeline" that would possibly bring Obergefell before the High Court. And while that could change, it is important to remember that even when the system is working as it should, there are many legitimate reasons that such a case may not get before the SCOTUS. Let's continue with the fact that the current slate of justices are not likely to overturn Obergefell as they said precisely that in the Dobbs majority opinion, it was only Justice Thomas who said the court should revisit those other cases. And let's follow that up with the fact that even if the SCOTUS did finally, at a point in the future, send the matter back to the states, there is minimal political will at the state level to undo the current status quo. Even the most Christian Conservative of states would have a difficult time changing the present policies. At best, some will want to change the terminology back to civil unions, but I have already explained why that is a distinction without a difference. So no, there is no reason for LGBTQ folks to be worried. I would remind them that being Pro-Constitution is not being anti-LGBTQ, being Pro-State's Rights is not being anti-same-sex marriage, and believing Chuck Schumer when he tells them that they need him and the Democrats to protect them is unwise at best.
   But there are groups of Americans who should be worried about the Respect for Marriage Act. Religious Americans who believe, as a matter of faith, that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. (This includes more than just the Christians likely to be the primary targets of punishment from this legislation.) People who believe that they should not be compelled by popular culture or government mandate to participate in activities that conflict with their deeply held personal beliefs should be outraged by the bill because their liberties are being infringed upon. In truth, all Americans should be enraged because no American should ever be told by our government to just sit down, shut up, and do what we tell you to do. ]]>Tue, 23 Aug 2022 07:00:00 GMThttp://tappintothetruth.com/blog/did-we-just-have-an-archduke-ferdinand-momentBy Tim Tapp

​​   If you know anything about history, you have seen that certain patterns tend to repeat. As humans continue to seek power over others, acquire wealth for themselves, and demonstrate the arrogance of believing that the reason those that came before, who had tried the same things, failed only because those people had not tried doing it the way that they are doing it; they ignore the lessons of the past or they never learned that history. This is where the adage "Those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it" originated.
   If you know anything about world history, Archduke Franz Ferdinand is a name that will undoubtedly ring a bell. The assassination of Ferdinand - due to the perceived threat to Serbian independence should the Archduke ascend to the Austrian throne - set into motion the events that led to WWI. Historians and scholars have often mused that - from the outside - this was a regional matter that would have led to a regional war with little impact on the world outside of their alleys and neighbors. However, when Austria declared war on Serbia, largely due to "encouragement" from Kaiser Wilhelm II, who promised nearly unlimited aid from Germany, it brought a nation into the fray whose leader was determined to prove its economic and military power. The Kaiser wanted to prove to the world the power of Germany, but more than anything, he wanted to prove to the German people that he was a "great leader." In his quest for legacy, he got overly aggressive, even seeking to convince Mexico to attack the United States.
   On August 21st, 2022, a car bomb exploded outside of Moscow. Inside that car was a young lady that most Americans have probably never heard of, Daria Dugina, who died as a result of this assassination attempt. Daria was the daughter of Alexander Dugin, known as "Putin's Philosopher," among other monikers. Dugin is a dangerous Russian political philosopher, analyst, and strategist who believes that Russia should work to bring about Armageddon to elevate Russia to the world prominence that he is convinced Russia deserves. Please don't take my word for it; read his book, The Fourth Political Theory, and see for yourself. 
   This belief in Russian world dominance is not the most dangerous thing about Dugin. The fact that he has the ear of Vladimir Putin to the extent that many Russians refer to Dugan as a modern Rasputin significantly elevates how dangerous he could be to the world. But I fear his ever-growing influence on people worldwide, even in America, makes him most dangerous. Many hear Dugan's talk of "Traditionalism" and mistake it for conservativism. Dugan's views can sound alluring to many who do not like the path that the so-called "progressives" have us on, but it is essential to remember that Dugan thinks that the Nazi's only flaw was that they did not go far enough. This is somehow overlooked by many of his followers, but it is the primary alarm bell that should persuade people to look elsewhere for a thought leader. Dugan is the ultranationalist fascist the American political left accuses conservatives of being.
   It is generally thought that Alexander Dugin was the target of the assassination attempt. (Although, it is entirely possible that Daria Dugina may have been targeted as well - Dugina being her "father's daughter" as an outspoken proponent of the same views as her father.) Dugin and Dugina were traveling in the same car until a last-minute change with Dugan moving to a different vehicle. The official response from the Russian government blames Ukraine and the United States for this attack. (Which doesn't seem very likely, but it serves the propaganda needs of the Kremlin better than admitting that there may be factions within Russia that see Dugan as a threat to Russia's long-term well-being. In fact, if I were to don my tinfoil hat for just a moment, I could even see a scenario where Dugan was behind the bombing, making his daughter a martyr for his cause while continuing to nudge Putin in the direction of escalation of brutality in the war with Ukraine trying to force other nations to actively join the conflict. But like I said, that is tinfoil hat territory.) 
   Regardless of whom is responsible for the car bombing, the stage has been set for a ratcheting up of hostilities in the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. The current food shortages, along with still-rising energy prices resulting from that "regional war" are creating civil unrest throughout Europe. A Russian leader looking to create a legacy of his own, much like Kaiser Wilhelm II in his day. Add on top of that a man in the White House who has been wrong on every foreign policy he has endorsed or (now) implemented during his fifty-plus years in Washington D.C., and the danger of things spiraling out of control and dominos falling one by one is perhaps at highest since 1914.
   Part of the reason why the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand led to WWI was that no one saw the dominos waiting to fall. If world leaders of the time had been more mindful of what would happen next, the conflict could have been contained. If we see the potential escalation in advance and demand that our "leaders" act accordingly, then maybe we can avoid dragging the world into yet another "regional" war. Let's learn from our past before we repeat it.]]>Fri, 24 Jun 2022 07:00:00 GMThttp://tappintothetruth.com/blog/is-xavier-becerra-the-department-of-health-and-human-services-planning-to-break-the-lawBy Tim Tapp

​   At a formal press conference, Xavier Becerra revealed that he and other members of the Biden administration are looking to find ways to work around the recent SCOTUS ruling in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case. Regarding the Court's decision, which ended Roe v. Wade, Becerra called the result "despicable" and promised to expand abortion "services." Becerra was intentionally vague, maybe to prevent people from pushing back, but he said that HHS "is keeping all options on the table” and insisted the HHS “has been preparing for this for some time.” He did stop short of saying the department would participate in mailing abortion pills to states where the procedure is outlawed but hinted that they might when he told reporters to “stay tuned” on that front.
   U.S. law prohibits federal dollars from directly funding abortion. This has been "worked around" through the use of accounting tricks to justify sending federal tax-payer dollars to Planned Parenthood, claiming that "those dollars" aren't the ones being used to perform the abortions. But in truth, supporting any part of Planned Parenthood's activities endorses all of their activities. Given what Becerra seems to be hinting at, it would be much harder to use some trick as cover for flouting the Hyde Amendment, the specific provision preventing federal spending on abortion. At the Aspen Ideas Summit, Becerra said HHS might participate in helping transport women who want abortions out of states with prohibition into those with more permissive laws. Asked if that would be consistent with U.S. law, Becerra grinned and replied, “talk to me later.” So, does this mean that he believes this will be "made" legal by a Democratic-controlled federal government? Or perhaps he believes that it is better to ask for forgiveness than permission, especially since recent history would suggest that he would not face any real consequences for breaking the law? 
   No matter what Becerra (or any other member of the Biden administration) might be thinking, it is clear that either they do not understand what the Court said in Dobb's v. Jackson, or they are counting on you not understanding it. In either case, it should be alarming to all Americans (left-leaning or right-leaning) that the first instinct of these people when they do not get what they want they make plans to break the spirit of the law, if not the letter of the law. In this case, they wish to ignore the Court's decision and break/"find a work-around for" the Hyde Amendment to appease a small but vocal part of the leftist base of the Democrat party. (All in a desperate effort to have something to run on in the upcoming elections.) The fact that they expect us all to obey the laws they like but then do everything but personally oversee the planning of a "Night of Rage" when their "authority" is challenged (or better yet, placed in check) should tell you everything you need to know about their true intentions. 
   The Supreme Court did not say that abortions are banned. They said that abortion is not a federal issue. They said that Roe was an opinion that was not well reasoned or based on the Constitution (a view shared by Ruth Bader Ginsburg). SCOTUS ended nothing; they simply sent the matter back where it had always belonged... to the states. In doing so, they made it crystal clear that the federal government should not play any role in restricting or enabling abortions in any part of the country. The Court's decision would also serve to keep any effort by the federal government to pass a law to codify abortion from standing. A bill signed into law that is in opposition to the finding of the Court is likely to be struck down if it is challenged and then comes before that same Court.
   No matter how you feel about the abortion issue, we should be able to agree that we can not sit back and allow the government to break the law. Xavier Becerra has said that he and the HHS are planning to do precisely that, break the law. The Executive branch of the federal government is charged with executing the law, not ignoring the ones they don't like, and not breaking it when they think it might get them more votes. We must watch all of the current administration and hold them accountable as appropriate.]]>Mon, 24 Jan 2022 08:00:00 GMThttp://tappintothetruth.com/blog/is-the-us-senate-the-most-anti-democratic-institutionby Tim Tapp

  On January 18th, 2022, Stephen Colbert - speaking with Sen. Elizabeth Warren - was venting his frustration with Sen. Kyrsten Sinema and Sen. Joe Manchin. Colbert was angered that these two Democrat Senators voted with the Senate Republicans to protect the procedural "speed bump" known as the filibuster. (For general information purposes only: the filibuster requires that for non-financial bills to pass the Senate (should the filibuster be invoked), 60 "yes" votes, not the simple majority of 51 votes, are needed.) The filibuster rule was created to force the Senate to reach a "truer" consensus that would represent something more than the will of a single political party. It is also intended to help prevent knee-jerk reactionary legislation from moving quickly through Congress without debate and an opportunity to consider the possible consequences of that legislation. Plus, it has the added bonus of protecting minority voices who stand against the bill. Colbert, like a lot of Democrat officeholders, wanted the filibuster out of their way as they looked to pass a bill to set national standards on all elections that they are very deceptively calling a "voter's rights" bill. A rule change to remove the filibuster was needed to pass the voting bill due to total opposition from the Republicans in the Senate. A 50/50 split (not that I believe all 50 Democrats support this nationalization of elections anyway) with a tie-breaker vote from Kamala Harris would not be enough for the Democrats to get their way. So, in his shared leftist frustration, Colbert called for getting rid of the Senate. Putting aside for the moment that even if this bill passed the Senate and were signed by the cognitive decline patient currently residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (having already passed the Democrat-dominated House), the new law would still face substantial judicial challenges. The U.S. Constitution has made clear that it is up to the states to administer their elections. But more on States and the Senate later. Two questions arise from Colbert's rant, which is certain to become a leftist talking point. "Is the Senate the most anti-democratic institution in our nation?" "Should the Senate be abolished?" 
   Let's start with the first question. Is the Senate the most anti-democratic institution in our federal government? I would make the case that the unelected bureaucracies would win that distinction, so I'm going to say no. The political left keeps whining about anti-democratic features of our government because direct democracy (also known as mob rule) is the easiest way to stir up the public's emotions and, through the masses, get their way. This is also why the United States does not have a democracy but a federated constitutional republic where the federal government is limited, state's rights and minority voices are protected, and safeguards are in place to avoid, or at the very least slow, tyrannical creep. 
   When the U.S. Constitution was written and then later ratified, the idea of a well-defined (and limited) role of each branch and those branches being "co-equal" was considered the simplest way to ensure that checks and balances would work to protect everyone. An extension of that idea was to separate the Legislative branch into two distinct entities with different objectives. Based on the model of the British Parliament with one big difference, the House of Representatives (like the House of Commons) was meant to be directly representative of the general population. The Senate, however, was designed to represent the interests of the states, to protect state's rights against overreach from the federal government. The Framers of the Constitution understood that each state had different needs and populations. They believed that it would be infinitely unfair for states with denser populations concentrated in a few larger cities to make decisions for states with a more rural existence without regard to the wishes of those states. (It would be a lot like taxation without representation if you will.) Not only would it be unfair, but it would also be a disincentive for potential future states to join the union. The U.S. was meant to be a federation of states that were different but agreed on the fundamental reasons for leaving the British Kingdom (mostly individual liberty). Balances between the will of majorities and the rights of minorities were always a focus of the Founders. Without protecting the minorities, there is no such thing as individual liberty. The point here is that the Senate was not created to be particularly "democratic." The first 125 years of the republic, Americans did not vote for Senators. State legislatures elected senators because they were selected to represent the state's interests. The people were electing the members of the House to represent them. It was not until the ratification of the 17th Amendment in April of 1913 that the selection of Senators changed to popular vote. (Many now point to this change as the first major blow against state's rights.) With this in mind, it is, at best, either historically ignorant or disingenuous to expect strict adherence to what Cobert or other leftists would label as "democratic" by any branch of the federal government. But rules designed to protect the minority are only an issue for the left as long as they are not the majority. 
   The second question is perhaps a little more challenging to answer. It becomes more of a matter of opinion. The left might say, "Yes! End the Senate." because they are not getting their way at the moment. (But to be fair, if the political left had their way, they would burn it all down. They are not big fans of the obstacle that the Constitution is for their power grabs.) Some on the right might say, "Yes, get rid of it because it no longer fills the role of protecting state's rights that it was designed to do." In contrast, others on the right might only want to keep it because it is the primary means that the Republicans can slow the so-called "progressives" radical agenda.  
   I would recommend we keep the Senate, but with a caveat. I would prefer a reset that focused Senators on representing the needs of their home states rather than the national party's agenda (no matter how it may affect their home state). If we need to repeal the 17th Amendment to make that happen, then so be it. If that reset is too much to ask for, then I can at least take some comfort in the fact that if someone like Colbert is upset, something is still working, even if it is working for the wrong reasons. ​

]]>