Recently I criticized Florida Governor Ron Desantis for characterizing the Ukraine War as a “territorial dipsute.” His statement trivialized a significant issue. While it may have helped him with some Republican voters, he came across as a lightweight. Presidents have to deal with major foreign policy issues in greater depth.

Now the Governor has signed an after six weeks ban on abortions. There is no reason to believe DeSantis isn’t solidly pro-life, but this may hurt him in a general election. On the other hand, it may help him to get the nomination.

Evangelicals and others with strong religious beliefs tend to be pro-life. They made up a good part of Trump’s winning 2016 coalition. However, since the 2022 election, Trump has been intimating the abortion issue cost the Republicans and explains their poorer-than-expected showing. This position is self-serving, as the only other explanation for the failures is the loyalty of most losing candidates to Trump himself.

Whatever Trump’s motive, this is causing a breach between the Ex-president and the pro-life movement. DeSantis looks more attractive to this vital group for the nomination. He needs to erode the Trump base, and this signing could lop off a big chunk. It may hurt him in the general election, but first, you must get the nomination.  

The focus on abortion, while AI and its medical implications are in the news, got me thinking about how these two issues interconnect in ways nobody is talking about.

Earlier, I wrote how the best compromise on abortion is a ban after 15 weeks. Testing and even surgery on the fetus can follow shortly after that time. We have ultrasounds of the little person, with some of us saying that’s my grandkid. Most developed nations have coalesced around 14-16 weeks, possibly for these reasons.

I alluded to testing in the future, leading to abortions we haven’t thought about. While we haven’t found the single “Gay Gene,” something programs people that way before birth. Whatever the code or combination, eventually, we will find it.

 China’s one-child policy combined with abortion on demand is a cautionary tale about parental preference. Most couples are limiting their families to 1-2 children. Would many parents elect not to have one or their only child be gay, trans, or abnormal? The severe female shortage in China should give us pause.

A short OP-ED in the Wall Street Journal got me thinking and may keep me awake at night. “Some Crazy ideas Are Deadly Serious,” by J. Budziszewski, talks about some things taught at Universities today that might be laughable if they didn’t have serious consequences. “You can’t be serious. Nobody can possibly believe that men can get pregnant or that Lincoln was in favor of slavery!” Yet, these are things spread across the intelligentsia.

While many advanced nations question youth transitioning, our medical community continues pushing these potentially dangerous treatments. Children are taking life-altering drugs and having irreversible surgeries in the vain hope changing their sex will solve their problems. Whatever happened to “first do no harm.”

Across the nation, we teach a patently false slavery narrative based on the New York Times “1619 Project.” Rather than fostering a better understanding of slavery in the U.S. and abroad, this warped view of slavery has significantly increased divisions. Again, we are putting our children in the middle of a controversy. 

People in essential parts of Academia, Media, businesses, and Government are there based on their supposed intelligence and knowledge. If these dangers are apparent, why do so many highly educated align with false positions? Pleading ignorance doesn’t wash.

Why do so many elites disregard the scientific method, our standards, the Hippocratic oath, and reason? Their actions fly in the face of what we perceive as the point of education. Ignoring facts and data or, worse, suppressing them goes against everything we’ve learned about how to approach problems. 

The result of the people inhabiting our major institutions acting in opposition to what they know is proper is to diminish our faith in those organizations. If Dr. Fauci, the New York Times, many scientists and medical people writing in the journal Lancet, and a slew of retired intelligence officers, among others, knowingly ignore principles to mislead us, everything becomes suspect. Only instability can follow. Can this be their objective?

Educated people make up The Chinese Communist Party. They know much of what they spout is false, but they fall in line to maintain or raise their status. Even the rich and successful can fail if they get crossways with the party and its leader. You might ask billionaire Alibaba founder Jack Ma, but he may be unable to answer.

I haven’t taken a count, but more presidential candidates flame out because of their unforced errors than are knocked out by others. If Ron DeSantis falls short, he has only himself to blame. Characterizing the Ukraine War as a “territorial disput” shows a remarkable lack of knowledge. Would he have said the same thing when Nazi Germany rolled into its Polish neighbor, starting WWII? An unprovoked invasion isn’t a real estate boundary-line controversy. 

DeSantis’ ability to immerse himself in a problem to determine his actions and then defend them against all comers drew me to him. He owes much of his popularity to his hands-on approach to issues. It’s astonishing a leader who put in the effort to educate himself about all aspects of the covid crisis and, based on that knowledge, found the proper path could come up with such a clinker.

A mano-a-mano contest with Donald Trump for the Republican nomination is the best way for DeSantis to win. Trump has an unshakeable hold on about a third 0n Republican voters. If the other 70% is spread among a crowd of challengers, he can ride all the winner-take-all contests to the finish line. A crowded field like 2016 favors Trump.

Starving other candidates of issues and money is imperative for DeSantis to keep the field narrow, so why give his competitors running room? Before this mishap, no one could beat him on governing competence or strength on Republican issues. Why open himself to a foreign policy attack? Placing himself in the space between Trump and all the others by providing Trump credit for the things he did right but pre-empting positions others might take to get some footing makes more sense. 

Up to 70% of Republicans could be looking for someone other than Trump Many of these have a favorable opinion of the Ukrainians, including many of the top donors. Why encourage them to look at the many possible candidates sharing this view. How do I know this is happening? I was supporting DeSantis but am now taking another look at others.

DeSantis’ weak support for Ukraine is a surprise as he previously backed sending lethal weapons to that nation when the Obama administration failed to do so. Why the flip-flop?