Highlights of Democrat Party Platforms Part 1

1840 Democratic Party Platform

Resolved, That congress has no power to charter a national bank; that we believe such an institution one of deadly hostility to the best interests of the country, dangerous to our republican institutions and the liberties of the people, and calculated to place the business of the country within the control of a concentrated money power, and above the laws and the will of the people.

Resolved, That congress has no power, under the constitution, to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several states, and that such states are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by the constitution; that all efforts by abolitionists or others, made to induce congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences, and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people, and endanger the stability and permanency of the union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend to our political institutions. [read more]

1856 Democratic Party Platform

Resolved, That we regard this as a distinctive feature of our political creed, which we are proud to maintain before the world, as the great moral element in a form of government springing from and upheld by the popular will; and we contrast it with the creed and practice of Federalism, under whatever name or form, which seeks to palsy the will of the constituent, and which conceives no imposture too monstrous for the popular credulity.

…….

That Congress has no power to charter a national bank; that we believe such an institution one of deadly hostility to the best interests of the country, dangerous to our republican institutions and the liberties of the people, and calculated to place the business of the country within the control of a concentrated money power, and above the laws and the will of the people; and that the results of Democratic legislation in this and all other financial measures upon which issues have been made between the two political parties of the country, have demonstrated to candid and practical men of all parties, their soundness, safety, and utility, in all business pursuits.

……..

That Congress has no power under the Constitution, to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several States, and that such States are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by the Constitution; that all efforts of the abolitionists, or others, made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences; and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend of our political institutions.

…….

That the Democratic party will resist all attempts at renewing, in Congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made. [read more]

1860 Democratic Party Platform

Resolved, That one of the necessities of the age, in a military, commercial, and postal point of view, is speedy communication between the Atlantic and Pacific States; and the Democratic party pledge such Constitutional Government aid as will insure the construction of a Railroad to the Pacific coast, at the earliest practicable period.

…….

Resolved, That the enactments of the State Legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effect. [read more]

AI that reads brain scans shows promise for finding Alzheimer’s genes

From Nature.com (Nov. 1, 2023):

Washington DC

Researchers have sifted through genomes from thousands of individuals in an effort to identify genes linked to Alzheimer's disease. But these scientists have faced a serious obstacle: it's hard to know for certain which of those people have Alzheimer's. There's no foolproof blood test for the disease, and dementia, a key symptom of Alzheimer's, is also caused by other disorders. Early-stage Alzheimer's might cause no symptoms at all.

Now, researchers have developed artificial intelligence (AI)-based approaches that could help. One algorithm efficiently sorts through large numbers of brain images and picks out those that include characteristics of Alzheimer's. A second machine-learning method identifies important structural features of the brain - an effort that could eventually help scientists to spot new signs of Alzheimer's in brain scans.

The goal is to use people's brain images as visual 'biomarkers' of Alzheimer's. Applying the method to large databases that also include medical information and genetic data, such as the UK Biobank, could allow scientists to pinpoint genes that contribute to the disease. In turn, this work could aid the creation of treatments and of models that predict who's at risk of developing the disease.

Combining genomics, brain imaging and AI is allowing researchers to "find brain measures that are tightly linked to a genomic driver", says Paul Thompson, a neuroscientist at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, who is spearheading efforts to develop these algorithms.

Thompson and others described the new AI techniques on 4 November at the annual conference of the American Society of Human Genetics in Washington DC.

Overwhelmed with data

Thousands of people have had both their genomes sequenced and their brains scanned in the past two decades as part of efforts to build massive research databases. But the rate at which this torrent of information is being produced is outpacing researchers' ability to analyze and interpret it.

"We're very data-rich these days compared with how things were 5-10 years ago, and that's where AI [and machine learning] approaches can excel," says Alison Goate, a geneticist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. In 2020, Thompson launched AI4AD, a consortium of researchers across the United States that aims to develop AI tools to analyze and integrate genetic, imaging and cognitive data relating to Alzheimer's disease. As part of this project, researchers created an AI model trained on tens of thousands of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) brain scans. These images had previously been reviewed by physicians, who picked out scans that showed evidence of Alzheimer's. From the images, the AI tool learned what the brains of people with and without Alzheimer's look like.

Self-taught algorithm

In one trial, reported in a preprint that has not yet been peer reviewed, the AI classifier detected Alzheimer's in brain scans with an accuracy of more than 90%. The consortium has also used a similar approach to create a classier that can accurately sort scans into separate categories according to specific pathological changes in the brain that are associated with cognitive decline and dementia.

Degui Zhi, a data scientist at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, and his colleagues have taken a different approach. Whereas Thompson and his team focused the AI model on areas of the brain that are known to be linked to Alzheimer's, Zhi wanted the tool to learn for itself the structural features of the brain that can help to diagnose the disease.

The researchers' AI tool reviewed thousands of brain scans and chose the features that most reliably differentiated one person's brain from another's. Zhi says that this minimizes the likelihood of human bias influencing the algorithm. Now, Zhi's team is using the algorithm to identify the traits that best distinguish between brain scans of people with and without Alzheimer's.

Thompson and Zhi acknowledge that the AI models are only as good as the data on which they're trained. There is a lack of racial and geographical diversity in individuals who have had their brains scanned and genomes sequenced, especially in databases such as the UK Biobank, so the findings from this AI-guided research might not be applicable to everyone. Furthermore, Goate says it will be crucial to show that the AI models' performance can be replicated in other databases, and that they show consistent results.

Rudolph Tanzi, a neurogeneticist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, says that these biomarkers could one day become part of a set of risk scores for the disease that also integrate blood-based biomarkers and genetics. When all of these bits of data are combined, risk scores can become "exponentially more sensitive", which will hopefully allow people to seek early treatment before the disease progresses, he adds.

Alzheimer's is just the beginning, Thompson says. If this approach works, it could also be applied to other diseases that have a physical presentation on brain imaging, he says. [source]

Nice.

Another article on Alzheimer’s and AI: AI tool detects Alzheimer’s disease with 95% accuracy

Capitol Police commander who ordered evacuations of Senate and House: 'J6 was not an insurrection'

From The Post Millennial.com (Dec. 14, 2023):

In an X post on Thursday, former US Capitol Police Lieutenant Tarik Johnson said that he has been stating publicly that "J6 was not an insurrection, but not many people would listen," reflecting on Vivek Ramaswamy’s comments during a CNN townhall event in Iowa on Wednesday evening.

"Vivek Ramaswamy got a lot right in this interview," Johnson began. "I’ve been saying publicly for a year that J6 was not an insurrection but not many people would listen."

"Ironically so, no one would benefit more than I if J6 was an insurrection as I (Tarik Johnson) was the Commander that ordered and led the evacuations of the Senate and the House during the J6 breach after begging former Assistant Chief Yogananda Pittman for permission to do so as she sat comfortably in the Commander Center watching the events unfold on CCTV while Chief Steven A Sund was obtaining National Guard approval and getting assistance from local law enforcement agencies."

Johnson said that Pittman "flat out ignored me," forcing him to go ahead with the evacuations without her approval. Three days later, he decided to call Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy on Pittman’s conduct, and around half an hour later, he received word from the USCP internal affairs section that he was suspended.

"The suspension lasted for 17 months and I was under a USCP gag order not to speak about the events of January 6, 2021 to the media until I separated from the Department," Johnson wrote, adding that he was required to remain at his home Mondays through Fridays between 8 am and 4 pm and was "unable to step off my property without notifying the USCP for fear of being disciplined up to and including termination during those 17 months."

"These are SOME of many facts USCP Chief J Thomas Manger (who is arguably the most corrupt politician in the country) was brought in to cover-up."

Johnson concluded, "If presidential hopeful Vivek Ramaswamy would like more FACTS to disrupt the insurrection narrative, I will inbox his designated representative my personal phone number. God bless our country now and in 2024."

During Wednesday evening’s townhall event, Ramaswamy said that three years ago, at the time of January 6, "If you had told me that January 6 was in any way an inside job the subject of government entrapment, I would have told you that was crazy talk, fringe conspiracy theory nonsense."

"I can tell you now having gone somewhat deep in this: it's not. I mean, the reality is this: we do have a government — first of all, we have to acknowledge that has lied to us systematically over the last several years about the origin of COVID-19. About the Hunter Biden laptop that we were told was false by 51 CIA experts and otherwise before we now know that it was true. You can go straight down the list of Trump-Russia, disinformation, collusion, hoax, all of it. Now we come to January 6. The reality is we know that there were federal law enforcement agents in that field. We don't know how many I think it's shameful," he said, before host Abby Phillip cut him off, saying there was no evidence of this.

Ramaswamy interjected, holding the floor, "I know that the establishment doesn't approve of this message," and the crowd applauded.

"So why before Congress, when pressed on what the number was, they [FBI] didn't say there were none they just couldn't say how many there were?" Ramaswamy countered.

"We've seen multiple informants suggesting that there were," Ramaswamy said, "we know people were FBI informants."

"I'm gonna give you hard facts. And if I may, I know this can be a little uncomfortable," Ramaswamy said, asking why Congress suppressed footage from J6, releasing only 12 hours of hundreds of hours in existence, including footage showing police firing rubber bullets into the crowd and shooting tear gas. [source]

Of course, it wasn't an insurrection. It was a setup.

More Jan. 6 articles:

• Federal Prosecutors Start Dropping Jan. 6 Obstruction Charges After Supreme Court Ruling
• Pelosi's top security aides got warning about Capitol breach night before Jan. 6 riot, memos show

Patel fired 'corrupt' FBI agents in anti-Trump Arctic Frost inquiry who 'weaponized' law enforcement

From Just the News.com (Jan. 12):

FBI Director Kash Patel revealed Monday that he had fired the “corrupt” FBI agents involved in the bureau’s anti-Trump Arctic Frost investigation who had “weaponized” the law enforcement agency after President Donald Trump on Monday shared new revelations unearthed by Just the News.

An FBI supervisor who openly opposed Trump on social media played a crucial role in igniting the controversial Arctic Frost probe in 2022 related to January 6, with the bureau special agent pressing to add the former president as a formal subject of the investigation and circulating articles from liberal activists and leftwing news sources to make his case, according to evidence recently turned over to Congress and published by Just the News over the weekend.

“These FBI Agents are total Scum, in their own way no better than the insurrectionists in Portland, Minnesota, Los Angeles, etc. Kash better get them out, NOW!” Trump said in a Monday post on his Truth Social account. “Radical Left Lunatics put in by the ‘Auto Pen’ [Biden] and Obama!”

Patel quickly responded with a Truth Social post of his own.

“Thank you Mr. President. Under your leadership, this FBI found the corrupt actors and terminated their employment last year,” the FBI director said. “America voted for the end of weaponized law enforcement, and that’s what we are delivering.”

FBI Special Agent Timothy Thibault, who left his role as the assistant agent in charge of its Washington field office in August 2022 after his anti-Trump social posts became public, organized the initial electronic communication that authorized the start of the Arctic Frost probe.

He also circulated articles and podcasts by email from such anti-Trump outlets as Just Security, NPR, the Daily Beast, and The Washington Post, pushing for a criminal probe of Trump related to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, the memos published by Just the News show.

When Thibault's colleagues originally drafted the investigation's launch document to focus on the Trump campaign and affiliated and still unknown subjects, "Add DJT" was scribbled onto the draft memo. Emails indicate Thibault was pushing to add Trump to the investigative launch document.

Revelations include emails from 2022 where Thibault shared articles and podcasts critical of Trump, including a prosecution-style memo authored by a former Obama DOJ official.

Thibault also sought to promote media coverage from outlets with left-leaning perspectives, such as NPR, as well as podcasts produced by The Daily Beast. The focus of these articles were Trump’s alleged crimes and efforts to overturn the election.

An unearthed email from April 2022 showed Thibault approving the opening of Arctic Frost.

These revelations continue to put the spotlight on Thibault, whom Republicans argue showed extreme anti-Trump bias, demonstrated a willingness to target Trump early in his first term, attempted to slow walk or block the FBI’s investigation into Hunter Biden, and in April 2022 helped spark the Arctic Frost investigation — later carried on by special counsel Jack Smith — which led to criminal charges against Trump related to the Capitol riot. [source]

Good.  Glad to see some accountability.

Rogue Judge Says Trump Admin Has To Give Panties And Makeup To Male Inmates

From The Federalist.com (June 3, 2025):

In the latest act of judicial overreach, a rogue lower court judge ordered the Trump administration to restore federal prisoners’ access to transgender-related “treatments” and accommodations on Tuesday.

Writing for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Royce Lamberth, a Reagan appointee, granted petitioners’ request for a preliminary injunction on the Trump administration’s policy ensuring that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) expends “no Federal funds … for any medical procedure, treatment, or drug for the purpose of conforming an inmate’s appearance to that of the opposite sex.” The left-wing Associated Press once described Lamberth as “among the toughest judges” when it came to sentencing defendants charged over the Jan. 6, 2021, demonstrations at the U.S. Capitol.

The suit was brought by three trans-identifying inmates “who were diagnosed with gender dysphoria by BOP medical staff,” according to Tuesday’s ruling.

In his decision, Lamberth ruled that, throughout the course of the trial, the BOP is “required to restore and maintain access to those treatment modalities for those who previously received them pursuant to a prescription rendered by BOP staff.” He further declared that “if BOP medical personnel subsequently determine that an existing or future class member is in need of either or both of those treatment modalities, the BOP may not take those treatment options off the table while this dispute is pending.”

“The import of the Opinion is essentially this: Under the [Administrative Procedure Act], the BOP may not arbitrarily deprive inmates of medications or other lifestyle accommodations that its own medical staff have deemed to be medically appropriate without considering the implications of that decision,” Lamberth wrote. “Even if the BOP did support such a decision with the consideration, study, and reasoning that the APA requires of it, its freedom of action may nevertheless be constrained by the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution, but that is a matter better left for another day — whether that be a later stage of litigation, or another case entirely.”

As The Federalist’s Margot Cleveland previously reported, universal injunctions issued under the APA constitute “the majority of nationwide injunctions entered against the Trump Administration since the president returned to Washington.”

Tuesday’s order is the latest in a string of overreaching injunctions pursued by left-wing activists seeking to stymie President Trump’s agenda via a judicial coup. On Monday, the administration was all but forced to appeal a district court order attempting to block the president from firing federal employees. [source]

Just stupid. ☹️ First of all, these con artists shouldn't be in women's prisons. They pretend to be female so they can rape the women in prison. They're playing the system as criminals do and these crazy rogue judges are enabling their con.

Don’t Say ‘They’: Why Pronouns Matter

From Breakpoint.org (June 6, 2022):

A couple weeks ago, a Title IX investigation was opened for three middle school boys from Wisconsin who used the pronoun she for a biologically female student who wished to go by they. Under the Biden administration, refusing to use misaligned pronouns is considered sex discrimination. Even style guides today encourage the use of they if it is the chosen pronoun of an individual.

One rationale given is that someone really is whatever gender he or she claims, and to not recognize that with pronouns is to contribute to that person’s psychological distress. This is the case even if, as Abigail Shrier describes as being increasingly common, a person’s gender dysphoria is socially conditioned. So, according to our own government, we are now in a zero-sum game: Either use individuals’ chosen pronouns or be blamed for their suicides.

Thankfully, many are beginning to recognize that even using the pronoun they for an individual is deeply problematic, much less fully imbibing all that the new transgender orthodoxy commands. Recently, the Manhattan Institute’s Leor Sapir wrote an editorial entitled “Don’t Say ‘They.’” In it, Sapir argues that using they and them to refer to an individual is far from harmless and amounts to buying into an ideology that “gender is an oppressive social system.” In other words, using nonbinary plural pronouns and also opposite-sex pronouns says something that is not true about God’s design, the created reality of men and women.

So, what are we to do? Shall we use words that align with reality or shall we refuse to risk the psychological distress of a transgender person?

Two guiding principles can help us here. First, as Aleksander Solzhenitsyn advised, we must “live not by lies.” Second, as Paul advised, “so far as it depends on (us), live peaceably with all.” Living like Christians today requires both, together.

Words matter. Not only do our words reflect reality, and thus misusing words can distort reality, but Scripture is plain that God’s words make up reality. To use words incorrectly is to not only embrace something not true, it is to mislead others away from God. This is not true, nor is it loving. Thus, God says that He hates a “lying tongue.” 

Honoring the second principle, to do our best to “live peaceably with all,” is particularly difficult when the choice is to tell a lie or to be responsible for psychological distress. Philosophy professor Nick Meriwether had a creative response when he found himself between this rock and hard place. When a male student requested that Dr. Meriweather refer to him as a female, using feminine titles and pronouns, he offered to only “refer to this student by a first or last name.”

In response, Shawnee State University in Portsmouth, Ohio, charged Dr. Meriweather with creating “a hostile environment,” placed a warning in his employee file, and threatened future punitive action if he refused to comply. So, Dr. Meriwether filed suit, claiming his free speech had been violated. He won. Shawnee State was forced to award him $400,000 and remove the disciplinary statement.

Dr. Meriweather’s story demonstrates that people of conscience ought to not prematurely surrender their convictions, or believe that cultural defeat is inevitable. Even more, it offers a way forward when it comes to pronouns, telling the truth and living at peace.

In English, names do not indicate gender. Pronouns do. Offering to call individuals by their chosen names is a way of respecting them as people without saying something that is not true about them. In a conversation with an individual, the pronoun you is acceptable, since in English it refers to both plural and singular, and to both male and female. In no way, does you deny that biological sex is binary.

On the other hand, speaking in the third person—he, she, or they—when speaking about others is trickier. Some people point out that we use the word they all the time to refer to individuals. However, whenever we say something like, “Somebody left their book,” we don’t know who it is. It’s different if we do know who it is. For example, it would be inaccurate (and strange) to say, “Abigail left their book.”

In other words, there are ways to not say something that is not true. We can avoid using nonbinary or opposite-sex pronouns, and instead use names. And, we can use plural pronouns to talk about a group rather than an individual. Still, as Dr. Meriweather’s situation illustrates, these alternatives will not satisfy everyone. And, when there is no choice but to use third person pronouns, the only way to tell the truth is to use the pronouns that align with biology, not ideology.

To be clear, there is one situation where using someone’s chosen name violates the first principle of telling the truth: If you’ve known a person all of his or her life, and if that name was given for specific purposes. So, for example, to ask moms to use a chosen name over a given name for the child they’ve raised and loved is just cruel.

Some argue that because language changes over time, accepting pronoun changes is just changing with language. This argument assumes that language doesn’t actually refer to reality, but only to other words. But there is a real world, and sexual distinction is part of that real world. To change the language of pronouns severs a link to reality, denies that reality, and disconnects people from what is actually true about their created bodies.

Pronouns may not seem like a fight worth having, but as Chesterton said, “The Church and the heresies always used to fight about words, because they are the only thing worth fighting about.” [source]

Amen. Good principles to live by.

The Press

Turning again to Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel and their book, The Elements of Journalism, they make the point this way: "A stronger, more unified, and more transparent method of verifying the news would . . . be the single most important step that those who practice journalism could take to address and, if necessary, correct the rising perception that the work of journalists is marred by bias. . . . What would this journalism of objective method—rather than aim—look like? What should citizens expect from the press as a reasonable discipline of reporting?"

Kovach and Rosenstiel provide five "intellectual principles of a science of reporting":

1. Never add anything that was not there.
2. Never deceive the audience.
3. Be as transparent as possible about your methods and motives.
4. Rely on your own original reporting.
5. Exercise humility.

However, it is quite clear that this interpretation of objectivity, while seemingly alluring, has proved impossible for most newsrooms and journalists. The reason is that most partisans are unable or unwilling to put aside their personal ideological and political perspectives or, even worse, they consider them essential to moving and improving society through activism. This is the fundamental nature of the modern media. For the most part, the objectivity of methods has become the partisanship of ideological and political results.

…….

As recently as February 20, 2019, current Times publisher Arthur Gregg Sulzberger (Ochs's great-great grandson), responding to President Trump referring to the newspaper as "the enemy of the people"-as the president was frustrated with yet another "news" story, this time an "investigative report" filled with allegations and innuendos about him and his administration from anonymous sources-publicly lectured the president and the nation about the importance of a free press. He wrote:

America's founders believed that a free press was essential to democracy because it is the foundation of an informed, engaged citizenry. That conviction, enshrined in the First Amendment, has been embraced by nearly every American president. Thomas Jefferson declared, "The only security of all is in a free press." John F. Kennedy warned about the risks to "free society without a very, very active press." Ronald Reagan said, "There is no more essential ingredient than a free, strong and independent press to our continued success."

All these presidents had complaints about their coverage and at times took advantage of the freedom every American has to criticize journalists. But in demonizing the free press as the enemy, simply for performing its role of asking difficult questions and bringing uncomfortable information to light, President Trump is retreating from a distinctly American principle. It's a principle that previous occupants of the Oval Office fiercely defended regardless of their politics, party affiliation, or complaints about how they were covered.

The phrase "enemy of the people" is not just false, it's dangerous. It has an ugly history of being wielded by dictators and tyrants who sought to control public information. And it is particularly reckless coming from someone whose office gives him broad powers to fight or imprison the nation's enemies. As I have repeatedly told President Trump face to face, there are mounting signs that this incendiary rhetoric is encouraging threats and violence against journalists at home and abroad.

Through 33 presidential administrations, across 167 years, The New York Times has worked to serve the public by fulfilling the fundamental role of the free press. To help people, regardless of their backgrounds or politics, understand their country and the world. To report independently, fairly and accurately. To ask hard questions. To pursue the truth wherever it leads. That will not change.

Source: Unfreedom of the Press (2019) by Mark R. Levin.

It’s sad the drive-by-media can’t just report the news instead of spinning a narrative.