42 F
Chicago
Monday, November 28, 2022
HomeBusinessDi Leo: The Many Lies of a Dishonest Age

Di Leo: The Many Lies of a Dishonest Age

Date:

spot_img

Joe Biden press conferenceBy John F. Di Leo - 

The Second Amendment

A former United States Senator and Vice President of the United States, currently pretending to the title of the presidency, Joe Biden said this week that “The Second Amendment is not absolute.”

Wrong, Mr. Biden. The Second Amendment is absolute. The Constitution is absolute. 

It’s our political offices, such as Senator, Vice President, and President, that are not absolute.   Your office is constitutionally limited. That’s the whole point. That’s what living in a constitutional republic means.

Carbon Dioxide

The climate change crowd tells us that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.

Wrong. Carbon monoxide is a pollutant, sure.  Carbon monoxide can kill you.

But every human being on this planet exhales carbon dioxide. Constantly. As do our pets, livestock, and wild animals.  It’s nature. 

We all exhale carbon dioxide… and thank Heaven we do, because every plant on the planet depends on it.  Just as they produce oxygen for us, we produce carbon dioxide for them. It’s called science.

Anyone who tells you that carbon dioxide is an enemy – of humanity, of the planet, of anything at all – is lying to you.

Electric Cars

The environmentalist lobby insists that so-called electric cars, the vehicles that operate entirely on big rechargeable lithium batteries, are “green” – meaning, good for the planet.

Wrong.  While some of them may indeed be well-made, dependable, and efficient vehicles for some specific situations (as Tesla and the few other good electric cars are), they cannot honestly be defined as “good for the planet” by any of the standards that the environmentalist lobby says they use when claiming the term.

Electric cars use more energy in their manufacture than traditional internal combustion engine (I.C.E.) vehicles do.  Electric cars require infinitely more rare-earth elements (such as lithium), which (currently at least) require third world labor that no self-respecting liberal would admit to favoring.  Electric cars require more energy in their day-to-day operation because they rely on the electric grid for charging, which is infinitely less efficient than the direct burning of gasoline or diesel fuel in an I.C.E. And electric cars even tend to use more petroleum in their manufacture than I.C.E. cars do, because in order to be light enough to be powered by that battery, the vehicles are about 50% plastic.  And yes, those plastics are all derivatives of crude oil, just like the gasoline they claim to be avoiding.

This isn’t to say that electric cars are objectively bad – some are great; some are lousy. But anyone who tells you that they are green, under the definitions that the green lobby has championed for decades, is lying to you.

School Shootings

Every time there is a mass shooting – whether at a school, concert, park or subway – the anti-gun lobby insists that only more laws further restricting gun ownership will stop these events.

Wrong. And they know it.

It’s critical to the Left – the anti-gun lobby – that they control the narrative, since their arguments immediately collapse upon examination.

These shooters almost always obtained their weapons illegally – not always, but in the vast majority of instances.  And with the sole exception of the occasions when the shooters die by suicide, these incidents are almost always ended by legal gun owners – such as on or off duty police or concealed-carry civilians. 

In short, gun restrictions provably don’t stop the criminals from committing their crimes, but gun restrictions do reduce the number of "good guys with guns" who could stop the crimes earlier, and more restrictions would clearly reduce them even more.

Anybody who tells you that gun control will protect the innocent has some agenda other than the protection of the innocent.

Russia Collusion

In the run-up to the 2016 presidential campaign, the Hillary Clinton campaign paid to have some false evidence concocted that appeared to make Donald Trump look like some kind of a Russian agent, and they planted this dossier with the FBI.

Everything about it was a lie… not only the allegations themselves, but even the claim that the FBI was duped by the Clinton campaign.  Investigation after investigation has proven that high-ranking members of the FBI knew it to be false from the very start, so it’s not just a campaign crime, it’s a totally partisan high crime by the totally biased Department of Justice itself.  It is difficult to conceive of a definition of "treason" that would not include this particular conspiracy.

The Trump campaign has now been completely exonerated, and the Durham investigation has already proven that the Russia Collusion lie makes the Watergate scandal look like child’s play by comparison.  And still the mass media routinely report these disproven allegations as if they were fact, they cover up their refutation, and they bury the massive, ongoing revelations of both political and civil service corruption in the Obama White House.

And the Biggest Lie of All

In nearly every “news” story that mentions President Donald Trump, from his ongoing consideration of another run in 2024 to his primary endorsements in 2022, the press misses no opportunity to refer to “Trump’s disproven claims of election fraud in 2020.”

It’s a lie. Virtually none of the claims of 2020 election have been disproven. 

They have often been dismissed by courts on technicalities, such as denial of standing, but the allegations have not in fact been disproven at all.

That is not to say they have all been proven either.  Because of the secret ballot, it is extremely difficult to prove that elections are stolen, because once a fabricated ballot is entered into the record, the chain of custody tying it to the original voter is severed.  We cannot audit John Smith’s ballot by asking John Smith whether he really cast his ballot for Trump or for Biden, because we cannot get our hands on his actual ballot at all to check it that way.  

While we have good reason for valuing the principle of the secret ballot in these United States, we must admit that the secret ballot unfortunately makes a perfect audit impossible.

We can, however, do what is done in criminal trials every day: look at circumstantial evidence and study the patterns; such patterns often suffice as undeniable proof of guilt. 

When nursing homes full of comatose or otherwise incapacitated patients produce near-100% votes for the party supported by the administrators, you know there’s fraud there.  When dozens or even hundreds of ballots are cast by voters registered to the same two bedroom house or apartment, you know there’s fraud there.  And when the same 2000 mules are caught on camera, carrying hundreds of thousands of ballots from corrupt nonprofits to the same few ballot drop boxes, retracing the same steps over and over for weeks, you know there’s massive fraud there.

The fact of massive election fraud has indeed been proven, again and again, and people do go to jail for it, though always, far too few.  But Dinesh D’Souza’s new blockbuster documentary, “2000 Mules,” is in itself sufficient to prove that not only the presidency was stolen in 2020, but because of the sheer numbers of tainted and fabricated ballots, it’s virtually certain that countless downballot elections were stolen as well.

As hard as it is to prove specific instances of vote fraud in court, however, it is relatively easy to prevent it from occurring in the first place.  And the Left refuses – tooth and nail – to even consider election integrity measures.

If there really were no vote fraud, wouldn’t the Left jump at the chance to secure our elections just to prove themselves clean, and legitimize their many electoral victories that are now surrounded by a cloud?

There is a reason why the Left denies the existence of vote fraud to their last breath, while still blocking all efforts of reform:

Because without the crucial tool of vote fraud, the Democratic Party would be a minority party, permanently relegated to the back bench, dependent entirely upon a few big cities and college towns for their very survival.

Copyright 2022 John F. Di Leo

John F. Di Leo is a Chicagoland-based trade compliance trainer and transportation manager, writer and actor. A one-time county chairman of the Milwaukee County Republican Party, he has been writing regularly for Illinois Review since 2009.

 A collection of John’s Illinois Review articles about vote fraud, The Tales of Little Pavel, and his 2021 political satires about current events, Evening Soup with Basement Joe, Volumes One and Two, are available, in either paperback or eBook, only on Amazon.

Don’t miss an article! Use the free tool in the margin to sign up for Illinois Review’s free email notification service, so that you always know when we publish new content!

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from up to 5 devices at once

Latest stories

IL GOP Leaders Roasted by Conservative Grassroots Over Thanksgiving Weekend

By Illinois ReviewWhile families sat around the Thanksgiving table...

Power vs. The People: The Arrogance of the IL GOP Despite Massive Losses

By Illinois Review On July 20th, just months before the...

Vargas: If Ariz., Ill. GOP Want to See Wins, Leadership Must Change

By Mark Vargas, NewsmaxFollowing embarrassing losses on election night,...

Di Leo: Which Came First? The Chicken or the Laboratory?

By John F. Di Leo, American ThinkerThe Food and...

15 COMMENTS

  1. The Constitution says that the government cannot infringe upon our rights to keep and bear arms.
    Doesn’t say shouldn’t. Doesn’t say usually. Doesn’t say most of the time. Just says shall not. Period.
    It is absolute.
    Now, perhaps what you mean is that, surely, the Framers didn’t mean we can’t take away the guns of a guy who killed five people and is out on bail. And then I would say, right, he should not have a gun, but that’s because he should have been hanged for murder. He shouldn’t have been set free.
    See, our founders had common sense. They didn’t see a need to restrict access to firearms because they figured we’d never have been stupid enough to intentionally set hundreds of convicted criminals free.

  2. Our founders were “classic liberals.” They believed that men should make laws common and applicable to all through agreed principles of right vs. wrong, not be subject to the whims and decrees of kings.
    They weren’t today’s “Democrats,” who are fools and autocrats by nature.

  3. Sure an amendment is not absolute. Even the supreme court agrees.
    For example Scalia looped off “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ”
    The “literalist” originalist conveniently wacked off this part of the amendment and left the rest to be used by the NRA for gun sales.
    No civilian should have access to military level weapons without regulation and training. PERIOD!!!

  4. You’re misinterpreting the clause entirely.
    For one thing, the preliminary clause, “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” is a primary reason; it’s not part of the rule. The Framers believed that we need a well regulated militia – meaning, the American citizenry must be well-acquainted with the use and care of firearms in case they are ever needed for defense against criminals, foreign enemies, or your own government, and there simply isn’t time to train people from scratch.
    And being trained and familiar with other weapons that you would not encounter in the military would obviously not accomplish that goal. The closer they are to what you would use in the military, the better.
    So for example, a model 1911 pistol and a civilian AR-15 are not just good weapons for civilians, they are the perfect weapons for civilians, because they are the most similar to the weapons they’ll be issued in case of war. You just don’t have time to send a million people to a 6-week boot camp when you’re being unexpectedly invaded TODAY.
    Another issue that needs clarifying is that, unfortunately, like most liberals today, you are completely misunderstanding what “regulated” means in this context.
    In the Founding Era, there was no such thing as an FDA, an FCC, an EPA, or any of those other governmental regulatory agencies telling people how to do what they do. So the modern meaning of “regulated” – a subject falling under considerable micromanagement by a government bureaucracy – simply did not exist in those days.
    So the Framers COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE MEANT THAT when they wrote the Second Amendment.
    In the 18th century, the term “regulated” meant “practiced, accomplished, maybe even expert.”
    So a chef who was an expert at French or Italian cooking would have been considered well regulated in the use of his kitchen. A busy newspaper publisher’s team would have been considered well regulated in their use of their complex printing press, with its movable type and its cumbersome inking and paper loading processes.
    And the Framers recognized that the use of firearms is complex too, and needs experience. A lifetime of experience with weapons while you’re a civilian will make you most useful and best prepared, in case you are called upon to defend your community, your state, or your country.
    Hence the amendment.
    I hope that helps clarify it for you.

  5. Well regulated militia. Regulated. Done with you and your twisted attempts to worm out of this requirement. You have zero respect to the written words.
    Once again civilians should not have access to military grade weapons without regulation and training.
    You want an education read the Steven’s decent to Scalia’s rewriting of the second amendment. How much money did the child hating nra donate to Scalia for that crap decision?

  6. I am sorry that you are impervious to reality. But everything I have stated is reality. Everything I have stated about the second amendment, it’s history, and it’s meaning, is true.
    Now, you are welcome to disagree going forward. You are welcome to argue that you don’t think it’s a good policy anymore and that you would like to change it. You are welcome to argue that it should be amended. I would disagree, but you have the right to argue in favor of amending it. We have that right under the constitution.
    But you are not entitled to make up the facts. You’re not entitled to lie about the meaning of the document as the framers wrote it. You’re not allowed to disregard history and deny the truth of what happened.
    Please, I implore you, study the siege of Boston. Read about what General Washington discovered upon his arrival at Cambridge. Just so that you will understand the thought process is behind the people who wrote the second amendment.

  7. do you think the founding fathers knew about assault riffles. They wrote the amendment when single load muskets were top of line weaponry.
    You seem to have convinced yourself that you are a psychic clairvoyant: claiming you know how the founding fathers were thinking. That gun owners don’t need to belong to a well regulated state militia. Even though they WROTE and SIGNED on that amendment AS WRITTEN.
    You’re interpretation seems convenient to your cause. Making swiss cheese out of children with assault riffles while police are too scared to deal with a perpetrator with ONE assault riffle.
    Your support of current lack of regulation and red flagging of assault riffles is murderous at best.
    20 million assault riffles in US is 20 million too many.

  8. Slandering the NRA and Scalia won’t change the constitutional LAW, that of the 2nd amendment.
    The US Constitution is about the powers which WE THE PEOPLE delegated to the federal government. The Constitution is NOT about Our Rights, which come from God-given and pre-exist the Constitution! The founders wanted to preserve the access of the American people to the kinds of arms like assault rifles which are necessary for the kind of militia that could keep a free state secure. They didn’t write the second amendment to ensure Billy can hunt squirrels or Becky can shoot paper targets. They wrote a supreme law, the constitution to ensure we would not lose our God-given right to the most basic protection against tyranny from without and within. The very reason why the federal gov’t was never granted the authority to enact laws concerning guns and ammo. Making good people helpless doesn’t make bad people harmless! “A government that does not trust its law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is itself unworthy of trust.” — James Madison.

  9. “Once again civilians should not have access to military grade weapons without regulation and training.” LOL
    When the governors call up the militia then they are required to be well regulated as a militia. ARTICLE I. STATE MILITIA IN GENERAL
    (20 ILCS 1805/1) (from Ch. 129, par. 220.01)
    Sec. 1. All able-bodied citizens of this State and all other able-bodied residents in this State who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, between the ages of 18 and 45, except such as are expressly exempted by the laws of the United States and the State of Illinois, shall be subject to military duty and designated as the Illinois State Militia.

  10. You need to remember to give equal weight to all the words in the 2nd amendment is a primary rule of English.
    The second amendment does NOT grant us the right to keep & bear arms. The second amendment denies the federal government the authority to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms. Our natural right to keep and bear arms and self-defend is constitutionally protected from the federal government.

  11. Article One, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16
    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
    You can’t deny the militia by banning weapons needed to fight a modern war.
    You know so much that just ain’t so!

  12. Thank you for making it so clear what the left real position is.
    First, deny the reality of what the founding fathers meant when they wrote the amendment.
    Second, take advantage of every horrible crisis to push incremental assaults on individual liberty and the continuous growth of government in every direction.
    Third, having those broken down our historical respect for freedom, confiscate all firearms from law abiding American citizens.
    That is your plan. That is your goal. That is what the left is really up to, and has been for a century. Your people are no different from the Nazis, fascists, and communists who made the 20th century a century of blood.
    Thank heaven our founding fathers protecting us from your wickedness by writing the constitution so clearly.