Frolicking Your Way To Prescription Happiness

Exposure to pharmaceutical company advertising may leave you shaking your head.  Never have people looked so giddy about having a serious health issue.   Do these folks recognize disease is nothing to sing and dance about? Turns out, one little pill is a prescription for profuse jubilation.    

Pharmaceutical firms spent $1.1 billion on advertising in 2023, most of it on television to convince Americans to gulp more medications.  It must be working because Big Pharma racked up $722.5 billion in sales last year in the U.S., peddling more than 20,000 FDA approved drugs.  

Statistics show most of us are taking a prescription drug.  According to the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention, 60% of adults are on at least one medication and 36% are swallowing three or more drugs. Pillboxes are the new must-have vanity item.

The names of the medications are designed to be catchy and memorable.  Take Skyrizi, a prescription for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.  Sounds like the name for a sky diving outfit.  Picture yourself parachuting into luxurious skin.  The sky's the limit with this medication.

The fanciful name Cymbalta sounds like an Italian dish.  Or an orchestral instrument. But the prescription drug is used to treat depression and anxiety, so the brand name has to be uplifting.  No one wants to take an anxiety medication with a name such as Doomstics.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which approves mediations, insists brands cannot be viewed as overpromising on a cure.  For example, the FDA rejected the name Regain for an Upjohn company drug that helps regrow hair.  Upjohn changed a single letter and won approval for Rogain.

Big drug manufacturers use focus groups, consumer testing and a phonetic formula to create evocative names for their products.  In an average year, the FDA approves about 60 new drugs and the makers want each one to sound different than every other prescription.  With 20,000 drugs, it's getting harder.

Apparently, someone at Sanofi, a consumer healthcare firm, ran out of clever names for medications.  The company slapped the moniker Xyzal on its allergy drug, which promises 24-hour relief from scratchy throats, running noses and itchy eyes.  Did a marketing person throw a dart at an eye chart?

But today it takes more than fetching names to sell prescription drugs to consumers.  Television ads featuring dancing, singing actors are how you stand out in the crowded prescription space. Drugs to treat type 2 adult diabetes feature Broadway worthy productions.

If you ever seen a Mounjaro commercial, chances are you rushed to your doctor and pleaded for a prescription.  Overweight people suffering from diabetes look awfully happy about their battle against disease. They can't stop grinning, swirling and clapping on television.

Similar drugs in the same category--Wegovy, Ozempic and Jardience--are trying to outdo Mounjaro on the blissful meter.  They feature practically intoxicated adults, dressed in loose fitting clothes with perky demeanors.  They are canoeing, hiking and flitting.  No one is ever eating cake in these ads.

Even mirthful drug names cannot mask the side effects.  The killjoys over at FDA mandate the drug companies mention the possible downside of the medication.  After the onscreen celebration of the medication, an off camera narrator delivers a somber warning.

It usually goes something like this: taking XYZAB may cause weight loss, blurred vision, rapid heartbeat, acute kidney injury, increasing or worsening chronic renal failure, diarrhea, nausea and vomiting.  Who would sign up for those side effects?  

A benign drug this writer has taken for years contains this WARNING: "A very bad reaction called angioedema has happened with this drug. Sometimes this may be life-threatening."  Say, what? How often is "sometimes"?  Twice a week? Once in a millennium?  Just asking. 

The key for selling the drug is for the announcer to whiz through the side effects at hyper speed, hoping the rhythmic performers distract the consumer.  It would be fun to once hear the narrator make this claim to see if folks are paying attention to this gibberish:

"Taking this medication may cause you to lose four toes, soil your pants, call your wife by your exes name, provide your  computer password to a complete stranger, sprout long hair on your nose, leave your new iPhone in a seedy bar and drop your expensive Patek Philippe watch in a airport toilet."  

If that sounds entertaining, imagine showing up in your doctor's office with a list of every drug advertised that encourages consumers to ask your physician about taking this medication.  Innocently inquire: "Should I be taking..." and then reel off the entire list.  

I tried it and found out primary care doctors have no sense of humor. The doctor fixed me with a quizzical look and folded arms.  He didn't appear amused.  There's a reason you won't find humor in a medical dictionary.   

Make America Venezuela

Venezuela's thuggish regime hardly inspires imitation. But the South American country's overhaul of its highest court is eerily similar to the plan outlined by President Biden.  Venezuela's dictators hoodwinked voters into believing reforms would strengthen the Supreme Tribunal of Justice.

In 1999, Hugo Chavez outlined a string of proposals to promote democracy.  The strongman proposed laws making it easier to remove sitting justices. His plan included 12-year term limits. As part of the scheme, he expanded the court by 12 members, packing it with cronies.

Nicolas Maduro, who succeeded Chavez, now oversees a tribunal that does the president's bidding. The International  Court of Jurists (ICJ) calls the tribunal nothing "but an instrument of the executive branch." It no longer serves as a grantor of the "rule of law, human rights or fundamental freedoms."  

In a speech marking the signing of President Lyndon Johnson's Civil Rights legislation, Biden unfurled his party's masterplan for remaking the Supreme Court.  He argued a president should appoint a justice every two years for an 18-year term. He pushed for enforceable conduct and ethics rules.

Biden claimed his proposals were to "restore faith in the Supreme Court."  However, his plan is nothing more than a presidential election year ploy to juice Democratic Party turnout.  His ire has been raised by court decisions he labeled as "not normal."  

Forget the Constitution's separation of powers clause which spells out three distinct branches of government: legislative, executive and judicial. Evidently the Constitution is seen as an "existential threat to democracy" by Biden.  There's nothing normal about changing Supreme Court terms.  

If Biden wants to bolster rules of conduct, he should start with Congress.  One member of his party--New Jersey Senator Bob Menedez--still serves in the Senate despite a conviction one 16 felony charges. Democrats need Menedez in a closely divided Senate, so personal ethics are fungible.  

Another Democrat, Texas Congressman Henry Cuellar and his spouse have been charged by federal prosecutors with participating in two schemes involving bribery, unlawful foreign influence and money laundering.  Cuellar remains a member in good standing in the House of Representatives.

If the president has a serious concern about ethics, he should be leading an effort to strengthen the Code of Ethics for members of Congress. Why is he silent on that issue, yet indignant on the travel of Supreme Court justices?

Following Biden's effort to undermine the Supreme Court, press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre marched to the podium at a press briefing to declare surveys show "the American people" want term limits for justices.  In her view, America should be governed by polls not by the Constitution. 

Since she is a proponent of rule by polls, perhaps Karine's boss will now shill for term limits for Congress.  A poll by Pew Research finds 87% of Americans support term limits.  Nearly eight in ten (79%) favor age limits too.  Less than half (46%) agree on term limits for high court justices.

Nancy Pelosi has served 19 terms in the House, a number matched by Frank Pallone, a Democrat from New Jersey.  However, they are eclipsed by Republicans Christopher Smith and Harold Rogers; and Democrat Steny Hoyer. Each has served 22 terms in Congress.

Seven senators have served a total of 223 years: Democrats Patty Murray, Jack Reed, Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin; Republicans Chuck Grassley, Mitch McConnell and Susan Collins. Each has been elected to six-year terms ranging from four to five times. 

Biden and his party also point to the age of the justices, a shot aimed at the oldest sitting jurist Clarence Thomas, who turned 76 this year. The president and the Democrats had no such qualms about Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died at age 87.  She served 27 years on the highest court.

The Constitution doesn't mention age limits for justices, but if age is on the table, what about Congress? There are 11 current members of Congress who are 80 or above, including 90-year-old Republican Chuck Grassley.  Justice Thomas is a youngster by comparison. 

The truth is Biden's "bold plan" to reform the Supreme Court has nothing to do with ethics, age or terms limits.  This is a scam to make the court an adjunct of the executive branch, bending it to the political will of Democrats.  It worked in Venezuela.  Why not in the U.S.?

Court packing was tried under another Democratic Party President, Franklin D. Roosevelt.  His motivation, like Biden's, was FDR's displeasure with SCOTUS rulings. The court struck down key components of Roosevelt's New Deal, drawing criticism from the president. 

He secretly developed a plan to appoint additional justices for every sitting justice over the age of 70.  It would allow FDR to appoint six additional justices to the court. Sound familiar? Once Roosevelt revealed his plan, it was met with stinging opposition, even from Roosevelt's Democratic Party. 

Roosevelt's court packing scheme suffered a resounding defeat.  The Biden court "reforms" deserve the same fate.  America's democracy calls three separate branches of government.  It's worked for 248 years and there are no Constitutional grounds for Biden's election year contrivance.     

Why You Can't Trust Political Polls

Historians generally trace presidential polling to the 1824 election.  A straw poll conducted by the Harrisburg Pennsylvanian newspaper predicted Andrew Jackson would win.  In what would become an all too familiar outcome, the poll was inaccurate. John Quincy Adams was elected president. 

Since that oops moment, there have been a procession of presidential polls that have spectacularly failed. In 1936, The Literary Digest polled its two million subscribers and concluded Republican Alf Landon would triumph over incumbent President Franklin D. Roosevelt.  Oh-Oh.

In 1948, the prestigious Gallup Poll reported that Thomas Dewey would beat President Harry Truman. Gallup predicted the margin of the vote would be 45% for Dewey and 41% for Truman.  The poll secured its place in infamy as Truman won 50% of the vote compared to Dewey's 45%.

A more recent whoops moment occurred in 2016 when polls showed Donald Trump trailing Hillary Clinton in 2016.  Two poll modelers put her chances at 99%.  Trump's stunning win left Clinton to claim the Russians had influenced the outcome. Hillary's problem was putting too much stock in polls.

The 2016 election has been the subject of an analysis by the Berkeley Haas School of Business at the University of California-Berkeley.  Their study found a steady decline the in accuracy of early polls.  Only 60% proved to be accurate including those conducted up to 10 weeks before the election.

Their analysis of 1,400 polls from 11 election cycles found the outcome lands within the poll results only about half the time. The Berkeley Haas study documents many reasons the election outcome could be different from polls, including the way pollsters compute confidence levels in their results. 

Confidence levels only take into account a sampling error, a statistical term that quantifies deviations from polling large voting populations. But Berkeley Haas concludes that it does not include other kinds of error, such as surveying the wrong set of voters.  As a result, there is more opportunity for errors.

Nonpartisan Pew Research Center has studied polling in depth for decades, shedding light on presidential surveys.  Pew has researched surveys from Gallup, Fox News, Associated Press and others, that conduct polls by telephone or online from randomly selected samples of adults. 

Pew documented the influence of party affiliation in national polls. There are 7% more registered Democrats than Republicans. Pollsters generally attempt adjust their data to compensate for this disparity. Surveying more Democrats would reflect a bias in results.

Pew researchers admit that is no single "correct" adjustment to the ratio of Democrats to Republicans for national polls.  Pollsters use their own modification, which explains why there can be differences between national polls.  The absence of a standard ratio explains why polls are often wrong.

As Pew points out, there is also a bias in people who register to vote. Compared with the public in general, registered voters tend to be older, wealthier, more likely to be non-Hispanic whites and homeowners, according to Pew.  

"Evidence suggests that the Democratic advantage is somewhat narrower among registered voters than the general public--and often even narrower among actual voters," Pew found.  What this means is that polls often have a sampling prejudice that tilts toward an oversampling of Democrats.

Democratic likely voters are also clustered geographically, more so than Republicans. Since national polls are designed to reflect geographic population centers where the majority of likely voters are located, polling will underrepresent the candidate preferences of Republicans. 

Sampling for "likely voters" is also less science than the polling organizations confess.  Pollsters screen for registered voters on the assumption they will cast ballots.  However, Pew has reported that in each election there are a myriad of factors that determine whether registered voters turnout.  

In some elections, Democrats have outperformed the 7% advantage in registered voters.  In others, robust Republican turnout has erased the registration margin. Turnout is the most difficult number to calculate yet it is most critical factor in determining the election outcome. 

Polling methodologies are also subject to variances.  Different polls may have sampling errors, different weighting practices for Democrats and Republicans, variations in the wording of questions and differences in the survey mode--whether by telephone or online, notes Pew. 

One flaw never mentioned in news coverage about poll results is telephone surveys, a staple of many polls including the Gallup Poll.  An estimated 73% of Americans, including most under the age of 40, do not have a landline telephone.  Those with landlines skew older, distorting results.

Pew reveals that all national polls use weighted data rather than raw data.  In other words, the actual survey numbers (raw data) may show one presidential candidate leading by five percentage points.  However, the data is adjusted to reflect the general population's age, race, gender and region. 

Most Americans have no idea that the polling numbers they are reading are subject to so many alterations, which have the potential to influence the outcome of the polling. 

Pew Research's extensive analysis of national polling uncovered another prevalent defect in surveys.  Pollsters often claim their polls have a three percent margin of error.  Pew found the real margin of error is often double the one reported.  That makes a huge difference in closely contested battleground states. 

Remember national polls reflect voter preferences from a sampling of states.  However, U.S. presidents are not selected by popular vote.  The tally of votes in the Electoral College determine the presidential outcome.  That makes national polls an unreliable predictor of the final Electoral College vote. 

State by state polls might potentially paint a true picture of  the electoral outcome.  However, those polls are often conducted by newspapers or state organizations. There are wide disparities in the quality of methodologies used at the state levels, including those by professional polling organizations.

Despite these cautions, polls are already popping up reflecting the head-to-head matchup between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Trump.  In one poll, the election is a dead heat.  There are more than 100 days until the election.  As noted, early polls are notoriously wrong.

These polls are fodder for campaigns and the media.  But they are practically useless as predictors of the outcome of the election.  So much has happened in just the last few weeks--an assassination attempt on Trump; President Biden bowing out; and, the coronation of Harris as the Democrat nominee. 

The public has not had time to digest all these developments to form an opinion about voting in November.  The race is just beginning. And convulsions in the political landscape are likely to jolt the campaigns, including a Manhattan judge's ruling on presidential immunity.  

Even with overwhelming evidence, America's pollsters remain in denial about the accuracy of their predictions.  They owe Americans the truth about how the polls are conducted, including a breakdown of respondents age, gender, party affiliation and geographic representation. 

If pollsters election forecasts go south this election, they will rush in with a clever spin.  Their revisionist narratives will assert their polling was misrepresented or they were within the margin of error.  Don't fall for their phony excuses.  Put your faith in election returns not polls.   

Opinion: Will Political Hate Speech Ever Cease?

An attempted assassination of presidential candidate Donald Trump plunged the country into a political abyss.  Never again the country swore after President Ronald Reagan was wounded 43 years ago.  And yet, here we are again--the collision of violence and politics that saps the soul of a nation.

In my nearly eight decades, I have witnessed the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963.  In a single year--1968--the United States suffered through the killing of civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King and the murder of Senator Robert F. Kennedy, leaving the nation stunned.

Former President Trump was holding an outdoor rally in Pennsylvania when a gunmen armed with a rifle squeezed off eight shots, wounding the candidate in the right ear, missing his face by millimeters. When this blog was written late Sunday, questions are swirling around the assassination attempt.

How was a gunmen able to secure a perch on a building roof within 150-yards and a clear line of sight to the former president? Did the Secret Service do a proper site survey of that building prior to the rally?  Were Secret Service snipers surveying the building during the event?  

In the aftermath of high profile shootings involving politicians, the FBI has always immediately assumed responsibility for the crime and held on the spot briefings, answering reporters questions.  Why has it taken so long for the FBI to provide transparency? Why the delay? What are they hiding? 

Why didn't Homeland Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, who is in charge of the Secret Service, honor a Trump campaign request for more protection?  Why did Mayorkas refuse to provide a Secret Service detail to candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose family has been targeted twice by assassins?

Were political considerations factors in the decisions by Mayorkas? And why is the Secret Service already admitting it has no plans to beef up security for the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee on Monday?  Biden's security detail also should be bolstered.  

Too many unanswered questions remain, which is fueling conspiracy theories, anger and distrust.  President Biden's statements in the aftermath have been admirable.  But the agencies in charge of protection and the investigation need to stand for a public briefing accompanied by media questions. 

There is no excuse not to do so, even if all the facts are unknown. 

President Biden called for lowering the temperature of political discourse.  He is right.  However, in the two years leading up to the shooting,  the media and Democrats have compared Trump to Adolph Hitler, who murdered more than six millions Jews.  Incendiary rhetoric always proceeds assassination attempts.

Biden also has mocked Trump as a "dictator" and has over and over reminded supporters that the former president is an "existential threat to democracy."  He regularly calls Trump a convicted felon and five days before the shooting said  "it was time to put Trump in the bullseye." 

Many Democrats have used similar language without weighing the impact of their pejorative words.  

Attorney General Merritt Garland is quick to condemn "hate speech" of administration critics and opponents.  But he has been strangely silent in the wake of continuing comparisons of Trump to Hitler.  Garland also has tacitly sanctioned the harassing lawsuits against the former president.   

In an effort to cover their tracks, the media is accusing the former president of tapping into Hitler "vibes" as The New Republic magazine claimed. An unrepentant media can be expected to ramp up the anti-Trump vitriol with the kickoff of the GOP convention.

Want to understand the deep vein of Trump hatred in the country?

Your journalist tracked social media posts on Facebook and X, formerly Twitter after the assassination attempt.  Here is just a representative sample of the scalding temperature of the political climate.  

"Trump can't run his mouth off and expect not to pay for it."

"This (shooting) was obviously a set up by Trump.  The guy loves attention."

"Next time the shooter needs to spend more time at the range."

"This is classic Trump.  He's losing the election so he arranges to get nicked with a bullet."

A staffer of Democrat Rep. Bennie Thompson, a rabid Trump critic, huffed the shooter needed "lessons so you don't miss next time." Thompson fired the staffer.  

Colorado Democrat Rep. Steven Woodrow was despondent because "the last thing America needed was sympathy for the devil, but here we are."

This represents the state of American politics. Politicians, the mainstream media, social platforms, candidates and the two political parties own the inferno.  They need to preach civility as well as practice it.  Healing a nation always takes longer than plunging it into the abyss. 

Abraham Lincoln, before he was brutally assassinated, shared advice for times such as these. "I have been driven many times upon my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had no where else to go.  My own wisdom and that of all about me seemed insufficient for that day."

Amen, Mr. Lincoln. 

Conspiracy To Cover Up Biden's Cognitive Decline

A political earthquake rattled the Democratic Party after President Biden's debacle in the first presidential debate.  A growing schism in the party over the president's cognitive fitness is roiling Washington. Biden's handlers and family are circling the wagons, hoping to stave off a party revolt.

A growing chorus of Democrats went public urging the president to gracefully exit the race in the face of plummeting poll numbers.  But a defiant Biden in an ABC interview made it clear he is pressing on, stubbornly insisting he was the best Democrat to beat former president Donald Trump.  

Amidst the turmoil, the lackey Biden mainstream media did the unthinkable. They turned on the president after propping him up for four years, despite a spate of public episodes offering evidence that Biden was neurologically impaired.  

Editorials and opinion pieces in The New York Times called for the president to bow out of the presidential race.  The Washington Post published a column with suggestions for a speech tailor made for Biden's  campaign withdrawal.    

The Times reported that at last month's G-7 meeting in Italy observers were said to be "shocked" at Biden's state.  Another unnamed official confessed Biden appeared to be "out of it," according to The Times. Other media felt emboldened by The Times reporting to pile on. 

A string of articles based on administration insiders painted a picture of an out-of-touch president, who is shielded by his staff from bad news in fear of igniting Biden's temper tantrums.  His handlers limit his schedule to a 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. to avoid sapping the 81-year-old's mental and physical energy.

The media's sudden about face is prompted by a realization they can no longer lie about Biden to Americans who witnessed a decrepit president with their own eyes. The president's halting speech, raspy voice, nonsensical word salads and non sequiturs were on full display.   

Former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson undressed journalists covering the president for failing to "hold power accountable," while participating in a "massive coverup" with the White House to shield Biden's obvious mental decline.

"It is our duty to poke through White House smoke screens and find out the truth," Abramson said.  "The Biden White House clearly succeeded in a massive coverup of the degree of the President's feebleness and serious physical decline, which may be simply the result of old age."

Another respected liberal journalist Carl Bernstein told CNN how multiple well placed sources disclosed to him that Biden's abysmal debate performance was not atypical but increasingly representative of the president's mental fog.  Bernstein's sources reported 15-to-20 similar episodes.

The media knew.  But the powerful who control the nation's news outlets choose to deceive Americans.

Instead of independent reporting, the fawning media regurgitated press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre's talking points.  Behind closed doors Biden runs circles around his staff.  His mental sharpness amazes everyone around him.  He has the energy of someone half his age.  All lies.  

The messaging was picked up by Democrat leaders such as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Vice President Kamala Harris.  Biden is fully engaged and sharp these top Democrats swore.  Other Democrats chimed in right on cue.  More lies.

You would expect as much from Democrats panicked the truth about Biden would seep into the voters' conscious.  Even when online videos and Fox News documented the president's verbal stumbles, confusing and dazed appearance, Jean-Pierre called the visual evidence "deep fakes."

But the debate ended the charade.  The cellophane wrapped president appeared on television for 90 minutes looking every bit of his 81-years, pasty-faced, staring blankly in the distance and seemingly unable to summon up talking points that had been drummed in him for six days.

Those who blame Biden for not being truthful about his mental decline should point fingers at the media. Their job is to honestly report on the occupant of the White House even when they know the truth will help the hated Donald Trump.  But they were invested insulating Biden from criticism.

For example, the White House press corps never insisted that Biden stand for a full press conference until post-debate. Consistently answering reporters questions is a basic tenant of presidential coverage. Yet Biden has held the fewest press conferences since Ronald Reagan.  

At one point in 2022, Biden went nearly 200 days without being interviewed by an American TV journalist.  Jean-Pierre claimed the president had taken more questions than his predecessors combined. There was no push back from fact-checkers.  The White House press corps never challenged the lie.

Every American should be convinced the media cannot be trusted.  They willingly, knowingly participated in a conspiracy to coverup for Biden. The media cabal's sudden interest in exposing the truth is a sign they have new marching orders from Democrats hoping to oust Biden from the ticket.

The nation deserves an answer to these questions: "Who orchestrated this massive conspiracy that involved Vice President Harris, the media, cabinet members, donors, White House staff, congressional Democrats and foreign leaders? Were power brokers pulling the strings behind the scenes?"

The fallout from the coverup doesn't just rest on Biden's decision to obstinately stay in the race.  How can a man with serious cognitive issues remain president for four more months?  Can he be trusted with nuclear codes and critical midnight decisions? The nation is at risk every day Biden clings to power. 

Democrats should remind Biden he pledged to be a one-term president when he ran in 2020.  He admitted he was no "spring chicken." Perhaps he was being honest or it was just a ploy.  This will not end well for Biden, the Democratic Party or those who knowingly fed falsehoods to voters.

What will Biden and Democrats do?  First Lady Jill Biden and their grifter son Hunter Biden are isolating the president in a cocoon to ward off detractors. No one has been able to pierce the bubble. Jill and Hunter will not allow Biden to go quietly into the night.  

There is a nuclear option.  Democrat leaders, including Vice President Harris, could meet secretly with the president and threaten to invoke the 25th Amendment, which provides for removal of the chief executive if he is incapable of serving.  

Faced with the certainty of an ouster,  Biden could choose to magnanimously resign or suffer the humiliation of being thrown out of office. 

What if Biden calls their bluff?  Would Democrats really want to hang out to dry one of their own in a messy public flogging?  The next few weeks should provide some answers.  This writer's opinion is the party is stuck with Biden at the top of the ticket.   

Joy Reid, a co-host on ABC's The View, may have been prescient when she asserted on air she would vote for a comatose Joe Biden over Trump.  That perspective may be shared by large numbers of Democrats.  That's why a Biden candidacy may yet survive the political gallows.  

Democrats Collude To Aid Biden Campaign

America's disingenuous media protested Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government wielding strong arm tactics to muzzle political opposition.  Reports lambasted Modi's political party for filing corruption charges against his main rival ahead of this month's national elections.

South Korean politics has been marked for decades by fierce persecution of ex-presidents. The media cabal has derided the jailing or investigation of nearly every president exiting the nation's highest office. Opposition parties in turn routinely exploit popular anger over official malfeasance for political gain.

That's why the media's hyper partisan coverage of the first felony conviction of a major presidential candidate in America's 246-year history reeks of hypocrisy.  It raises the ugly specter of American politics descending into the abyss frequented by thug dictators, such as Russia's Vladimir Putin.  

Manhattan's Democrat attorney general aided and abetted by a former senior member of Biden's Department of Justice, conspired to indict and prosecute former President Donald Trump on bookkeeping charges. 

The conviction comes amidst historically low favorable ratings for any incumbent president,  The travesty of justice was a gift to a Democrat Party,  thirsting for the opportunity to brand Biden's political opponent a "convicted felony" to bail out his faltering campaign.    

Those partisans who complain the Democrat Party had nothing to do with the Trump conviction are suffering from irrational hatred for the former president.  The facts are incontrovertible.  A recitation of what transpired prior to the verdict of 12 New York jurors is illustrative:

• Democrat Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg ran on a promise to go after Donald Trump. Yet he allowed the case against Trump to lay fallow for 18 months after his election. Bragg waited until Trump announced for the presidency to manufacture his politicized case. 
• Bragg owed his election to Democrat Party mega donor George Soros, the billionaire who showered Bragg's campaign with $1 million.  The influential Soros donated the funds to Color of Change, a racial justice Political Action Committee (PAC), which funneled the money to boost Bragg's campaign.  
• A member of the Manhattan DA office resigned in February 2022 after Bragg refused to charge Trump with financial crimes.  The attorney Mark Pomerantz had championed the prosecution of Trump.  Bragg ignored the pleas of Pomerantz, prompting the attorney to resign.
• Bragg's predecessor Cyrus Vance Jr. reviewed the Trump "hush money" payments and opted not to indict.  The prosecutor for the Southern District of New York chose not to pursue the case in 2019.  The Federal Election Commission reviewed the allegations in 2021 and did not take action.
• Bragg filed charges in 2023 elevating what are misdemeanor charges of bookkeeping errors into a felony charge of "falsification of business records." Bragg pumped up the charges to felonies by claiming Trump was concealing an unspecified second crime.  Six years had passed since the original misdemeanor violations, exceeding the statute of limitations.

When Pomerant quit he intentionally leaked his resignation letter to The New York Times.  The newspaper's account ignited a political firestorm among Democrats who were demanding charges be filed against Trump. Concerned about this political future, Bragg knew he had to act fast.  

Pomerantz was one of three attorneys given a leave of absence from a heavyweight Manhattan law firm to assist Bragg. The firm is Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison.  New York Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer's brother Robert is a partner in the powerhouse firm.  

After Bragg hastily unveiled his state case, a former Department of Justice senior official was brought onboard to help lead the inquiry, The New York Times wrote.  The official, Matthew Colangelo, worked for Biden's U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland before he departed for Manhattan.

Colangelo was the number three official in the DOJ, serving as Acting Associate Attorney General.  Garland plucked Colangelo from the New York Attorney General's Office, where he lead a wave of state litigation against Trump administration policies. 

It strains the bounds of credulity to believe that Garland was not involved in the decision to send Colangelo to assist Bragg. Garland, testifying before Congress, scoffed at suggestions the administration was involved, labeling  it a "conspiracy theory."  

Imagine if a Trump appointed acting associate attorney general had departed to handle a state's prosecution of Hunter Biden.  Would Democrats agree the Trump Administration was acting in good faith?  An intellectually honest Democrat would confess the administration would be accused of abuse of power. 

The insidious charade doesn't stop with Colangelo-Garland. 

Presiding Judge Juan Merchan should have recused himself from the case.  He made $35 in political contributions through Democrat PAC ActBlue in 2020, including $15 to Biden's campaign.  Merchan asked the New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics to decide if his contributions amounted to a conflict.

CBS News reported that the panel issued a caution to Merchan because political contributions of any amount by judges are prohibited under New York law.  Despite the red flag, the ethics panel inexplicably ruled Merchan's ability to do his job was not impacted.  State law and impartiality be damned. 

A politically compromised judge will now determine the punishment for Trump on July  11.  Some are predicting Merchan will not sentence the former president to jail.  That's improbable because this sham prosecution is about putting Trump in an orange jumpsuit.  

The politically motivated prosecution is covered with the fingerprints of Democrats at the state, local and federal level.  Yet they keep repeating their mantra: "No one is above the law."  It rings hollow when the DOJ allowed the statute of limitations to lapse on millions of dollars in tax evasion charges against Hunter Biden.     

In the run up to the trial, octogenarian Biden and his fear-mongering Democrat Party have repeatedly warned a Trump presidency would be a "threat to Democracy."  The bigger risk to democracy is that courts decide elections instead of voters.  Democracy dies if that is allowed to stand.  

Injustice in The Age of Tolerance

A sleepy college campus on a bluff overlooking the Missouri River languished for 53  years in anonymity.  Benedictine College was content with its unique role as private Catholic institution in Atchison, Kansas. A single commencement speech catapulted the college into the nation's headlines.

At the college president's invitation, Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker delivered a 20-minute speech to the 485 graduating seniors.  His comments about his faith ignited ovations from students and parents who cheered his message, grudgingly admits the Associated Press.  

Once the national media became aware of Butker's speech, it created a firestorm of reaction over the NFL player's comments about the role of women as mothers and wives. Stinging rebukes filled the traditional media and online sites, condemning Butker for talking openly about his religious beliefs.

Here are samples of the vitriol that oozed into headlines: 

"Social media slams Butker as "sexist..." "Stars react to Harrison Butker"s controversial remarks..." Women roasting the KC Chiefs over Harrison Burker's speech.."  Every alphabet activist organization from LGBTQ to pro-abortion lashed out at the star kicker, once celebrated by Chiefs fans.

Mounting backlash forced National Football League brass to issue a statement distancing the organization from Butker's comments.  "His views are not those of the NFL.... The NFL is steadfast in our commitment to inclusion, which makes our league stronger," a spokesperson dutifully said.

A Kansas City Star columnist called on the Chiefs to fire Butker and replace him with a female kicker.  Social media erupted in a volcano of expletives and hateful ridicule of Butker, who was chosen as the commencement speaker specifically because of his conservative Catholic prospective.  

Judging from the coverage and accompanying fall out, few actually read the entirety of his speech.  Butker, who frequently espouses his faith, leveled his fiercest criticism at the Catholic Church and its leaders for bowing to the cultural vultures instead of upholding the faith's doctrinal traditions.  

Butker, a key member of the Chiefs' three Super Bowl titles, bemoaned society's impact on traditional Catholic morality, chiding bishops and priests for "pretending the Church of Nice is a winning proposition. We must always speak and act in charity, but never mistake charity for cowardice."

He derided church bishops for remaining silent on touchstone issues such as abortion, euthanasia and gender ideology.  The kicker's biggest sin in the media's eyes--singling out professed devout Catholic President Biden for full his throated support of abortion.  However, most failed to report the quote. 

The legacy media cast Butker as a misogynistic Neanderthal who wanted to enslave women and exclude females from the business world.     

Lacking even a pretense of objectivity, the media mocked Butker without putting his remarks in context.  The father of two children lauded his spouse, applauding her for living a vocation as a wife and mother.  Isabelle, who played basketball at Rhodes College in Tennessee, freely chose her role as homemaker. 

What a sad commentary that one person's profession of faith and moral values is savaged in the name of cultural compliance.  Elites and the media demand fealty to their doctrine on every issue.  No one is permitted to disagree without a public flogging, including destroying their livelihood if necessary. 

The critics figured the backlash would bully into silence anyone who might consider backing Butker. They were wrong. The daughter and spouse of the Kansas City's Chief's CEO Clark Hunt praised the 28-year old kicker's speech. Tavia Hunt, married to billionaire Clark for 30 years, weighed in:

"Affirming motherhood and praising your wife, as well as highlighting the sacrifice and dedication it takes to be a mother, is not bigoted. It is empowering to acknowledge that a woman's hard work in raising children is not in vain."

Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes and head coach Andy Reid defended Butker's right to express his views.  Others were embolden by the growing pushback to raise their voices, including the Catholic bishop of the Kansas City Diocese and former Notre Dame Football Coach Lou Holtz.

Liberal talk show maven Whoopi Goldberg, while disagreeing with Butker's views, maintained his right to free speech. Actor Matthew McConaughey added his endorsement for the right to air your beliefs. Sales of Butker's Chiefs jersey rocketed to the top of the NFL list.  The majority was no longer silent.  

Contrast the media's trashing of Butker's brief remarks to the news cabal's sanitized coverage of the antisemitism roiling American college campuses in the wake of hundreds of protests from California to New York. The lackey media painted the protests as "anti-war" and "pro-Palenstinian."

In reality, the majority of the demonstrations were hate-filled attacks on Jews and Israel.  Chants of "death" to Zionists and calls for the destruction of the Jewish state were routine parts of the protests. Graffiti sprayed on campus buildings at USC, Columbia and Duke included the Nazi Swastika.   

The most egregious agitators masked their faces to avoid being identified as they spewed their ugly antisemitic tropes and epitaphs. Cowardly protestors vehemently declared their support for Hamas, a terrorist group dedicated to the murder of all Jews in Israel.

The media trumpeted free speech as rationale for administrators to allow students to erect tent cities, occupy buildings and trash campuses.  In today's climate, speech is free only if you adhere to the cultural dogma supported by the news media, elites and a few vociferous activist organizations.   

Dare to talk about issues from the perspective of your personal faith-based values and you will be excoriated, banished and disciplined.  Free speech dies when groups orchestrate plots to silence those who disagree with their cultural theology.  That's the lesson of Harrison Butker.