Red, blue differ on police issues
With the protests and rioting going on, we have two very different approaches to handling this: the Democrat approach vs. the Republican approach.
The Republican approach to the police issue is to honor, support and uphold the 99% of police and praise them for their thousands of selfless and heroic deeds done every single day to serve all the citizens of this country. When there is a "bad" cop who does something horrible or abusive, prosecute him to the full extent of the law.
The Democrat approach, we are seeing rather graphically now, is quite the opposite: They are implying that all police are abusive, they are withholding verbal support, and in fact, they are starting to defund them and even abolish their departments entirely. This approach is irrational and insane.
The rioting, looting and burning: The Democrat approach is to excuse and coddle the violent lawbreakers, and not prosecute them. They also will not protect the innocent business owners and innocent inner-city residents of their burning cities. The Republican approach is to vigorously protect the residents at all costs and to vigorously prosecute any and all lawbreakers.
Remember all of this when you cast your votes this November.
Court ruling just 'semantic nonsense'
"When the ordinary sense (of a word) makes good sense, seek no other sense lest you find nonsense." The Supreme Court has just embodied the "finding nonsense" portion of this saying. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on a list of characteristics. This list includes religion and several immutable (unchangeable) characteristics — race, age, disability, country of origin, sex. In the context of this list, the ordinary sense of "sex" is the biological distinction between male and female.
But now that the legal definition of sex means how one participates in sexual acts or how one identifies their own gender, does the Civil Rights Act have any meaning? Can anyone simply identify themselves into any of these protected classes? The door has been thrown wide open to new definitions of race and any of the other previously protected classes of persons.
Do you remember the outrage around discovering the falsehood of Elizabeth Warren's claim to Native American ancestry or that Rachel Dolezal was heading a chapter of the NAACP, despite her white, European ancestry? Now we owe Ms. Warren and Ms. Dolezal our apologies.
Since the Supreme Court has codified semantic nonsense, does any word have any meaning at all?
Military officers have had enough
Military officers, even in retirement, have often but not always refrained from criticizing the commander in chief. Now breaking their silence are former supreme commanders of our military when Trump ordered chemical gas and rubber bullets aimed at peaceful demonstrators to clear Trump's path for a photo op at St. John's Church.
Among high ranking officers charging Trump with violation of the Constitution were Adm. Michael Mullen and Gen. James Mattis. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley has said that his presence and actions at Lafayette Square were a regrettable mistake.
Military commanders cannot be ignored even by Trump's dwindling base.
Mexico City winners now would be lauded
Just an observation: On the victory stand during the 1968 Mexico City Olympics, two American athletes, Tommie Smith and John Carlos, made a statement after receiving their medals (gold and bronze).
Many people considered their statement to be disrespectful and disloyal. However, if made today, their statement would be considered courageous and heroic.