Why Jo Jorgensen Should be at the Debate

Photo: Wikipedia

 The first Presidential Debate is tonight at 9:00. President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden will answer questions and try to convince voters why each is a better choice than his opponent.

As usual, tonight's debate will feature the nominees from the Democratic and Republican Parties even though there are more than those two parties running for office. There has been a call on social media to allow other parties in the debate, especially from supporters for Jo Jorgensen, the Libertarian nominee for President.

Debates and politics overall have been dominated by the Democrats and Republicans for far too long. People who are actively looking for change continue to go to the polls thinking they only have two choices. This is not true. Voters will always have additional choices but feel Democrats or Republicans are the only ones who can win an election.

Jorgensen should have a chance to speak at tonight's debate and tell the voters what she would plan to do if elected President. She could also be the one to "make history" as so many supporters of Hilary Clinton claimed to want in the 2016 election. Blocking someone who has the nomination of her party from participating in the debate is wrong. It goes against what this country stands for and desires.

There are a lot of people who think the United States is going in the wrong direction. People feel there needs to be a change in the country. A lot of people have been clamoring for democracy and wanting all voices to be heard. Why not start with Jo Jorgensen?

Why Another Trump Impeachment Could Hurt Liberals

 The vacant seat on the Supreme Court has led to another battle between President Donald Trump and Liberals in Congress. Trump wants to move quickly to fill the empty seat after Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death. The Liberals are against this and want to vote after, "we have a new president," according to Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY). Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) says he will go forward with a vote on whoever the nominee is.

Liberals in Congress are not ruling out the idea of a second impeachment attempt. While she didn't specifically mention impeachment, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said, "We have our options," and went on to mention using every arrow to "protect democracy."

This is far from a convenient time to have a vacant seat on the Supreme Court. The election is weeks away and the race for the White House will no doubt be close and interesting to watch. Conservative President Trump is facing a challenge from the Liberal Biden. The House of Representatives is controlled by the Liberals. The Senate is controlled by the Conservatives. Both sides are gearing up for a fierce fight not only for the Supreme Court but also for the White House and seats in Congress. If the House were to use impeachment to stall Trump's nomination, whatever charge they were to come up with, Pelosi has essentially said everything is on the table. Whatever charge they come up with for impeachment, the public will be aware of the underlying reason: to prevent Trump from appointing a justice to the Supreme Court.

Assuming this is tried and fails (67 senators need to vote for Impeachment), what then? How would Congress explain to the American People their reason for a third Impeachment? This is a move that could backfire on the Liberals. Would a second failed-attempt at Impeachment make Trump stronger?

It's no secret Liberals will try to block this nomination. Impeachment, however, seems like a drastic move and one that could blow up in the faces of Pelosi and those of her party. She has said all of the arrows are in the quiver. Look to those other arrows.

Trump Supporters (and others) Should QUIETLY Assemble

 A story in the New York Times and Yahoo.com reports supporters for President Donald Trump organized outside a polling station in Fairfax, Virginia and chanted, "Four more years". Officials say the supporters were 100 feet away from the station but they had formed a line, forcing voters to take a longer route to the poll.

Some voters saw the people as protestors and said they, "felt intimidated."

The Coronavirus has upheaved every facet of life, including voting. Some people have chosen to vote by mail rather than risk catching the disease at a polling station. The events of 2020 have even caused some states to have early voting to lessen the lines for the 2020 Election.

There are constantly supporters of candidates meeting outside a polling station. there are laws that say how close they can be. According to reports, these people seemed to be far enough away from where the voting was taking place. Holding a sign, waving to cars, and politely asking someone to vote for a candidate is one thing. Chanting and making something appear to be a demonstration is something else. The people who were chanting and forming lines making someone take a longer route to the poll should have stood silently and held their signs. No one does their candidate any service by shouting or chanting. It would only lead to another confrontation. If someone supporting an opposing candidate see this, what is to stop them from starting a chanting of their own. This will escalate into a shouting match or even a physical confrontation.

There has been too much commotion when it comes to politics. The democratic process practiced in every state, county, city, and town is the envy of every other country on Earth. Keep it civil. Don't turn it into a melee. Quietly support your candidate. Respect the people supporting the other candidate. Do your civic duty and peacefully return to your everyday life.

RBG Replacement Can't Wait

 

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away yesterday and the Liberals and Conservatives have wasted no time in fighting over when or how to replace her.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said President Donald Trump's nominee will have a vote before the next election. Liberals, including Joe Biden, have said the selection should wait until the next president is elected. The next president could be elected in six weeks or four years, depending on the results of the 2020 Election. Waiting four years to nominate and confirm a new Supreme Court justice is irresponsible and absurd.

This, of course, stems from a statement made by McConnell back in 2016. Justice Antonin Scalia passed away while Barack Obama was in office. McConnell said the vacancy, "should not be filled until we have a new president." Again, this could have taken four years. You can not wait for years for a new justice. McConnell's statement was pure politics, just as the Liberals' and Senator Chuck Schumer's posturing is now.

Massachusetts has seen something like this before. In 2004, Massachusetts State Legislature passed a law that took away the governor's power to appoint an interim senator if the office was vacated. This move by the Liberal-controlled legislative branch stripped Republican Governor Mitt Romney of a chance to appoint someone to the temporary position. Months before the death of Senator Ted Kennedy, the legislature passed a law restoring the governor's power. This gave Liberal Governor Deval Patrick the power to appoint a senator. The same thing is happening now in Washington D.C. where Liberals and Conservatives are fighting to gain and hold power and influence in the highest court of the land.

Donald Trump is the President of the United States, like it or not. As President, he has the duty to nominate judges to the Supreme Court. The Senate must act on those nominations. Stalling this process in hopes of the Liberals winning the White House will not help the country at all.

Ohio Student-Athletes Still Standing

 Two football players were originally suspended after they carried "thin blue line" and "thin red line" flags onto the field last week. The game was part of the school's "Patriot Night" according to a story on Cincinnati.com. The suspensions have since been lifted.

According to school officials, the American flag is the first to go through the tunnel every game. The players, Brady Williams and Jarad Bentley, were suspended for carrying the flags after being denied permission.

Photo: WLWT

A spokesperson for Little Miami said the school was, "saddened to see this story take such a negative turn," and that the school, "enjoys an outstanding relationship with... police and fire agencies... Little Miami always has - and always will - support our first responders... and all who sacrifice to maintain our freedoms."

This suspension should never have happened in the first place. These are teenagers, sons of a policeman (Williams) and a fireman (Bentley). They wanted to show support for their fathers and other first responders. The school suspended the players for the old "violating school policy". The school punished the students and administrators couldn't even speak for themselves on the matter. They needed a spokesperson. Did these administrators, those responsible for teaching students of Morrow, Ohio, speak to a consultant before handing down the original punishment? I doubt it, but when the residents wanted to know why their act was so egregious that these students deserved to be punished, the administrators backed off and reversed their original decision.

Good for these students. They did nothing wrong. The school, through their spokesperson boasts about their "outstanding relationship". The school, "always has - and always will - support (their) first responders." And yet, when two boys decide they will openly support their fathers - fathers who work a job so dangerous that it makes their families wonder if they will see them the next day - the "leaders" punish them and then hire someone to explain why they punished the students for violating rules put in place by the aforementioned leaders. I would love to see these leaders tell the first responders how much they "support" them. I would love to hear these explanations and examples after attempting to punish students for carrying these flags onto the playing field.

I would also like to have been in the room when permission was asked and then denied. What were the reasons for not giving permission? Because the American flag goes first. Okay. I can understand that, but aren't there exceptions to the rule. How many firefighters and police officers died on September 11, 2001? (380) What is the problem with carrying banners that represent the police and firefighters, the ones that ran to the danger of the collapsing buildings while others were running in the opposite direction?

Some have cited race as the reason for the trouble with the flag and the suspension. One black parent said the "Thin Blue Line" flag "represents a rebuttal to the 'Black Lives Matter' movement and alienates black students." The support for the students is coming from "almost all white folks" according the  parent. Eighty nine percent of the students at the school are white. Of course most of the support is going to be white. They make up a majority of the school's demographics. The school's county is also accusing the superintendent, Greg Power of a "double standard" because Power wrote an open letter citing the need to address racial injustice. Fine. Discuss it. Bring the police into a meeting with the community and bring your issues and concerns out to the open. Have a dialogue, but speak for yourself and don't hire someone to do it for you. And try to punish someone again when they want to support their family.

Andover School Committee Causing More Harm Than Good

 The school year is picking up where it left off: with students and teachers working from home because of the Coronavirus. While schools were remote-teaching and learning during the second half of the year, this year will look to be a mix of remote learning and in-person learning.

Teachers, parents, and students alike are worried about the chances of catching the virus. Cities and towns will be doing everything they can to make sure those chances are minimal.

Despite that, teachers in towns like Andover, Massachusetts are not prepared to walk into enclosed atmospheres just yet and have stated plans to work outside buildings and use laptops at a professional development day scheduled for today, according to a story. The teachers union is concerned for the safety of the teachers, going so far as to oppose the towns decision to incorporate hybrid-learning at the present time.

The school committee expects the teachers to work in-person and hopes the union will not engage in an, "illegal work stoppage." The expectations of the school committee are unreasonable. The teachers will be in an enclosed space with the students. All it will take is just one student carrying the virus into a classroom and infecting the class. These students will take the virus home, to their neighborhoods.

Massachusetts as a whole has been doing what needs to be done to stem COVID-19. The school committee forcing the teachers to work in the schools and the classrooms is not the way to move forward. Shannon Scully, the chairperson of the school committee, should work with the teachers union and show that the school committee truly cares about the safety of the teachers and students instead of speaking from a bully pulpit and threatening to make a bad public health scenario worse.