The History of Fabulous Las Vegas
April 27, 2024 9:49am
Las Vegas, Nevada is a lot more than glitz, glamour, and vice. When I visited that desert oasis a few months ago, I sat down with Mark Hall-Patton, the former Administrator of the Clark County Museum System to discuss the history of Nevada's most populous (and most popular) city. You may know him as "The Beard of Knowledge" from The History Channel's hit show "Pawn Stars."
Our conversation traced the growth of Las Vegas from the Indigenous tribes through European settlement to today's domination by corporate mega-casinos. The first episode of this two-part documentary aired last week. Episode 2 aired today. They are both now archived online as podcasts:
Episode 1 - www.TheMikeBatesShow.com/podcasts/240420
Episode 2 - www.TheMikeBatesShow.com/podcasts/240427
The Truth About Glaciers
April 20, 2024 8:45pm
I visited the Mendenhall Glacier in Juneau, Alaska today. It is one of many major glaciers that connect to the vast Juneau Ice Field, a 1500 square mile expanse of rock, snow and ice that is a remnant of the last ice age.
While the glacier is large and impressive, climate change propagandists are quick to point out that it used to be much larger. And of course, they blame you and your use of fossil fuels for its shrinkage. But like most claims of anthropogenic climate change, the facts tell a different story. The truth is that, worldwide, some glaciers are melting. Some glaciers are growing. And glaciologists do not know why. To blame glacial retreat on human-induced climate change is irresponsible and dishonest.
In 1794, Captain George Vancouver sailed into Alaska's Icy Strait. What would become Glacier Bay was barely noticeable because it was full of ice. Its Grand Pacific Glacier was 3900 feet tall, 20 miles wide, and more than 100 miles long extending all the way up to the St. Elias Mountain Range.
Eighty five years later, in 1879, John Muir found that the glacier had retreated 48 miles up Glacier Bay. By 1916 it had retreated 65 miles. Due to glacial retreat, Glacier Bay now has about 950 square miles of navigable waters, and the tallest of its eleven tidewater glaciers is only 350 feet tall.
Whose gas-guzzling SUV or electric air conditioner caused that? Nobody's. Glaciers have been receding and growing and receding and growing for millennia. Even today, some glaciers are expanding in the same areas that other glaciers are shrinking. But the climate change alarmists only tell you about the shrinking glaciers. And they blame it on your use of fossil fuels. Their dishonesty is disgusting. And dangerous.
What REALLY Happened on The Cross?
March 30, 2024 8:48am
Tomorrow is Easter Sunday. Do you know what REALLY happened on the Cross?
That's not a trick question. Most people - even most Christians - do not.
On today's radio program, Reverend Carl Gallups shared the surprising and irrefutable explanation for what Jesus meant when He said “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
Whether you're already a Christian or not, you'll want to hear segments 3 and 4 of the program because it will probably stun you with the shocking explanation of what really happened on Calvary's Cross. It did me.
I promise you won't regret the 25 minutes it'll take to listen to it. It may even change your life forever. And by "forever," I mean that literally. It may change your eternal life. I think today's message is THAT powerful.
The episode is now available online as a podcast at www.TheMikeBatesShow.com/podcasts/240330 (segments 3 & 4).
No Floridian Will Be Trump's VP Nominee. Guaranteed.
March 25, 2024 5:16pm
Despite Senator Marco Rubio making the rounds on network news shows this past weekend to discuss being on Donald Trump's short list to be the Vice-Presidential running mate, it will not happen. Guaranteed.
Marco Rubio will not be the VP nominee for the same reason Ron DeSantis will not be the VP nominee: Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States, reiterated by the 12th Amendment, effectively prohibits two people of the same state from being running mates. Although it is not an outright ban, the Constitution makes such a scenario extremely risky because Electoral College votes would be automatically lost.
That clause says about the Electoral College that "The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, OF WHOM ONE AT LEAST SHALL NOT BE AN INHABITANT OF THE SAME STATE WITH THEMSELVES" (emphasis added). In other words, if the nominees for President and Vice President were both citizens of Florida, then Florida's Republican electors to the Electoral College would not be able to vote for Trump, even if Trump won Florida.
Florida is not Alaska. That's not a statement about the weather. Alaska has three Electoral College votes. Florida has thirty. That's more than ten percent of the 270 needed to win. So, no candidate would risk the loss of thirty Electoral College votes just to have a fellow Floridian as a running mate.
Think back to the 2000 election. George W. Bush assigned Dick Cheney the role of leading his VP selection committee. Then after a supposedly thorough search, Dick Cheney recommended himself. But Dick Cheney and George W. Bush were both residents of Texas. So, just days before Bush's VP pick was announced, Dick Cheney changed his residency back to his home state of Wyoming, thus allowing Texas' 32 Electoral College votes to count (if Republican). But if Cheney and Bush both were citizens of Texas, Texas' Electoral College votes would not have counted. The result would have been neither Bush nor Gore receiving 270 Electoral College votes, and the U.S. House and U.S. Senate separately choosing the victors (with the House choosing the President and the Senate choosing the Vice President).
The result of such a scenario would have been very interesting. The Republicans had a majority of the House of Representatives on certification day (January 6, 2001). But each Representative would not have gotten a vote. Only one vote per state would have been cast. Republicans held majorities in 28 states, so assuming votes went along party lines, Republican George W. Bush would have been elected President. But Democrat Joe Lieberman would have been elected Vice President. Why? Because the composition of the Senate on certification day was 50-50. The tie-breaking vote would have been cast by the then-sitting Vice President, Democrat Al Gore. Gore would have lost the presidency, but his running mate would have won the Vice Presidency! Seriously.
While the Constitution's de facto prohibition against two people from the same state running together is not common knowledge among the masses, it is not esoterically obscure minutiae either. What I don't understand is how the conversation about Marco Rubio or Ron DeSantis being Trump's running mate even gets into the so-called "news" papers and "news" networks without the editors spiking the story because of its impossibility - or at the very least without explaining the Constitutional ramifications of such a scenario. I have been explaining it to countless people over the past several months when they've advocated for Ron DeSantis to be Trump's running mate. And not a single person had ever heard of the constitutional ramifications I just outlined. Many have challenged me on it. But it's easy enough to read the Constitution and verify the veracity of my explanation.
Why do I know this, but the big news outlets don't? Not to sound conceited, but it's because I'm educated and objective. The big news outlets are generally run by partisan fools who are more interested in inflaming than informing. Such is the sad state of today's partisan press.
The Voice of an Angel: Chris Noel
March 23, 2024 9:50am
On today's radio program, I interviewed an angel. That episode is now archived online as a podcast at www.TheMikeBatesShow.com/podcasts/240323
During the Vietnam War, Chris Noel was a cute, green-eyed blonde who was known and adored by every serviceman in southeast Asia. She wasn't on a poster tacked to their walls. She was with them on the air. But she didn't only visit American troops via the magic of radio. She was with them live in-person performing onstage, signing autographs, and posing for pictures. It was also important to Chris that she visit our wounded servicemen in the hospitals. She would often be seen sitting bedside holding the hands of wounded GIs offering them comfort, hope, and love. At a time when supporting American military personnel was unpopular, Chris Noel risked not only her Hollywood career, but also her life, to demonstrate her love for our men in uniform. She was so effective in boosting morale that the Viet Cong put a $10,000 bounty on her head.
Back in the States, Chris Noel was known for her starring roles in films with Elvis Presley, Steve McQueen, Dennis Hopper, and Jackie Gleason. But in Vietnam, she was the voice of an angel who visited the troops through her radio show that aired on the military-run radio network (AFVN, the American Forces Vietnam Network, which is best known as the real-life radio station portrayed in Robin Williams' 1987 movie "Good Morning, Vietnam"). She opened every episode of her program "A Date with Chris" with the seductive coo of "Hi, love!" Interspersed among the top songs of the day, her program brought words of comfort and love to the men in the field. Many GIs said her radio show was the sound of home that brought them hope in times of hopelessness. She was on AFVN radio in Vietnam every weeknight from 1966 - 1971.
Chris Noel visited Vietnam more times than she can recall. But unlike many entertainers who participated in USO shows well behind the lines, Noel frequently flew to forward operating bases to visit the men out in the field. Although the military did its best to keep her safe, she was shot at on numerous occasions, and her helicopter crashed in a rice paddy near a suspected Viet Cong village. She survived, of course, and returned to Vietnam many times after those incidents. She cared so much about our servicemen, nothing would keep her away.
Chris Noel's love and support for our military did not stop at the end of hostilities. Since 1993, she has provided free services to veterans at her Vetsville Cease Fire House in Boynton Beach, Florida. That center provides shelter, care, and hope for homeless veterans. She also attended many veteran events across America, including the annual Rolling Thunder gatherings in Washington, DC that focused on remembering our POWs and MIA servicemen. These are just a few examples of her service to our warriors. There are many others.
Chris Noel wrote about her time in Vietnam in her 2011 book "Vietnam and Me." She also spoke about her Vietnam experience in the 2015 radio documentary "AFVN: The GI's Companion" that I produced with Harry Simons. But because she is so humble and does not seek accolades for her work, she would never ask for awards or recognition.
But she deserves to be recognized for her relentless support of our servicemen throughout her life. Thanks to Randy Nichols and Harry Simons, an effort is now underway to submit her name for consideration to be awarded the nation’s highest civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of Freedom. This medal is presented to individuals who have made especially meritorious contributions to the security or national interests of the United States, to world peace, or to cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.
Although the award is given at the sole discretion of the President of the United States, we want the President to know how many Americans are in favor of bestowing this honor upon Chris Noel. If you support this, please sign our petition. Signing the petition will not obligate you to anything. We promise to never ask you for money or send you junk mail. We are only asking you to do two things: 1) add your name to the petition to show your support, and 2) copy and share the www.HonorChrisNoel.com link with your friends, so they can also participate in honoring a humble woman whose service to America's veterans should be honored. Let's not miss this opportunity to recognize Chris Noel's lifelong support of our servicemen. Please sign the petition today.
You can hear Chris Noel, now 82 years old, speak about her life in the interview I recorded with her in West Palm Beach, Florida last week. It aired today on the radio and is now archived online as a podcast at www.TheMikeBatesShow.com/podcasts/240323
A Patient Is A Person, No Matter How Small
March 16, 2024 9:34am
Last month, I attended a presentation by my friend Dr. William Lile, the "ProLife Doc." Licensed to practice medicine in Florida and Alabama, he is board certified in obstetrics and gynecology and has served as an OB/GYN Department Chair. He has also taught at the University of Florida and Florida State Medical School OB/GYN residency programs.
In 1999, Dr. Lile purchased an OB/GYN practice that was the largest provider of abortion services in Pensacola, Florida. He immediately stopped all its abortion services. And he used the equipment that had previously killed babies in the womb to educate people about the grisly realities of surgical abortions. Those educational programs have since grown into the worldwide ministry ProLifeDoc.org which teaches the undeniable personhood of pre-born babies.
Dr. Lile shares the indisputable science that a pre-born child is genetically unique from his/her mother and father, which means the fetus is individual human life. He further supports that child's separate identity by educating people about the wonders of modern obstetrical technology that allow doctors to correct many developmental defects via surgery in the womb. The result is healthy babies being born months later! Those in utero procedures on pre-born children range from blood transfusions to heart & brain surgeries.
I interviewed Dr. Lile on today's radio program where he explained that a majority of abortions in America are done with an abortion pill, but that such abortions can be reversed if the antidote is administered within 72 hours. He also described those miraculous medical procedures that are saving the lives of babies in the womb. And perhaps most importantly, he made the case that a patient is a person, no matter how small.
Whether you are pro-life or pro-abortion, you should listen to today's radio show. It is now archived online as a podcast at www.TheMikeBatesShow.com/podcasts/240316. I also encourage you to visit Dr. Lile's website at www.ProLifeDoc.org
Well, of Course, Donald Trump Is Eligible for the Presidency!
March 4, 2024 9:39am
The Supreme Court just announced its UNANIMOUS decision in Trump v. Anderson, the case regarding Colorado removing the former President from its ballot under the 14th Amendment.
I wrote about Colorado's unconstitutional action on December 19th. But I saw the DemonRats' evil scheme long before that. On November 18, 2022, the day Trump announced his candidacy for the 2024 presidential election, I wrote about the reasons for the Democrats’ and the media's (my apologies for being redundant) deliberate misuse of the word "insurrection" to describe the January 6th riot at The Capitol. And I have explained many times on my radio program exactly why the 14th Amendment does NOT render Trump ineligible for the presidency.
So why did I get it right when so many so-called "legal experts" and "constitutional scholars" got it wrong? Because my loyalty is to the Constitution of the United States not to a political party. And my knowledge of our Constitution is not clouded by partisan ideology. But most of today's so-called "journalists" are nothing but hard Left activists who spew false propaganda that supports the Democrat Party's destructive agenda. And that propaganda press gleefully amplifies the lies the DemonRats tell.
Fortunately, all nine justices on the U.S. Supreme Court based their decision on law and facts rather than the lies the public was spoon-fed by enemies of our Republic.
One final point before I end this post. I do not want Donald Trump back in The White House, although I will vote for him over any DemonRat in the race. That the issue of Trump's eligibility even had to go before the U.S. Supreme Court is shameful. But so is nearly everything Democrat officials do.
Do You Hear the People Sing?
February 22, 2024 10:42pm
I first saw Les Misérables on Broadway in the mid-1990s. I've since seen it on stage four other times, including at Queen’s Theatre in London. I've read Victor Hugo's 1232 page novel. And I've listened to the album of the original Broadway cast at least five hundred times. No, that is not an exaggeration.
Les Misérables, the greatest Broadway musical of all time, debuted on the silver screen Christmas Day 2012. I rarely go to the movies, but I was sure to see Les Misérables that day. Tomorrow, a remixed & remastered version of that 2012 film will be re-released in the U.S. for one week only exclusively at AMC Dolby Cinemas.
However, the Destin Commons 14 AMC theatre in Florida was among a few selected venues approved to show the film tonight. I was fortunate enough to attend this evening's early premiere. The film was, of course, spectacular. But whatever audio and video improvements were brought about by remastering the film in Dolby Atmos and Dolby Vision were imperceptible to me. I don't recall there being any shortcomings in the production values when I saw this film a dozen years ago. It was magnificent then, and it was magnificent tonight.
Les Misérables is a captivating and intriguing story of sin, forgiveness, love, justice, despair, triumph, and redemption. Its intense musical score evokes emotions from pain to romance to jealousy to grief to the victory of God's ultimate grace. The film's star-studded cast includes Hugh Jackman as Jean Valjean, Russell Crowe as Javert, Anne Hathaway as Fantine, Amanda Seyfried as Cosette, Eddie Redmayne as Marius Pontmercy, Samantha Barks as Éponine, and Helena Bonham Carter & Sacha Baron Cohen as the Thénardiers.
Tomorrow's official theatrical re-release will renew the public's interest a few months before "Les Misérables: The Arena Spectacular" begins its world tour on September 19th. To get tickets to the spectacular re-release of this film, visit AMC Theatres here. And you too will ask:
Do you hear the people sing?
Singing a song of angry men?
It is the music of a people
Who will not be slaves again!
When the beating of your heart
Echos the beating of the drums
There is a life about to start
When tomorrow comes!
Do you hear the people sing
Lost in the valley of the night
It is the music of a people
Who are climbing to the light
For the wretched of the earth
there is a flame that never dies
Even the darkest night will end
and the Sun will rise!
Do you hear the people sing
Say, do you hear the distant drums?
It is the future that they bring
When tomorrow comes!
MANIA: The ABBA Tribute
February 14, 2024 10:42pm
ABBA hasn't performed since they disbanded in 1982 (if you don't count their 2021 "Voyage" studio album, for which they didn't tour but instead played in London as digital holograms). But my wife and I just got home from the next best thing. We enjoyed "MANIA: The ABBA Tribute" at Pensacola's Saenger Theatre. This show originated in London's West End in 1999 and has since toured all around the world. I could tell it wasn't really ABBA by looking at them (because all four ABBA singers are now in their 70s, and these singers were young). But by listening, they sounded just like the original group.
Agnetha Fältskog, Björn Ulvaeus, Benny Andersson, and Anni-Frid Lyngstad formed the Swedish supergroup in 1972. 2024 is the 50th Anniversary of "Waterloo," which was the group's first single to chart in the U.S.
They never sang "Thank You for the Music," which is my favorite ABBA song. But because it was never released as a single in the U.S., I'm not surprised it wasn't included in the concert. Even without it, it was a great show for which I say:
"Thank you for the music, the songs I'm singing
Thanks for all the joy they're bringing
Who can live without it? I ask in all honesty
What would life be?
Without a song or a dance, what are we?
So I say thank you for the music
For giving it to me!"
The History of Mardi Gras: "Laissez les Bons Temps Rouler!"
February 10, 2024 9:05am
The Mardi Gras season is in full swing in New Orleans, and this February 13th is "Fat Tuesday." It's the last day of revelry and merriment before Lent begins on Ash Wednesday.
When most people outside New Orleans think of Mardi Gras, they think of drunken debauchery and excess on Bourbon Street. But that's a very small part of the Mardi Gras story. On today's radio program, I sat down with Barry Kern, the CEO and President of Mardi Gras World on the bank of the Mississippi River in New Orleans. We discussed the history and traditions of this centuries-old carnival that, despite the stereotypes, is actually a very family friendly celebration. While you may think of Mardi Gras as a day with a big parade, there's a lot more to it than that. Listen to today's program to learn what it is.
My discussion with Barry Kern aired today on WPNN Radio and is now archived online as a podcast at www.TheMikeBatesShow.com/podcasts/240210. "Laissez les Bons Temps Rouler!"
More Evidence That Trump's Felony Charges Are Politically Motivated
February 8, 2024 4:03pm
Just in case there was any need for more evidence that the classified documents case against Donald Trump is politically motivated, Special Counsel Robert Hur announced today that he would NOT recommend charges against Joe Biden for illegally possessing and sharing classified documents after he left office in 2017. This is despite the special counsel acknowledging that Biden "willfully retained and disclosed classified information after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen."
It should be noted that some of the classified documents illegally in Biden's possession were from the 1970s when he was a Senator, and that Biden years ago didn't return any documents even after he admitted he had them at his private residence.
Part of the reason Hur said he let Joe get off scot-free was that Biden was a "sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory." Seriously. But the real reason is that Joe Biden is a Democrat. And the "D" in parentheses stands for "Do Not Prosecute."
It also stands for Deceitful, Destructive, Despicable, Dubious, Disgusting, Devious, Depraved, Defective, Disastrous, Deplorable, Damaging, Duplicitous, Disturbing, Delusional, Disreputable, Deranged, Dysfunctional, Degenerative, Distressing, Detestable, Dodgy, Distasteful, Dreadful, Dishonest, Dirty, Demented, Debilitating, Disdainful, and Dangerous.
Bomb Iran? Not So Fast!
January 30, 2024 8:53pm
Iran-backed militants have been attacking America's allies throughout the entirety of Biden's term in The White House. In the past 115 days, they have attacked U.S. forces in the Middle East more than 160 times. That averages to more than one attack per day. Iran has been harassing our ships in the Middle East. They have been illegally providing weapons to Gaza's Hamas, Lebanon's Hezbollah, Yemen's Houthis, Syria's Liwa al-Ghaliboun, and Iraq's Islamic Resistance. Why has Iran does all this? Partly, it is due to their extreme fundamentalist form of Islam. But mostly, it is because they believe America is too timid to respond. And with America's current leadership, they're not wrong.
Biden is a cowardly Commander-in-Chief. Remember, he was the only Obama advisor to recommend AGAINST killing Osama bin Laden in 2011. In 2020, he denounced President Trump's decision in to kill Qassem Soleimani, the commander of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds forces. Biden is also so eager for Iran to rejoin the failed JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, commonly called the "Iran nuclear deal"), that he will do little to anger or even annoy the mad mullahs who rule the Islamic Republic of Iran. Last year, in a cash-for-hostages deal, he even released to Iran $6 billion dollars that was being held in escrow due to sanctions . Biden also eased sanctions on the sale of Iranian oil. Between oil sales and the money Biden released, Iran, very predictably, used those billions to fund terrorist groups throughout the world. Hamas' October 7th attack on Israel was a direct result of the money Biden released to them. Consequently, Iran believes they can attack the West and our allies with impunity. So far, they have been correct. All the West has done was a few mild attacks on terrorist facilities in Yemen, Iraq, and Syria.
But with this week's drone attack by Iran proxy Islamic Resistance that killed three U.S. servicemen and injured at least three dozen more, that will likely change. Biden is certain to order pummeling retaliatory strikes. To be clear, he doesn't want to. But the American people, along with politicians on both sides of the aisle, are demanding some retribution. So Biden will be forced to act.
Many are calling for Biden to send a firm message to Iranian leaders by conducting military strikes against targets inside Iran. While that would certainly get the attention of the mullahs, it should not be done. Make no mistake, I would love to see every single member of the Iranian government and their Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps dead. But for American forces to do it would be an unjustified escalation.
Why? Well, first of all, unless American forces are attacked directly from within Iranian territory, Biden would need Congressional approval before striking within Iran's borders. Secondly, if providing weapons, training, and intelligence is sufficient casus belli to attack within Iran's borders, would Russia be justified attacking the United States within our borders? After all, we are providing weapons, training, and intelligence to Ukraine. And Russian military personnel are dying because of it. So, those of you wanting to see us flatten Iran, be careful what you wish for.
There is a point at which the United States not only should attack Iran within its borders but MUST do so. And that is to prevent Iran from possessing nuclear weapons. Because if Iran has even one usable nuclear weapon, the cost of attacking Iran directly will be a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv. Or Washington, DC. But our intelligence services claim Iran isn’t that close. I don’t accept that conclusion as fact, but that’s the intel we’re using to form policy.
But American forces ARE currently justified in killing as many Iran proxies as possible in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. And while we're at it, let's kill as many Iranian military personnel as we can find among those terrorist groups in the field. Will it anger Iran? Of course it will! Despite boasting that they want to die as martyrs for Allah, their survivors tend to get kinda pissed off when we give them what they say they want.
In 2015, General Soleimani told an Iranian news service, “Martyrdom is what I seek in mountains and valleys but isn’t granted yet.” Well, President Trump granted his wish five years later. But instead of celebrating his martyrdom, the Iranians and their allies in the Democratic Party denounced Donald Trump for ordering the strike that supposedly sent Soleimani straight to Paradise. Considering how Democrats love to appease Islamic terrorists, I expected Trump would be celebrated for giving Soleimani what he wanted. Oh, well. There's just no pleasing most Democrats no matter what. "Damned if ya do, damned if ya don't," Right?
Joe Biden's timid responses to previous Iran-backed attacks have been meek and mild. And that only resulted in more attacks upon American forces and our allies. We should have responded forcefully and relentlessly until those terrorists either died or slithered back into their hideouts. Would it have accomplished that ? Well, this week, when Biden said the United States would respond with force, the Iran-backed Hezbollah Brigades in Iraq (which is not the same as Iran-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon) announced they would suspend their military operations against U.S. forces in Iraq. Gee, why is that? Because now that they believe Biden might quit being such a weakling and actually take measures to protect American military personnel from attack, they don't want to be on the receiving end of it. It's amazing how effective strength is as a deterrence, isn't it?
I'm not getting my hopes up, however. We are still dealing with Joe Biden. His track record is one of catastrophic failure. Sure, he'll bomb some targets in an effort to silence his critics. But Biden will still pull punches because he is not looking for a "wider war in the Middle East." Yeah, well, the way to prevent a wider war in the Middle East is to eliminate as many enemies who have already been provoking one. Do it, Joe. Put America first for a change.
The Fishy Case That May Rein In Out of Control Federal Agencies
January 27, 2024 9:19am
The Constitution of the United States allows Congress, and ONLY Congress, the legislative power to make federal laws. Nowhere does our Constitution grant such powers to the Executive Branch or to the agencies that constitute the Executive Branch. Congress does have the authority to grant certain rule-making powers to those agencies. But those rules must exist within the boundaries of what Congress legislated.
Well, in the last half century or so, the Executive Branch has assumed more and more power that neither the Congress nor the Constitution authorized. And they've been getting away with it, with the blessing of the Supreme Court, since 1984. The 1984 case was Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council. That case involved the Environmental Protection Agency's unilateral reinterpretation of the word "source" used in the Clean Air Act. The High Court supported the EPA's actions in what came to be known as the "Chevron Doctrine" or "Chevron Deference."
The Chevron Doctrine essentially required judges to presume that an agency's interpretation of a statute was proper unless there was a clear violation of the law. Before overruling an agency's action, judges had to go through a two-part test. First the court had to determine whether Congress directly addressed the issue in legislation; second, if Congress didn't clearly address the issue, the court would have to uphold the agency’s interpretation of the statute as long as it was reasonable. That decision allowed regulatory agencies to have very wide latitude in reinterpreting existing laws whenever they wanted. The result was wildly vacillating policies depending upon which party held The White House.
But an upcoming decision on a case out of New England may change that. Oral arguments were held last week at the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Gina Raimondo (the Secretary of Commerce). The Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act allows the National Marine Fisheries Service to place human monitors on fishing boats to ensure that fishing quotas and other laws are not being violated. Despite that Act not allowing the agency to require the fishing boats pay for those at-sea monitoring programs, the agency interpreted (misinterpreted, in my opinion) the law in such a manner that it did. Well, some of the affected fishermen sued. Judges in both the District Court and the Court of Appeals ruled against them, and the case is now before the Supreme Court.
On today's radio program, I interviewed Ryan Mulvey, an attorney with Cause of Action Institute, which represented the fishermen. Mulvey worked on that case and was present in the courtroom during oral arguments. We discussed the case, the lack of constitutional justification for what the Commerce Department did, and what the Court's decision is likely to be. That episode is now archived online as a podcast at www.TheMikeBatesShow.com/podcasts/240127
The Democrats' Dysfunctional Open Borders Policy is Dangerous, Destructive, and Deliberate
January 27, 2024 8:51am
Despite the lies coming from the Biden Administration, everybody knows the Southern U.S. border is wide open. And everybody knows that the Democrats are facilitating the illegal crossing of literally millions of people with few marketable skills that will be a drain on American taxpayers.
Cities like New York and Chicago have proudly proclaimed themselves to be sanctuary cities where illegal immigrants wouldn't be turned over to the feds for deportation or prosecution no matter how serious the crimes they committed were. Well, the Democrat mayors of those cities are finally admitting they can't handle the influx and are demanding that Biden do something to stem the flood. He won't, of course. Because Biden's flagrant violation of our immigration laws is part and parcel to the Democrats' political strategy of importing as many future Democrat voters as they can.
But that failure to control our border will likely result in terrorist attacks long before the illegal immigrants or their offspring can legally cast ballots. In 2022 & 2023, the Border Patrol found 6386 Afghans, 3153 Egyptians, 659 Iranians, and 538 Syrians at the border. While not everyone from these countries is a terrorist, those nations are indisputably hotbeds of Islamic terrorism. Further, the overwhelming percentage of such illegal migrants are males of military age. They are not women and children.
During that same two year period, the Border Patrol also caught 26,113 Chinese and 12,605 Russians. The majority of those Chinese and Russians were also males of military age. The United States cannot be militarily invaded by the uniformed services of a hostile nation, and with Biden's porous border, they wouldn't have to. He's openly and actively inviting them in! How long will it be until some of these invited invaders attack us?
Those numbers are just those who have been caught. Nobody knows how many have illegally crossed the border without capture. But because of Biden's "catch & release" policy, these migrants are given a date to report for an immigration hearing and are released into the United States. How many show up for those hearings? Almost zero. Instead, they are bussed or flown, often without proper identification, to cities across America where they are given taxpayer funded food, housing, healthcare, education, and cash. Illegal migration costs the American taxpayer almost $200 billion each year.
But terrorism isn't the only national security threat posed by these illegal alien invaders. The cartels are smuggling massive quantities of illicit drugs across the border. More than a quarter million Americans have died from fentanyl overdoses over the past five years. Humans are being trafficked for use as sex slaves. Females, both young and old, are being raped by the smugglers enroute to Biden's promise of freebies. Those who make it into the U.S. often end up as indentured servants working for years at illegally low wages until they pay off the smuggling fees charged by the cartel's coyotes.
On today's radio program, I interviewed Ira Mehlman with the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). We discussed what is happening on our southern border and how it poses a clear and present danger to America's national security. That episode is now archived online as a podcast at www.TheMikeBatesShow.com/podcasts/240127
Nitrogen Hypoxia Is a Painless Way to Die
January 25, 2024 3:16pm
Before this day is done, Alabama will execute Kenneth Eugene Smith. Smith, along with John Forrest Parker, stabbed Elizabeth Sennett to death inside her home in Colbert County, Alabama on March 18, 1988. The payment for that murder-for-hire was $1000.
Upon conviction, they were both sentenced to death. Parker was executed via lethal injection in June 2010. But when officials tried to carry out the execution of Smith in November 2022, they could not get a needle into his vein before the death warrant expired, so the execution was aborted. His execution was eventually scheduled for today.
What makes tonight's execution notable is that it will be the first nitrogen hypoxia execution in the United States. Nitrogen hypoxia is a very painless way to die. Nitrogen is an inert gas with no taste or smell. The air we breath is 78% nitrogen, so the human body is conditioned to inhale it. Via a facemask, Smith will inhale pure nitrogen. The resulting lack of oxygen will cause his painless death. The pain a person feels during suffocation is not due to a lack of oxygen. It is due to a build-up of carbon dioxide. Because execution via nitrogen hypoxia does not build up carbon dioxide, the prisoner will painlessly lose consciousness as if going to sleep. He'll just never wake up. It inflicts less pain than the needle used for lethal injection does. How do we know this? Because when workers die from nitrogen hypoxia in industrial accidents, they show no signs whatsoever of distress or attempts to escape the affected area. Unconsciousness just sneaks up on them without warning.
So, unlike the extremely painful death Smith inflicted upon Mrs. Sennett 36 years ago, he will die tonight with no physical pain whatsoever. It seems like a good way to go. But if the Constitution didn't prohibit it, I'd be fine if he was stabbed to death. For the record, if it was up to me, every state in the nation would impose mandatory death penalties for all people convicted of murder, attempted murder, aggravated sexual battery, and arson. And it would be carried out swiftly with none of this "36 years on death row" crap. Because to allow such people to live means society values the life of the guilty more than it values the life of the innocent.
Your Credit Card Rewards May Soon Be Taken From You
January 20, 2024 9:31am
Do you enjoy getting reward points, airline miles, statement credits, or cash back when you use a credit card to make purchases? I do. But there is an effort in Congress to eliminate credit card reward programs as we know it. Senate Bill 1838, the Credit Card Competition Act, is sponsored by Senator Dick Durban (D-IL). Co-sponsors are Peter Welch (D-VT), Roger Marshall (R-KS), and JD Vance (R-OH).
When someone uses a credit card to make a $100 purchase, it costs the consumer $100. But the merchant doesn't get the full $100. The merchant receives $96 - $99. The other 1% - 4% of the transaction retained by the credit card processor is the "merchant discount rate." They are informally referred to as "swipe fees." Some of that retained money from such interchange fees pays for the secure technology infrastructure that processes credit card transactions along with certain fraud protections. But almost half of that money is used to fund credit card reward programs. 82% of American adults have at least one credit card. 84% of them have one with rewards. So credit card reward programs are obviously quite popular.
But the Credit Card Competition Act would result in the elimination or serious reduction in credit card rewards. The proposed legislation in Congress would require credit card issuing financial institutions with assets above $100 billion to allow transactions over at least two credit card networks, with at least one not being the Visa or Mastercard networks. Curiously, the bill would not apply to American Express or Discover.
Senator Durbin argues that by forcing network competition, rates will go down, and consumers will save money. While that may seem like a logical outcome to expect, history suggests otherwise. In 2010, it was Senator Durbin's amendment to the Dodd-Frank Act that forced lower swipe fees for debit card transactions. He argued that it was low income people who used debit cards the most, and that they'd miraculously have more money if swipe fees were lowered. But what actually happened was the elimination of reward programs for debit cards and increased fees on checking accounts. There's no such thing as a free lunch, so something had to offset the losses imposed by the government-mandated reduction in swipe fees. In the end, the low-income people that Durbin claimed to care so much about were financially worse off after his do-gooder legislation meddled in the market. He now wants to do the same thing to credit cards.
But the harm that would come from passage of the Credit Card Competition Act goes far beyond those of us who enjoy getting rewards on our credit card purchases. There would be other serious harm to the economy. Yet this threat has received very little attention in the media. So on today's radio show, I discussed the bill and its harmful effects with Nick Simpson, the Managing Director of Communications and Public Affairs for the Electronic Payments Coalition. That interview is now archived online as a podcast at www.TheMikeBatesShow.com/podcasts/240120
More information is also available at www.ElectronicPaymentsCoalition.org, www.ProtectUSTourism.com, and www.HandsOffMyRewards.com
Trump's Victory in Iowa Is the First Step to His Defeat
January 16, 2024 2:49pm
Donald Trump's victory in yesterday's Republican caucus in Iowa surprised no one. He has lead in the polls consistently since he announced his bid to return the The White House. With 51% of the vote, Donald Trump secured 20 of Iowa's 40 delegates to the Republican National Convention. Coming in second place at 21%, Ron DeSantis received 9 delegates. Third place Nikki Haley, who won 19% of the vote, got 8 delegates. And Vivek Ramaswamy walked away with 7% of the vote and 3 delegates, but he literally walked away in that he withdrew from the race. Asa Hutchinson and Chris Christie also withdrew. But none of those specifics matter.
It is inevitable that Donald Trump will receive the party's nomination at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. He will secure it long before the July convention, however. Along the way, it is certain he will win the Republican primaries and caucuses in every state in the union. The only unknown is what his margins of victory will be.
While Trump supporters are excited about the Iowa win and his upcoming victories elsewhere, I am not. It is understandable why Trump is so popular among Republican voters. He accomplished a lot of good during his four years as President. He has been viciously and unjustly persecuted by the Democrats and their allies in the propaganda press. Federal and state governments have been weaponized against him before, during, and after his time in office. And the 2020 election was stolen from him via the loosey-goosey processes and procedures used to conduct the unconstitutional elections. That's not just my opinion, it is the opinion of courts in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. The people who support Donald Trump see how he has been mistreated, so they view him winning in 2024 as righting some of the wrongs committed against him. That enthusiastic support will easily win him the Republican nomination. But when the entire country gets to vote in the general election on November 5th, he will get slaughtered. And Biden will get four more years.
Almost half the Republicans in Iowa voted for a candidate other than Donald Trump. And because the vote was in the form of a caucus rather than a primary, only the hardcore Republicans participated. Think about what that means. If half the hardcore Republicans don't want Trump to be President again, how many independents will?
In modern elections, 30% of the electorate will vote for the Republican no matter what. 40% will vote for the Democrat no matter what. The fight is for the 30% in the middle. That middle will not support Trump in sufficient numbers for him to win in November.
Yes, I am aware that current polls show Trump defeating Biden. But the election is nearly ten months from now, and that middle is not yet paying attention. But after the Republicans crown Trump as the party's nominee, Hollywood, academia, the plethora of left-wing organizations, and their allies in the propaganda press will launch an all out attack on Donald Trump. The voters will be reminded, often inaccurately, about all the bad things Donald Trump has said and done. Not only that, but sometime before election day, Donald trump will be found guilty of multiple felonies. Never before has a convicted felon sought the Presidency of the United States as the nominee of a major political party. Like the charges, those guilty verdicts will be politically motivated and legally erroneous. And those convictions will eventually be overturned by an appellate court. But that will occur long after election day; long after the Left has succeeded with their weaponization of the legal system to eliminate their chief political opponent. Tragically, the entire 2024 election will be all about Donald Trump. Well, everything except the victor.
This post is not sour grapes because I want Ron DeSantis in The White House, although I do. This is about the Republican electorate foolishly nominating the one person who cannot defeat Joe Biden in November. Trump's supporters are well-intentioned. They are patriots who love America and believe only Donald Trump can save it. But the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. And the road we're on is to another four years of Hell with Joe Biden in office.
USS Yorktown (CV-10): "The Fighting Lady"
December 30, 2023 9:19am
The aircraft carrier USS Yorktown (CV-10) is the centerpiece of the Patriots Point Naval & Maritime Museum in Charleston, South Carolina. She has been here since 1975, five years after being decommissioned.
Her keel was laid down one week before Pearl Harbor was attacked. Newport News Shipbuilding completed construction very quickly, as she was commissioned just 16 1/2 months later on April 15, 1943. She is one of five ships named "Yorktown" that have served in the United States Navy over the years. This "Yorktown" was named for the USS Yorktown (CV-5) that sunk at the Battle of Midway.
During her 22 years of active service in the U.S. Navy, which spanned from World War II to Vietnam, Yorktown engaged in numerous battles. Among her more notable engagements were the Battle of the Philippine Sea (better known as the "Marianas Turkey Shoot"), Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. In 1968, a Sikorsky Sea King helicopter from the USS Yorktown recovered Apollo 8 astronauts Frank Borman, James Lovell and William Anders after they splashed down in the Pacific following their orbit around the moon.
While on board the USS Yorktown, I sat down with the Director of Collections and Curatorial Affairs and the Exhibits Manager to discuss the history of the ship. That interview aired on WPNN Radio this morning and is now archived online as a podcast at www.TheMikeBatesShow.com/podcasts/231230
Today's Orange Bowl is NOT Georgia v. Florida State!
December 30, 2023 5:11am
On December 2nd, the Michigan Wolverines beat Iowa in the Big 10 Championship Game; the Washington Huskies beat Oregon in the Pack 12 Championship Game; the Texas Longhorns beat Oklahoma State in the Big 12 Championship Game; the Alabama Crimson Tide beat Georgia in the SEC Championship Game; and the Florida State Seminoles beat Louisville in the ACC Championship Game.
The next day, the College Football Playoff Selection Committee chose Michigan, Washington, Texas, and Alabama to compete for this season's national championship. The Michigan Wolverines are ranked #1, so they'll play the #4 Alabama Crimson Tide in the Rose Bowl on January 1st. The Washington Huskies are ranked #2, so they'll take on the #3 Texas Longhorns in the Sugar Bowl, which is also on New Year's Day. The winners of those two semi-final games will face each other in the National Championship Game January 8th in Houston. Where are the Florida State Seminoles??? Why aren't they in the playoffs???
There are five Power Five conferences (ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac 12, and SEC). But since only four playoff slots exist, one conference champion must be left out. This year, the Power Five conferences have three undefeated teams. All three deserve to play for the national championship. Undefeated Michigan EARNED a spot (if we ignore their cheating). Undefeated Washington EARNED a spot. And undefeated Florida State EARNED a spot.
So the first three teams to make the playoffs should have been automatic: Michigan, Washington, and Florida State. Who should have gotten the fourth playoff berth? Well, obviously not Georgia because Georgia didn't win their conference. So the question of which Power Five conference champion should have gotten the fourth slot should have been between Texas and Alabama. Texas and Alabama each won their conference championships, but both have a loss. If head to head play means anything, then that should have been an easy selection too. Texas beat Alabama during the regular season. So under no circumstances should Alabama be in the playoffs but not Texas. Well, Texas is in the playoffs. But why is Alabama? Why did Alabama get in over Florida State? It makes no sense. Does what happens on the field mean nothing to the College Football Playoff Selection Committee???
The Committee said they made their decision based largely upon Florida State's starting quarterback, Jordan Travis, being injured and out for the season. But Florida State ended the season undefeated and won the ACC Conference Championship with their third string quarterback! Florida State was improperly and inexcusably excluded. Why?
For Florida State to be denied a berth they earned on the field by a bunch of elitist jackasses at a conference table makes a mockery of the sport. Why even play? Why try to win? Why not just let some committee vote you to victory, huh? Or in the case of the Seminoles, vote you out of a chance to earn the victory on the field. Florida State should be in the final four not Alabama. And it's disgusting they aren't. When the undefeated Seminoles won the ACC Championship Game, the committee said "Screw you. We want Bama."
That snub has caused at least 23 Florida State players to opt out of today's Orange Bowl. So today's game will NOT be Georgia v. Florida State because the Florida State team of the 2023 season has largely disbanded. It will be a shell of the Seminoles team against a mostly intact Bulldogs team. Georgia has players not playing today also. But they are almost all benchwarmers seeking transfers to schools where they can get play time. The Florida State players missing the game are almost all starters. If the Seminoles weren't screwed out of their rightful opportunity to compete for a National Championship, those players would be playing in the post-season. But since the Orange Bowl is meaningless, they have chosen not to.
I expect Florida State to get crushed today. That will then be perceived as "See, Florida State sucks! The committee made the right decision excluding them!" But the truth is that the team playing today is not the team that would be playing if they hadn't been robbed by the Committee. That said, Go Noles! >>>-----;;->
Colorado Supreme Court Unconstitutionally Kicked Trump Off the Ballot
December 19, 2023 11:18pm
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its decision in Anderson v. Griswold today. The state's high court concluded that Donald Trump's connection to the January 6th riot at the U.S. Capitol constituted an insurrection and thus made him ineligible for the presidency based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The court ordered Donald Trump to be removed from Colorado's Republican primary scheduled for March 5th.
All seven Colorado Supreme Court justices were appointed by Democrat governors. But even with that fully partisan Supreme Court, it was a 4-3 decision. A 4-3 decision has the same legal effect as a 7-0 decision. But it indicates the case is not the slam dunk, anti-Trump victory the Democrats are celebrating it as. That three of the seven Democrats on the court did NOT believe Trump should be removed shows how weak the argument that he's ineligible really is.
When the violence at The Capitol happened, and for months afterwards, everyone called it a "riot." Even the journalists posing as activists in the propaganda press called it a riot. But then all of a sudden that changed. The Democrats and the media - my apologies for being redundant - stopped calling it a riot and started calling it an insurrection. Why? Because some Leftist Democrat think tank came up with the idea that if January 6th was an insurrection, then the 14th Amendment could be used to disqualify Donald Trump from ever serving in office again. So the first time I heard the word "insurrection" used, I knew the Democrats would try a specious 14th Amendment claim to remove Trump from the 2024 ballot. No, I'm not a prophet. It was just that easy to see the legal tactic they were brewing. I wrote about that possibility in my blog on November 18, 2022.
The court removed Trump from the ballot only for the primary election not for the general election. That matters because even if Trump doesn't appear on Colorado's presidential primary ballot, he could still be on the general election ballot in November. A candidate can lose a state's primary but win enough delegates in other states to secure the party's nomination and then appear on the ballots of all 50 states and the District of Columbia. So this ruling, even if it stands, does not mean Trump has no chance of winning Colorado's ten Electoral College votes in November's general election. But having lost Colorado in both 2016 and 2020, it is safe to say he wouldn't win it next year even if he is on the ballot. But I am certain the U.S. Supreme Court will overturn Colorado’s blatantly partisan attempt to remove Trump from the ballot. And there are many reasons why.
The January 6th riot at The Capitol was stupid. It was illegal. And it was pointless. But it was not an insurrection. "Insurrection" is not some nebulous word the Trump-haters get to throw around in pursuit of disqualifying him from ever holding office again. Under the law, insurrection is a very specific crime. It is a violation of Title 18 U.S. Code Section 2383. But violating that law was not included in ANY of the 91 charges against Trump. Why not? Because not a single prosecutor believed Trump's actions vis a vis the January 6th riot violated that law. Why not? Because he didn't engage in insurrection!
So on those grounds alone, the U.S. Supreme Court should invalidate Colorado's decision. But there are other reasons also. Words matter in the law. Details matter. When U.S. Supreme Court justices consider the EXACT verbiage of the Constitution, the exact verbiage of the law, and the exact facts of the case, there is no way an impartial judge could possibly support what the bitterly partisan, yet divided, Colorado Supreme Court just did.
The 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the President. Seriously. If you examine the exact words of the Constitution, it is quite clear the presidency is not included on either side of the 14th Amendment's disqualification clause. It doesn't apply to a person even if he engaged in insurrection while President. And it doesn't prevent a person who engaged in insurrection from serving as President. How can that be?
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
Was Donald Trump a member of Congress? No. Was Donald Trump an officer of the United States? No. Was Donald Trump a member of any State legislature? No. Was Donald Trump an executive or judicial officer of any State? No. So the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to Donald Trump! The only position in government Donald Trump has ever held was President. And the President does not take an oath to "support the Constitution".
The Founders who wrote and ratified the Constitution of the United States included verbiage that required an oath for federal and state officials. But the specific wording of such oaths was only specified for the President. Specific wording for oaths for all other positions was not included. So the First Congress, in its very first act, specified the wording for Senators and Representatives. This is what they required by law: "I, [name], do solemnly swear or affirm that I will support the Constitution of the United States.” That oath was used for all federal officials except the President.
The wording of the required oath has changed many times since that first act of Congress. Since 1966, as prescribed in Title 5, Section 3331 of the United States Code, the wording is, "I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” That is the oath for all federal government officials EXCEPT the President. The President has a different oath; the one prescribed in the Constitution itself.
That Presidential oath (Article II, Section 1, Clause 8) is "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Did you notice its specific words? The oath for President is to "preserve," "protect," and "defend" the Constitution of the United States. Nowhere in that oath does the word "support" appear.
Article VI, Clause 3 says, “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Notice the word "support" is required.
Then, after the Civil War when the 14th Amendment was written, discussed, and passed in the U.S. House and Senate; and was then discussed, and ratified by 3/4 of the states, specific words were used. They were not willy-nilly thrown together. They were used with very deliberate intent. They were carefully chosen to describe and put into effect via the Supreme Law of the Land, the intent of both the national and state legislatures. And what word was not included in it? The word "support."
That the President is not subject to 14th Amendment disqualification is further supported by the Constitution never referring to the President as an "officer of the United States." Indeed it implicitly states the President is NOT an "officer of the United States." Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, states the President shall have power to appoint "ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, AND ALL OTHER OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES, WHOSE APPOINTMENTS ARE NOT HEREIN OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR, and which shall be established by Law..." This indicates the Constitution dos not consider the elected President to be an "officer."
Additionally, Article II, Section 3 says the President "shall commission all the Officers of the United States." Because the President does not commission himself but does commission "ALL the Officers of the United States," he is clearly not an "officer of the United States.”
But there's more. Article II, Section 4 says, "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." If the Constitution considered the President to be an officer, it would have said "The President, Vice President and all OTHER civil officers of the United States" or "all civil officers, including the President and Vice President." But it doesn't say either of those. It says "The President, Vice President AND all civil Officers of the United States." Clearly, the President is not "an officer of the United States" and is therefore, not subject to the 14th Amendment's disqualification clause.
Why? Because the 14th Amendment applies only to insurrectionists who were "a member of Congress," "an officer of the United States," "a member of any state legislature," or "an executive or judicial officer of any State." And what does it prevent those people from being? A "senator or representative in Congress," an "elector of President and Vice President," or "any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State." It does not disqualify someone from the Presidency. Sorry, Trump-haters. The Constitution means what it says not what you wish it said.
There are also other grounds for overturning Colorado's erroneous decision. A state does not have the authority to disqualify a person from the presidential ballot based on a claim that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment prohibits service as President. Why not? Because Section 5 of the 14th Amendment says, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Who has the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of the 14th Amendment? CONGRESS. Who else? NOBODY.
But what about precedent? Has a state court ever refused to put someone on the ballot for the presidency because the person wasn't qualified to serve? Yes. And do you know what state did it? Colorado! Yep. And the Colorado Supreme Court cited that instance in its ruling that Trump was ineligible. But the case they cited has little to do with the Trump case. The case they cited was Hassan v. Colorado.
Page 31 of today’s 133 page decision of the Colorado Supreme Court says, "several courts have expressly upheld states’ ability to exclude constitutionally ineligible candidates from their presidential ballots." The decision then went on to cite cases where courts did uphold the ability of states to exclude constitutionally ineligible candidates from their presidential ballots. Theses are the cases they cited:
1) California’s refusal to place a twenty-seven year-old candidate on the presidential ballot.
2) Illinois' refusal to place a thirty-one year-old candidate on the presidential ballot.
3) Colorado's refusal to place a naturalized citizen on the presidential ballot.
It is that Colorado case, Hassan v. Colorado that the uninformed Leftists are so excited about because Supreme Court Justice Neal Gorsuch ruled in favor of Colorado in that case. He wasn't on the Supreme Court at the time. But he ruled in that case as a member of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. And the Democrats are saying Neal Gorsuch couldn't possibly reverse himself in the Trump case.
But that argument is without merit. Did you notice what that Colorado case and the other two cases had in common? Colorado refused to place a naturalized citizen on the presidential ballot. California refused to place a twenty-seven-year-old candidate on the presidential ballot. And Illinois refused to place a thirty-one year-old candidate on the presidential ballot.
The obvious commonality of those three cases is that they all had to do with the objectively obvious and provable qualifications for President laid out in the Constitution. There only three constitutional requirements to be President. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 says, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
Since nobody who was a citizen of the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted is still alive today, the only requirements to be President are being a natural born citizen, being at least 35 years old, and having at least 14 years as a resident within the U.S. Those are all very obvious and very provable.
In the California case, the wannabe candidate was 27 years old. He was too young. In the Illinois case, the wannabe candidate was 31 years old. He was also too young. In the Colorado case, the wannabe candidate was a naturalized citizen not a natural born citizen. He was not eligible because he wasn't born in the United States (he was born in Guyana) .
It is that Hassan v. Colorado case the justices on the Colorado Supreme Court are misrepresenting. Page 32 of the decision says, "As then-Judge Gorsuch recognized in Hassan, it is a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process that permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office. The question then becomes whether Colorado has exercised this power through the Election Code. We conclude that it has."
But let's get into some details of that Hassan v. Colorado case. Abdul Karim Hassan wanted to run for President of the United States in 2008. But as a naturalized citizen, he was constitutionally ineligible to serve. Ergo, the State of Colorado refused to put his name on the ballot. Hassan sued the State of Colorado asserting that the natural-born-citizen requirement, and its enforcement through state law barring his access to the ballot, violated the Citizenship, Privileges and Immunities, and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
On its face, it does seem like naturalized citizens do NOT receive equal protection vis a vis eligibility to be President. But the Constitution elsewhere says natural born citizens can't be President. End of discussion. If it was a statute that banned naturalized citizens from serving as President, that would violate the equal protection clause. But since it is the Constitution itself that bans it and not a statute, Hassan lost.
Neal Gorsuch was one of three judges who ruled against him and in favor of Colorado's right to keep him off the ballot. For what it's worth, Hassan also applied to be on New Hampshire's ballot and was denied there too; for the same reason. So he sued New Hampshire also. And he lost in the case of Hassan v. New Hampshire too. But since a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice wasn't involved in that New Hampshire case, nobody seems to care about it. I only know about it because when I read the Colorado Supreme Court's mention of Hassan v. Colorado, I looked up that case and read it. In researching the case, I came across the New Hampshire case too. Abdul Hassan's status as a naturalized citizen was never disputed by anyone; not even by Hassan. So Gorsuch and the other two judges had only one way to decide the case; to decide against Hassan.
But Trump's eligibility under the 14th Amendment is in dispute, albeit only by bitter partisans who are pulling out all the stops trying to prevent him from winning a second term. The Trump case is not a question of eligibility. It is a question of what qualifies as an "insurrection." And in no way, shape, matter, form, or regard do Trump's actions vis a vis the Capitol riot of January 6th constitute an insurrection.
To be clear, disqualification of a candidate based on the 14th Amendment does not require a judicial insurrection charge or conviction. But it does require the person to have engaged in insurrection or rebellion. And despite the lie being repeated so often, Trump did not. And neither did anyone else that day.
More than a thousand people have been charged with crimes for being at the Capitol on January 6th. How many were charged with insurrection? Zero. Not the President. Not anybody. Why not? Because the January 6th riot, while stupid and criminal, was not an insurrection under any sane definition. The only people calling it an insurrection are the Leftists who are trying to unconstitutionally remove someone they hate from the ballot. That includes the Democrats, most of the press, and four of the seven Democrat judges on the Colorado Supreme Court. But three judges on that court did dissent. Justice Carlos Samour wrote in his dissent, "Procedural due process is one of the aspects of America’s democracy that sets this country apart. The decision to bar former President Donald J. Trump by all accounts the current leading Republican presidential candidate (and reportedly the current leading overall presidential candidate) - from Colorado’s presidential primary ballot flies in the face of the due process doctrine.... I have been involved in the justice system for thirty-three years now, and what took place here doesn't resemble anything I've seen in a courtroom."
Justice Samour is correct. Four of the seven Colorado Supreme Court Justices made an unconstitutional and indefensible ruling based solely on the Democrat Party's hate and contempt for Donald Trump. But the U.S. Supreme Court will certainly overturn it, assuming they rule in time. Colorado's primary is March 5th. But a decision would need to be rendered by January 5th because that's the deadline for Colorado to print its presidential primary ballots.
What the all-Democrat Colorado Supreme Court did - and what Democrats in many other states are trying to do - is to remove Donald Trump from the ballot based on this phony 14th Amendment insurrectionist nonsense. But even when that effort fails, the Democrats will have benefited. All these court battles are costing Trump and the Republicans time, money, and effort that would be better spent on a campaign to reach voters rather than on lawyers to defeat these baseless and frivolous attempts to remove the leading candidate of a major political party from the ballot. That is something third-world countries do. It is not something the United States does. Shame on the Democrats for attempting it.
I do not want Donald Trump to be President again. But this effort to twist the Constitution of the United States to prevent him from being on the ballot is disgraceful. And disgusting. And dangerous. Sadly, in today's Amerika, it is par for the course.