What's left of the Democrat Party: the party that championed for free speech, that stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the working man, that was a voice for those who had no voice? Not much.
The Democrat Party of today is an umbrella organization for those with a morality that is at odds with that on which this nation was founded.
This re-branded Democrat Party sanctions lawlessness if it serves the party's undefined interests. The Democrats disrupt meetings, shut down platforms to those who disagree with them and propose nothing to replace that which they seek to destroy.
Witness the Democrats' disgraceful conduct during the hearing of Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh: clamoring, yelling, turmoil and resisting efforts to be ejected.
Worse yet was the behavior of those Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Party head Chuck Schumer orchestrated the chaos. Rehearsed demands by Schumer's minions for documentation, in addition to the 400,000 pages submitted, plus all of Kavanaugh's 307 legal opinions, and 17,000 pages of material provided in response to the committee's questionnaire. However, it was not enough, because it will never be enough.
Failing this tactic, they demanded a postponement or cancellation and even called for Kavanaugh to "rescue" himself. In this, the Democrats unwittingly drew aside the curtain, permitting a clear view of themselves. Some 100 demonstrators were forcibly removed and arrested.
So why are the Democrats fighting tooth and nail against Kavanaugh? For 60 years the blue party has made an end-run around the will of the people by appealing to their ideological comrades on the Supreme Court. What they could never have achieved via the ballot box, they accomplished through the unelected bodies of the High Court and government bureaucrats.
Let's turn our attention to one "accomplishment" of the Left, starting with the Bill of Rights' First Amendment, specifically, Freedom of Speech and its assault by the newly minted crimes of hate speech and hate crimes.
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written after the Revolutionary War with England. Some 50,000 Americans were causalities of this bitter, eight-year conflict. There is no doubt that the framers were no strangers to hate speech. Perhaps this is why Madison listed free speech first in the Bill of Rights.
In my time, there was a rhyme which is still familiar to many: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me". We didn't engage in hate speech, but ethnic jokes were common. If you liked them, you laughed; if not, you didn't; and if you were offended, too bad.
Freedom of Speech is not without it's barbs, even so, in all it's crudeness, it worked just fine. Today, 45 states have some form of hate speech laws.
Piggybacking on hate speech are hate crimes. A hate crime, like hate speech, involves an offense that expresses prejudice against someone's race, religion, or sexual orientation.
Suppose someone hits you and absconds with your money. Are your injuries and loss made more severe by the thief's racial motive, or are they mitigated because his crime was motivated by plain greed? I think not.
Let's further imagine that this thief is caught. The presiding judge must posses clairvoyant powers to discern the man's motive. Lacking paranormal insight, the court should confine itself to hard facts. Nonsensical laws like hate crimes should be repealed.
The last amendment to the Bill of Rights, the Tenth, may be the most important. It is the one most flagrantly disregarded by the Supreme Court. In part, the Tenth reads: "Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States..."
These "Powers" are enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. There are precisely 18 responsibilities delegated to the federal government. Not one is remotely connected to prejudice against someone's race, religion, or sexual orientation. Nor is marriage or abortion mentioned.
All federal laws related to the aforementioned "prejudices", or marriage, or abortion, are blatantly unconstitutional and should be repealed. It is the prerogative of the states – not the federal government – to enact such laws or any legislation that pleases the electorate.
Will Brett Kavanaugh and the four other Court originalists return this nation to a constitutional republic?
That, only the future knows, or one of the psychic seers judging hate crimes.
Bob Scroggins, New Milford, PA