Once again, the left is truing to extract a pound of flesh from Donald Trump. The special prosecutor for DoJ has indicted Trump on seven counts of something, we do not know what yet. The powers that be do not yet understand that every time they do this they boost Trumps numbers and drive more independent voters towards him. The problem many have is trying to figure out why there is a double standard for left and right. The incident that drove this indictment began in August of 2022 with a raid on Trumps Mar-a-Lago compound by the FBI. In that raid it is alluded that a number of classified documents were discovered that should have been given to the national archives for storage. Trump has argued that the documents were declassified when he was POTUS and therefore did not need to be transferred out. This is an important point to keep in mind.

Without deciding on Trumps guilt, we have to ask a few questions. Why was Hillary Clinton not indicted for keeping classified documents on her private laptop and further had transferred documents to her aid which she kept on a laptop she shared with her husband who was a convicted felon? What is the status of any investigation into Joe Biden keeping classified documents in his garage and other locations FOR YEARS.            Why did the FBI have evidence that Joe Biden may have been involved in criminal activity as VP up to and including taking bribes and did nothing until a whistleblower told congress and then tried to stone wall any investigation? Why did the FBI hold onto a laptop that may have incriminating evidence on Hunter Biden and refused to even acknowledge its existence until forced to. Why did high ranking members of the intelligence community declare that the laptop was fake and/or a disinformation campaign from the Russians when they knew the opposite was true?  These and many other examples are indicative of selective prosecution and investigations, which have caused the people to lose faith in the government.

Now back to the part that Trump felt he had declassified the documents which is way when asked if he had any he said no. Hillary was excused for her mishandling classified documents through a legal concept of “Mens Rea.’ This is a principle used when a person breaks the law but did not understand that they broke the law.

The selective prosecution of Trump is making the U.S. look like a third world nation. As some may argue that no one is above the law, that means .no one. DoJ must answer way the above and other cases are being ignored.

There has been much discussion recently over Public Accommodation. The news has been filled with the story of a website designer who refused to accept a job from LGBTQ+ customers, citing religious objections. This is the most recent cause célèbre that found its way onto the supreme court docket and was argued yesterday. Dec 5^th. At the center of the debate is whether a business can refuse service or is bound to provide service based on the public accommodation law.

This case follows a similar one in 2018, which also argued against the Colorado public accommodation law,that found for a baker who refused to use his talents to bake a cake for a same sex couple based on religious belief. The opinion of this last case was a narrow one based on the hostility shown during legal proceedings to the baker’s religious views.

The question to answer is. What is Public Accommodation. Under federal law it is:

 42 U.S.C. §2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. 42 U.S.C.

The Colorado law does go deeper into the class of persons, to include:

CO Rev Stat § 24-34-601 (2016) “An individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.”

I do believe in enforcing public accommodation laws. The concept of public accommodation lives deep in the heart of America. But there are limits when it comes to individual talent. I was against the Colorado baker feeling it was a violation of public accommodation until I found out the couple was asking for him to design a unique cake using his individual talents. This changed the tenor of the argument to forcing someone to sell not just a product but part of themselves. Had the couple asked for the Number “9” cake that would have fallen under public accommodation but when it went to asking the individual to provide his expertise which violated his individual belief, that went too far.

The same argument applies to the web designer. If she had standard templates and just added names, then she could not refuse service. To design an individual and unique web page requires her to apply her own talents and imagination. This should not be under public accommodation.

So, since I said I agree with the concept of public accommodation then let’s discuss how it should be applied.

In June of 2018, President Trumps Press Secretary, Sara Huckabee Sanders was refused service and asked to leave the Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Va. because she worked for Trump. This week a restaurant in Richmond Va. canceled a reserved party less then two hours before the start because the group, the Family Foundation, was perceived as anti-LGBTQ and staff said they felt uncomfortable and unsafe serving them. Neither Sanders nor the Family Foundation asked for any special accommodation and ordered off the menu. The refusal to serve these groups is in direct confrontation to the sprit of public accommodation. In theory this does not violate the Virginia law – § 2.2-3904. Nondiscrimination in places of public accommodation – since there is nothing in the law that mentions political affiliation – other then sexual orientation and gender identity.

These last two however do violate the sprit of the law and flies in the face of American culture. There has been a long hard fight over the last 50 years to ensure anyone, who is not breaking the law, can go to any business and get what the business offers. The history of America also fights for the individual. You cannot discriminate just because you do not like someone, but the government cannot force you to perform a unique function against your wishes.

To begin, I believe life begins at conception. I believe that there are circumstances where pregnancies can and should be aborted such as rape, incest or for medical reasons. I have never been sure of Roe v. Wade as the correct way to handle the abortion issue or should it reside in the states. I am sure however that the response we are seeing to a leaked preliminary report is a further indication of how far we as a nation have fallen

The most troubling response has come from our political leaders. Raising up and declaring SCOTUS is not properly responding to the wishes of the people and using the time worn attack that this is going to bring democracy down. Courts have never and should never be conduits of popular opinion. Yes laws change over time, responding to changing social conditions, but this is evolutionary. By saying that once the Supreme Court rules that is the end of all further discussions. The court has overturned past rulings and likely will continue to do so. Plessy v. Ferguson found that separate but equal education was constitutional upholding the concept of segregation and Jim Crow laws. This was then settled law from 1896 until 1954 when segregation was ruled unconstitutional in the Brown v. The Board of Education ruling.

Before Roe v. Wade abortion was not a “constitutional right” nor was it universally illegal. Until then it was up to individual states to determine, as well as individual choice in states where it was legal. Roe v. Wade determined the constitutionality based on the 9^th amendment arguing that if it not a right denied in the constitution it is the peoples right. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg while supporting the spirit of Roe said it was founded on the wrong argument. When it is reargued, and it will be, it will be under the 14^th amendment’s equal protection clause.

Why has this situation engendered such passion? To put abortion in perspective about .009% of woman between 15 and 49 get abortions on average per year. However both sides of the argument have taken it to extremes. On one side we say that any abortion is murder and have gone to the extreme of some now saying they wish to ban contraceptives and things like Plan B. On the other side we say, “My Body, My Choice.” This argument goes all the way up to the concept of partial birth abortions.

Both extremes are unworkable and will do nothing but continue to wreak havoc on America. Both side have to learn the art of compromise and understand that they will not get everything they want.