politics

Short Time Till We Find Out Who Is Running In ’24

Dave Davis Commentary, Uncategorized , , , ,

As we approach the First Presidential Debate, a pivotal event less than two weeks away, we find ourselves in the middle of June with a nation in disarray. This condition is primarily a result of an administration on its last legs, leaving behind a legacy of significant failures. The abrupt Afgan pullout has emboldened our adversaries, leading to ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, all due to our reluctance to confront the wrongdoers.

Overspending has resulted in the highest inflation in forty years. Illegal entrants overrun our borders, and shipping them across the nation is bankrupting many communities. No one feels safe in many of our greatest cities, and antisemitism runs rampant in Universities and on city streets.

When Joe Biden steps into the debate room, it will be his swan song. Even if he tries to project energy and vigor to dispel the notion that he’s a political corpse, it won’t hide that his record is one that only our worst president, James Buchanan, would applaud. The responsibility for these failures is clear, and it’s a burden he carries with him, like a second skin.

Confirmation of Biden’s political demise will come right after the Debate. Typically, even if a Democratic candidate has a horrible night, the legacy media will loudly applaud the performance while in unison declaring the Republican sucked. This time, they’ll be highly critical and concerned. Joe did his best, but he didn’t have it. If he’s this bad now, he’ll only get worse.

Chances are high Joe is in for a stormy debate night. Defending his record of failures is bad enough, but his DOJ handed Trump a club to beat him. By entering Hunter Biden’s laptop into evidence in the gun trial, they verified its contents for all to see.

Continue reading →

The Roadmap To Conviction

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

We now have a roadmap for convicting your political opposition in court. First, locate a state under the control of your party. Then, find the counties where nine out of ten voted your way. Choose the one where the county attorney is determined to get the other side. Charge your opponent with a felony. If t you can’t readily find a crme, put some stuff together that appears it might add up to a felony. Top it off by assigning the case to a judge on record of supporting your side and against the opposition.

With the judge in the prosecutor’s corner, there is no need for the niceties of due process, such as informing the defendant of the nature of the charges. If you can get some unrelated salacious details to embarrass the defendant, so much the better. Make sure you have some lawyers on the jury. The other jurors will look to them for guidance—people who make their living before judges with our party label aren’t about chance an acquittal. Everyone, including judges, will know how they voted. The rest of the jury may feel similar pressure from friends, family, and employers. Bingo, you have your conviction.

Overturning the conviction may eventually occur, but that will probably be well after we win the election. Remember the Ted Stevens case. Vindicated after finding breathtaking prosecutorial misconduct, unfortunately, as a convicted felon, he lost re-election. With his loss, the Democrats had a Senate majority and passed Obamacare. Wiping his record clean occurred only after the release of the Schuelke report but only after damage. The lesson is that even if we lose on appeal, we’ll already win the prize.  

The problem with this unethical recipe is both sides can use it. A county prosecutor in a Red state gets a grand jury to indict a state resident who is one of the fifty-one retired intelligence officials signing the letter claiming the Hunter Biden Laptop was likely Russian disinformation—the charge of conspiring with others to deny the state’s voters vital information fraudulently.

The other signers, Anthony Blinkin, who originated the plot, and his boss, Joe Biden, are also indicted as co-conspirators. While state election law may or may not be a felony, linking it to a fraudulent conspiracy will do the job. Indict anybody else found having a hand in the fraud, too, including government agents, such as the FBI, who pressured the media to suppress the story.

Including underlings, this large cast may contain some willing to turn state’s evidence to save themselves or their money. This case keeps getting better.

Continue reading →

Following Up

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, The Middle East, Uncategorized , , , ,

In my last post, I condemned the president of my alma Mater, Northwestern, as a dishonorable Jew for giving perks to the pro-Hamas demonstrators while doing nothing to make Jewish students and others feel safe on campus. Shortly after, I received an email from President Michael H. Schill, linking to His OP-ED in the Chicago Tribune, explaining his actions. Eagerly, I clicked to see if his assurance that Jewish students were still welcome and safe at N.U. is clearly stated. I’d rather be wrong about him if the campus were welcoming and safe for all. 

It’s sad to say that Schill is even worse than I thought. Even though Jews are the ones most threatened, he only mentions them obliquely, “First and foremost, we needed to protect the health and safety of our entire community, including our Jewish students.” The protestors are pro-Hamas. The group that just murdered and savaged the most significant number of Jews since the Holocaust and still holds hostages. Even with the “settlement, “keffiyeh-wearing demonstrators remain on Deering Meadow for another month. Wearing the headscarves shows solidarity with those desiring to dispose of all the Jews between the Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea.

In the 1930s, Germans wore brown shirts to show their hatred of Jews. Now, the protestors wear keffiyehs to convey the same sentiment. How does this deliver any feeling of welcome or safety to Jews on campus?

Understandably, Schill’s “settlement” and actions have drawn Jewish wrath. Rather than fighting the clear and present antisemitism, he equates it with virtually non-existent anti-muslin acts. “Second, we believe in free expression, but that most assuredly does not include antisemitic or anti-Muslim harassment or intimidation.” 

While Schill rolled over and placated the demonstrators, Ben Sasse, the University of Florida President, faithfully adhered to his school’s rules. Those rules allowed free speech, but if you broke them, you faced immediate suspension. As a result, students, including Jews, went about the business of learning without disturbance. 

Continue reading →

Juden Betreten Verboten

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, The Middle East, Uncategorized , , , ,

With all the turmoil on campus across the nation, I thought a reminder of the tough Arab neighborhood Israel exists in with a map of the Arab League:

How many of the protestors can even find Israel on the Map? Anyway, on to my post.

It’s as if a sign declaring Juden Betreten Verboten, Jews, entry forbidden, is hanging on Deering Library on the Northwestern University (N.U.) campus. My alma mater has informed the world Jews are no longer welcome. I never thought I’d ever see this day. To placate Hamas supporters that occupied Deering Meadow, the ample open space in front of the library with tents and ant-israel paraphernalia, the university showered the protestors with goodies if they would leave—scholarships and professorships, along with special accommodations. 

Why would a University reward those siding with Hamas, a terrorist organization dedicated to destroying millions of Jews? The truth is the school has a long history of anti-semitism. Only a few years before I enrolled in 1955, Jews were subject to a hard quota. During the time I attended N.U., it started to ease its policies not only toward Jews but Blacks and others. For instance, removing the required photos on entrance applications increased black admissions in the ’60s. Still, quotas lasted until 1964. Integrating fraternities, sororities, and housing brought people of different backgrounds together, which was a subject we worked on. I was proud of the direction and progress.

Continue reading →

Who You Gonna Call-Not the Democrats or Republicans

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy , , , ,

Amidst the fervor of extreme loyalists on both sides, it’s easy to get lost in the fog of political rhetoric. Few people truly understand what either side plans to do to tackle our most pressing issues—inflation, Abortion, hot and potential wars, and debt. This confusion is not accidental but a result of both sides’ contradictory positions. They present their plan with conviction, only to undermine it in the next breath.

There is little doubt inflation underlies our economic discontent. No matter how hard we work, even receiving pay raises, we have less at the end of the month. That new house or auto keeps getting further out of reach. The little extras, an evening out or a quick vacation that makes life enjoyable, are outside the budget. The Great Inflation of the 1970s ended when double-digit interest rates ended in a deep recession. What are our two parties proposing to avoid a repeat?

The simple definition of inflation is too many dollars chasing too few goods. One gains control over inflation by cutting down on excess dollars, increasing the amount of goods, or both. So, what do the two major parties propose to improve in these areas?

The Democrats gave us the “Inflaton Reduction Act,” with its likely trillion-dollar price tag, it’s putting more dollars out there. Enormous subsidies for expensive electric vehicles (EVs) require materials such as lithium batteries, which are not readily available here. Most come from China, allowing that nation to produce cheaper EVs. Denying Chinese producers subsidies through local content rules and high tariffs will protect our high-cost auto companies. Favoring unionized plants will further increase prices. These problems extend to solar panels and windmills, which are also subsidized by this act, guaranteeing their high costs.

Continue reading →