America’s future is threatened by those who want to change everything

April 9, 2024

The future of the United States of America may be less secure than at any time since its inception. The country that has provided so much for so long, and has set a standard that no other country in the world has ever matched, is now seen by a large faction as no longer good enough.

What made America so great? Many things. A tripartite government with no single branch more powerful than the others. Each branch has the ability to respond to the actions of the other branches in our system of checks and balances. 

We don’t have a ruler; no king/queen, emperor or czar. Our leaders are our employees — they work for us! And the President, Vice President and members of Congress are selected at the ballot box by the eligible voters, who choose from candidates that they have participated in choosing. Judges and Supreme Court Justices are nominated by the President and approved by the Congress, and others are simply hired as employees.

Our system provides vast amounts of personal freedom, with a Bill of Rights that guarantees us the freedom for important things, like speech, the press, religion, peaceable assembly, redress of grievances, security in our homes, fairness in legal matters, national defense.

So long as what we do does not violate a constitutional principal or sensible laws, we may do as we please. We can buy whatever house, car, appliances, clothing, entertainment, or personal items we choose.

Our Constitution provided the greatest degree of personal freedom in the history of human beings, but it is being replaced by restrictions on virtually every conceivable area of life. This is not new, of course, but has taken a dose of amphetamines in recent years.

Personal freedom, once a hallmark of the nation, is seen by this dissatisfied faction as a threat to the future. And the secret to a positive future in the mind of these people is a life that is much more controlled, with the bureaucracy having much more authority over the people.

Many restrictions exist on what we can and cannot do with our property, what kinds of things we can and cannot purchase. We are told there are legitimate reasons for these limitations. that is true, up to a point. But the number of federal, state and local regulations is huge, and cumbersome.

And many of the regulations are made by unelected bureaucrats, and are not approved by Congress, but nonetheless have the force of law.

The Code of Federal Regulation has 50 subsections where the government has seen fit to issue regulations that control what we can do, and how it must be done. One example of this was discussed by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) on its website.

A NAM survey last summer found that “U.S. manufacturers’ concerns over federal regulations have reached a six-year high as nearly 100 new major regulations — from 30 federal agencies and offices — threaten jobs and investment.”

Ohio Manufacturers’ Association President Ryan Augsburger noted that “In the next year, the Biden administration plans to issue even more regulations — approximately 3,200, including about 280 ‘major rules’ and 1,326 ‘significant rules.’”

Augsburger wrote that “More than 63 percent of manufacturers are spending more than 2,000 hours per year complying with federal regulations, diverting resources that would otherwise go towards employee compensation, new hires and additional investment in U.S. facilities,” citing the NAM’s Q2 2023 Manufacturers’ Outlook Survey.

He then listed examples of the cost of these burdensome regulations:

** The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed particulate matter rule, which is expected to cost “up to $197.4 billion in U.S. economic activity and endanger as many as 973,900 current U.S. jobs”;

** The Securities and Exchange Commission’s proposed climate-disclosure requirement, which the NAM recently advocated against in testimony before the House; and

** The Federal Trade Commission’s proposal to ban noncompete agreements, which 70 percent of manufacturers use to safeguard their intellectual property.

Negative consequences such as these are not limited to manufacturing; they occur in virtually every area of work.

Our government is too big, too controlling and spends too much. Our national debt is $34.6 trillion. That comes to just under $103,000 for every person in the country.

Is it possible that this large faction of Americans desiring to impose restrictions on our freedoms actually has a plan for a better country in mind? Well, yes, they have a plan. But it is not a plan to make America better. 

Their plan is for a larger, more restrictive government, and much less personal freedom for the people. It is very much opposed to the concept that our Founders had in mind, and for which they created our governmental system. They and their plan are un-American and anti-American.

This continued degradation of the brilliant system we inherited must be reversed, or before much longer America as it was designed will no longer exist. Our freedoms must be restored and protected. And our government must be returned to its intended limited status.

America’s election system has serious security issues

April 2, 2024

One of the great things about being a citizen of the United States of America is being able to participate in determining who will serve us in important governmental positions.

The right to select our governments’ public servants from a list of candidates selected by the people through a voting process is a highly valued one, and governments at all levels have a solemn duty to protect that right, and assure us that the voting process is as safe and secure as possible.

That means using only those elements of voting that are the least likely to be misused.

We were assured that the 2020 election was very safe, and that may be true. But we also have seen evidence of irregularities and illegalities, some of which were implemented due to the COVID virus, and may have been done with the best of intentions. However, in some states, changes were made to the election process without the direction of the state legislature, which is required by the U.S. Constitution.

Plus, we know from history and human nature that there are people who will do anything to win elections, and there are problems and actual improprieties in many elections. 

The question is: To what extent do these problems and improprieties affect the outcome of local, state and national elections?

Where the 2020 election is concerned, there are two opposing storylines on that question.  The purpose here is not to argue for or against one or the other of those storylines. Election integrity is the focus.

The first step in securing elections is making sure that only eligible people can vote. The best way for doing that is a system in which voters prove their eligibility to election officials, and then have a photo ID that must be used when voting.

At one time many years ago, votes were cast on a paper ballot at a polling place by eligible voters who could prove their identity on election day. Ballots were hand counted and kept on file.

Since that time, that secure system has been weakened by the addition of elements that are more easily corrupted. One aspect of that is the idea of making voting easier or more convenient, which has increased the opportunities for problems. 

But voting is a critical element of our constitutional republic, so keeping the process secure is much more important than making it easier or more convenient.  

Voting by mail/absentee voting, and machine voting have entered the process with both positive and negative results.

The idea of absentee voting is beneficial for voters who have a very good reason for not being able to get to the polling place. Perhaps they serve in the military and are stationed away from their permanent address, or are attending school away from home. Perhaps they are elderly, ill, or disabled and unable to move about. 

But sending thousands or millions of ballots out in the mail to all voters to be returned by mail is begging for trouble. Likewise, having ballots returned by placing them in unsecured bins is dangerous, as is ballot harvesting.

Some voting machines do not use or produce paper ballots that can be checked. Machines used in ballot counting or voting can be hacked or programmed to affect vote totals. 

The Associated Press website warned that “Election officials face a long list of challenges this year, including potential cyberattacks waged by foreign governments [and] criminal ransomware gangs attacking computer systems.”

And a discussion on the National Public Radio website added this: “Basically, every election security expert agrees that we should not have lots of people voting over the internet. The DHS, FBI, the National Academies of Sciences - they've all agreed on this point. And there's really more agreement on this point than almost anything else in election security.”

According to the Brookings Institution, a paper trail is necessary. “Election security experts from Harvard, Stanford and the Brennan Center for Justice all recommend the phasing out of paperless voting, and twelve of the thirteen Democratic candidates who have declared a position on election security support mandating the use of paper ballots,” an article on the Brookings website states.

The idea of every eligible voter having to show a photo ID to vote garners complaints that this is discriminatory. But consider the long, long list of everyday things that require a photo ID. Things like buying alcohol, applying for a job, renting or buying a house, renting a car, applying for government assistance like welfare or unemployment, getting on an airplane. This is a precaution that must be taken.

Questioning election results is an American tradition, with many elections having seen challenges. The more election security is the focus, and the more limits we have on the election process to make it more secure, the fewer opportunities for irregularities and problems there will be, and hopefully fewer challenges to the results.

Any process that puts voted ballots at risk of being stolen or changed, or ballots falsely created, must not be allowed. We cannot make voting easier and more convenient if doing that weakens the security of the election process.

Laws are apolitical devices to protect the people of the country

March 26, 2024

A man bought a house several years ago for $150,000. Through the years, he had made $23,000 worth of improvements, and the market was good, so when he applied for a loan with the house as collateral, he valued it at $179,000.

The bank, however, valued it at just $171,500. So, he got his loan, and over the years paid it back on time with interest.

That’s the way it works. Lenders do their own evaluations of property offered as collateral. That’s the way it is for individuals, companies, and even billionaires like Donald Trump.

In Trump’s case, the document his business submitted for loans even has a disclaimer telling the lender to ignore his valuation and do their own, which, they would do anyway.

So, Trump got his loans with the lender’s valuation of his property, paid back the loans on time with interest, and even has the lenders saying they want him to continue as a customer.

Despite doing business this way for years, and that there was no victim that experienced losses from Trump, the New York Attorney General charged him under a statute that — believe it or not — does not require intent to commit fraud or anyone to be harmed by the fraud.

John Myers, the retired head of GE Asset Management, had this to say: “These high valuations may not be true but the banks and other sophisticated financial institutions do their own due diligence on valuations and basically could care less what Trump’s valuation was. Plus, the loans were all repaid, so who was the victim?” 

And when the case went to court, the judge did not use a jury, but decided the case by himself, and has fined Trump over $354 million in damages, and barred him “from serving as an officer or director of any New York corporation or other legal entity in New York for a period of three years.”

The Attorney General said that with pre-judgment interest, the judgment totals over $450 million, an amount “which will continue to increase every single day” until the judgment is paid.

Trump wants to appeal the ruling, so he must pay the judgement amount, plus interest, which totals more than $500 million. That deadline was yesterday.

A spokesperson for the Trump Organization called the ruling “a gross miscarriage of justice. The Trump Organization has never missed any loan payment or been in default on any loan.” This lawsuit is an election stunt to motivate base voters, the spokesperson said.

The Attorney General in this legal matter is Letitia James. She ran for office four years ago on a platform that included finding something, anything, to bring Trump down when he was the Republican president. 

Fox Business Network’s Charles Gasparino noted that what Trump did is commonplace, and it is so common that this case should be laughed out of court. 

“It won’t be, of course,” Gasparino wrote. “James may be the most partisan Democratic prosecutor in the country, but New York state courts are packed with like-minded judicial types who also think Trump needs to rot in jail. Even worse, objective evidence abounds of James pushing the boundaries in using her office to advance her political goals.”

The actions of Arthur Engoron, the judge in this case, are also under attack. Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-NY, the House GOP conference chair, has filed a judicial ethics complaint against Engoron. Stefanik accuses the judge of weaponizing the legal system against Trump, and called on the judge to recuse himself.

As reported by NBC News, “Engoron has exhibited ‘clear judicial bias’ against Trump, including telling Trump’s attorney that the former president is ‘just a bad guy’ whom New York Attorney General Letitia James ‘should go after,’ Stefanik sent a letter to the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct. She said the judge has failed to honor Trump’s due process rights, concerns that she said are exacerbated by the former president’s position as the front-runner for the presidential nomination.”

She wrote that “Engoron had illegally gagged Trump’s protected political speech, violated political giving rules with financial contributions to Democrats as recently as 2018, and ignored a decision on the appropriate statute of limitations in the case. At the start of the trial, Engoron ‘infamously smiled and posed for the cameras,’ she noted,” according to the NBC report.

A term that has come to the fore recently is one that applies to this situation. “Lawfare” is warfare using laws as weapons, and the legal systems and institutions against an opponent, and/or to interfere with an individual's usage of their legal rights.

The term may refer to the use of legal systems and principles against an enemy, such as by damaging or delegitimizing them, wasting their time and money, or winning a public relations victory.

Lawfare in this case was made easier by a stupid law that allows someone to be prosecuted for essentially doing nothing wrong, and harming no one, other than the other political party.

That’s not how things should work in the United States of America, and those that are behind this should be relieved of their positions and disbarred.

The fundamental transformation of the country just keeps coming

March 19, 2024

Being fed up with most everything that has made America the very special place that it is, those on the left want to change how our system of employment works. We have fairly recently seen efforts to replace people getting promotions and raises due to the level of their performance with a focus on DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion). With DEI, getting a particular job or a raise is based upon who they are, their race, gender, etc., not their level of skills and knowledge.

One aspect of this desire for change was posted in a meme on Facebook that said: “Every single job should pay a living wage. If the work matters enough to hire someone to do it, that worker should be able to afford a safe, comfy home; fresh, nutritious food; and fun vacation sometimes, and enough left to save. Yes, every single job, including yours.” 

First, there is the question what a living wage is, and who gets to decide that? A living wage in some cities and areas of the country is very different from a living wage in towns and cities in other places.

This idea ignores the different levels and requirements of jobs.  Some have high demands and greater needs, and higher pay. Others have low requirements, with lower pay. Then there is the background and level of performance of the worker. Under this theory, a high school or college student working a very basic job should earn a wage high enough to satisfy the details of the Facebook meme. Or someone in an apprenticeship learning the basics of a new job should earn a living wage from day one.

The job/pay situation is complicated.

Support for reducing the standard 40-hour, five-day workweek to a 32-hour, four-day workweek has recently gained momentum. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-VT, has introduced a bill to do just that. Under his bill, people will work a four-day week, but be paid for what they would earn working a five-day week.

The 40-hour workweek has been the standard for some 80 years, being brought into effect by the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1940. It has worked very well, for the most part. But, Sanders says that due to advances in automation and other aspects of production, companies can afford to give employees more time off, but keep their pay and benefits the same.

He told a Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions that the economic gains that have resulted from automation and other factors have benefitted CEOs, while workers have still made the same amount of money.

“The question that we are asking today is a pretty simple question,” Sanders said. “Do we continue the trend that technology only benefits the people on top, or do we demand that these transformational changes benefit working people? And, one of these benefits must be a lower workweek, 32-hour workweek. This is not a radical idea.”

However, if labor and machine operation are reduced by 20 hours a week, productivity will drop by 20 percent. Employers will have the same labor costs, but will have fewer goods and services to sell. Businesses will lose income and profit.

The employer will then have to raise prices to compensate for the lost productivity, or hire more workers to take up the slack. More workers may make up the loss of productivity, but that will cause an increase in labor costs. 

Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy argued that the proposal is essentially a pay increase forced upon businesses. And, he predicted that the 32-hour workweek would "destroy some employers" who would be unable to adjust to the new system.

Both of these concepts — first, that every worker should get a living wage, regardless of job demands, ability and experience; and, second, pay workers the same for working 32 hours per week as they got for 40 hours per week — are typical of liberal/socialist “reasoning.” They represent what the great economist and author Thomas Sowell so rightly termed “stage-one thinking.” 

Stage-one thinking is when an idea pops up that delights many, and they react with “Wow! What a great idea. Let’s do it!” They fail to look beyond the attractiveness of that “great idea” to see what might happen down the road. After it has been in effect for a while, the results are most often much worse than expected.

So often, liberal/socialist ideas target and negatively affect businesses, because the proponents of these ideas think businesses are just selfish entities that take advantage of their workers. But businesses provide jobs and make things we want and need. And, being able to work and earn money to live on is a good thing. Without businesses that can operate relatively freely, where would we get the things we need and want?

It is also a good thing that in America anyone can pursue any work area they choose, and so long as they can learn the trade or profession and perform it at a suitable level, they will be happy and can live a decent life.

Recklessly altering this proven system is a dangerous move that will likely produce negative effects on the country, its people and its businesses.

The left does not understand the purpose of our Supreme Court

March 12, 2024

In reviewing the decision by the Colorado Supreme Court to remove former President Donald Trump from the ballot for the 2024 election, the U.S. Supreme Court did precisely what it is supposed to do: review the case and determine if the court’s ruling will stand or not, based upon the Constitution and the laws.

The majority Democrat-appointed Colorado justices — four of the seven —ruled that Trump was an insurrectionist, and therefore should be disqualified from running for President. However, three of the Democrat-appointed justices disagreed with the four. Of course, Trump has not been convicted in court of insurrection, or even formally charged with the crime.

The Colorado court has no authority to decide whether or not Trump is an insurrectionist. And neither do officials of the states, media persons or Democrat/leftist opponents of Trump. That is a legal process that has not even begun, let alone been concluded.

Democrats and other leftists claimed to be protecting our “democracy” by preventing Trump from running. Curiously, in attempting to unilaterally block him, they were trying to save our “democracy” by anti-democratic methods. 

The citizens of the United States who are eligible to vote are who make the decision on who becomes president, not some individual or group with a political objection to someone.

Properly, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the Colorado court, with the three liberal judges joining the conservative majority in the decision. How much stronger a decision can be made?

Legal scholar and George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley assesses this decision: “The fact is that the Supreme Court justices have proved, again, that they are precisely the ‘real Supreme Court justices’ that the Founding Fathers envisioned. The court was created to be able to transcend our divisions and politics. On Monday, a court sharply divided along ideological grounds showed the nation that it could speak with one voice. In doing so, it spoke to the things that bind us to each other, including an article of faith in our Constitution that defines us all.”

Leftists in Congress, the news media, and elsewhere were stunned and infuriated by this decision. They apparently believe that the Supreme Court’s duty is to rule on issues in a manner that suits their narrow and highly political idealistic dreams.

But the U.S. Supreme Court and the nation’s court system is designed to apply the Constitution and the laws in an unbiased and politically neutral manner.

And just imagine what might have transpired had the U.S. Supreme Court ruled as the left believes it should have. Trump would have been blocked from several state ballots, and they would have been rapturous, euphoric, and thrilled. But then, other states would also be able to block candidates. Maybe President Joe Biden would be blocked. Or other Democrats. Or even all Democrats. Another sound reason in the Supreme Court’s decision.

Do those on the left not understand the structure of the United States of America? The tripartite government with executive, legislative and judicial branches that are independent of each other. And a system of checks and balances that prevents authoritarians from taking control is superior to other governmental systems. Without this system we would be as wonderful as China, Russia, Venezuela, Iran, and others.

Or, do those on the left actually understand our system, and completely despise it and want to replace it — by hook or by crook — with a system they can control forever?

Had the U.S. Supreme Court sustained the Colorado decision, the left would be somewhat closer to “fundamentally transforming” our constitutional republic into a one-party, leftist-controlled authoritarian democracy.

This is the end that the left and the Democrat party have in mind and are working tirelessly to achieve.

Even as the left progresses toward a socialist/communist nightmare, it also imposes politically correct rules on what can be said.

The man charged with killing 22-year-old college student Laken Riley was referred to, by “progressive” President Joe Biden, as an “illegal” in his State of the Union rant. The left went crazy, criticizing Biden for that comment, even as they celebrate his dangerous and illegal policy on the open border. Biden quickly apologized for his faux pas.

But the accused, Venezuelan Jose Ibarra, did not enter the country properly, and is therefore an actual “illegal.”

In their hyper-sensitive bubble, they refer to these illegal aliens as “undocumented immigrants,” or “migrants.”

What exactly is the definition of an immigrant? It is “a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence.” And what is a migrant? “A person who moves regularly in order to find work especially in harvesting crops.”

Both are very general terms. To immigrate to the U.S., or to be an immigrant, there is a process. And if you don’t follow the process, if you enter by crossing the Rio Grande and not coming through a port of entry, you are not an immigrant or a migrant; you are an illegal alien. 

That is the correct legal term. It may not make some people feel good, but that is reality. And dealing in reality is far more important than how that may make some people feel.

The United States’ war on CO2 is having no actual effect

March 4, 2024

The idea that our atmosphere is heating up to dangerous levels continues. We are told that the cure to this temperature increase is the reduction or elimination of carbon emissions (CO2).

Looking at how carbon emissions changed from 2000 to 2018, we find that the United States and Europe had reduced their emissions, with the U.S. reducing by 10 percent, and Europe reducing by 16 percent, according to data from the Global Carbon Budget 2018.

As meager as that might seem to climate activists, it is enormously better than what some other nations were doing. India, for example, had increased its emissions by 155 percent, and China had trounced India, defeating it with a 208 percent increase.

Why is CO2 a crisis in the U.S. and Europe if two nations — India and China — are producing almost 15 times the carbon emissions that the U.S. and Europe are eliminating? And, China has been building one new coal-fired power plant per week. 

And more to the point, why should we in the U.S. have to purchase items that produce less CO2 and are less efficient, less desirable and more expensive? Or, why are we are unable to buy or use anymore items that we prefer because of their carbon emissions when all of that makes absolutely no difference in the effort to reduce emissions due to the monumental lack of concern of India and China?

However, in light of all of this we should consider whether CO2 is actually a real problem.

The National Geographic Society and National Geographic magazine published an article which said that “Earth’s atmosphere is composed of about 78 percent nitrogen, 21 percent oxygen, 0.9 percent argon, and 0.1 percent other gases. Trace amounts of carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, and neon are some of the other gases that make up the remaining 0.1 percent.” 

So, CO2 and other gases combine for a grand total of just 1/10th of one percent of the atmosphere. But, let’s look deeper.

Yochanan Kushnir is a research professor at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, in the Division of Oceans and Climate Physics of Columbia University. He explains that of those other gases, carbon dioxide is only 0.04 percent — 4/100ths of a percent — of the entire atmospheric mixture. 

That figure is confirmed by other scientists, who also tell us that 95 percent of that 0.04 percent comes from natural sources, not human activity. Still others say that plant life will do better if the CO2 level was doubled.

While the effort to reduce or eliminate CO2 has affected household and other items, it also had a big effect on a large economic element in our region.

A policy of the Barack Obama administration limited power plant emissions and reduced domestic coal production. The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards policy left power plants with the option of purchasing costly upgrades if they were to stay in business. This forced many plants across the country to close up shop, according to John Deskins, director of the Bureau of Business and Economic Research in West Virginia University’s John Chambers College of Business and Economics.

West Virginia Coal Association President Chris Hamilton noted that these regulations forced six West Virginia plants to close, and hundreds across the country due to the financial burdens the policy caused.

He also said that West Virginia lost nearly half of its coal production, dropping from 165 million tons to less than 90 million tons.

Damian Phillips of WVNews wrote last week that coal production improved somewhat after Donald Trump became President. And Hamilton noted that During Trump’s first year in office, coal production rose in West Virginia alone.

“The state’s coal production stayed about the same in Trump’s second year,” Hamilton said, “but by the time the pandemic was in full swing, production around the country shut down, and it took more than a year for it to recover.”

Those of us living in southern West Virginia, southwest Virginia and other coal-producing areas have seen first-hand the harmful economic effects of the Obama policy. It is a policy that, according to the data presented earlier, must have been based on political ideals rather than scientific evidence.

And Phillips quoted Hamilton as saying that “Energy producers have warned the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Biden administration that continuing with these policies may upset the national power grid, increasing the likelihood for outages.”

Previous dire warnings about climate catastrophe include that space satellites showed a new ice age coming fast; that there was no end in sight to 30-year cooling trend in northern hemisphere; that within five years the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely free of ice; and French foreign minister Laurent Fabius’ 2014 warning that "we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos." None of these and other predictions of catastrophe actually came to be.

Given the long list of doomsday prognostications that didn’t occur, their breathtaking contrariness to climate reality, and the minuscule amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, we should neither worry about, nor continue to combat CO2, and stop punishing the American people by mandating inferior products and unnecessary costs.

What is the solution to the calamity at our southern border?

February 20, 2024

The catastrophe that is occurring at our southern border is currently the most serious national security threat to the nation. Millions of illegal aliens have come across the border with virtually no interference, have been encountered by Border Patrol agents, given a court date several years in the future for which they may or may not show up, and then are released into the country, often being flown or bused to the location of their choice. 

More than a million “gotaways” have sneaked across the Rio Grande without even coming face to face with the Border Patrol, and who knows who they are, where they are, or what their intent is?

This situation has become so intense and wide-spread that the mayors of sanctuary cities are now complaining about the problems this laxness has caused them, with thousands of illegals needing to be dealt with at the cities’ expense (read “taxpayers’ expense”).

Tens of thousands of Americans have died as a result of the lax control of the border that has allowed tens of thousands or millions of fentanyl pills to be smuggled in. Many others have been victims of crimes by illegals, and who knows how many potential terrorists are among those millions coming in from more than a hundred countries, including China?

Despite the painfully obvious failure of the Biden administration to secure the border and protect Americans, the man directly responsible for securing the border, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, keeps insisting that “The border is secure and the border is not open.”

He also blames the ridiculously huge number of illegals entering the country on insufficient border policies, rather than on the true cause: President Joe Biden’s Executive Orders almost as soon as he was sworn in that cancelled several existing policies that were working and keeping illegal entry at a very low level before Biden took office.

But while the border situation may benefit from some policy updates, the problem is that Mayorkas is not following the laws, and chaos is the result. Is not following laws a high crime or misdemeanor?

Finally, some action was taken. The House of Representatives succeeded in passing an impeachment action against Mayorkas on the second attempt.

Republican members of the House Committee on Homeland Security released this statement on impeachment: “After our nearly year-long investigation and subsequent impeachment proceedings, and having exhausted all other options to hold him accountable, it is unmistakably clear to all of us—and to the American people—that Congress must exercise its constitutional duty and impeach Secretary Mayorkas. The Secretary has consistently willfully and systemically refused to follow the laws passed by Congress, abused his authority, and breached the trust of Congress and the American people on numerous occasions. The result of his failure to fulfill his oath of office has been a border crisis that is unprecedented in American history—a crisis that has cost the lives of thousands of Secretary Mayorkas’ fellow Americans.”

The Committee produced reports of its findings in the five-phase investigation, totaling nearly 400 pages, plus interviews with Border Patrol Sector Chiefs:

* Phase 1: DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’ Dereliction of Duty

* Phase 2: DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas Has Emboldened Cartels, Criminals, and America’s Enemies

* Phase 3: The Devastating Human Costs of the DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’ Open-Borders Policies

* Phase 4: The Historic Dollar Costs of DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’ Open-Borders Policies

* Phase 5: The Massive Waste and Abuse Enabled by DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas

* Transcribed Interview Appendix: First-Hand Accounts of the Crisis From Border Patrol Sector Chiefs.

Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee criticized the Republican impeachment effort, saying it was a “baseless sham.” “MAGA Republicans have wasted their opportunity to make progress on immigration and border security policy,” rather than participating “in a conversation about bipartisan legislation,” they said.

But Republicans know, as Democrats should and likely do, that additional legislation is not needed to fix the border. All that is needed is for Biden to reverse his day-one actions and restore the border control that he cancelled in his childish actions against all things Trump.

And exactly how is the Republican effort against Mayorkas different from the Democrats’ twice impeaching then-President Donald Trump, all the while knowing that the Senate would not convict Trump in an impeachment trial?

They impeached Trump twice to make the point that they disapproved of him as President, so it is perfectly acceptable, by Democrat reasoning, that Republicans impeached Mayorkas for his ignoring laws, even though the Senate will not convict him.

Is Mayorkas deliberately lying about there being a crisis? Or, is he satisfied with what is happening, that he and Biden want millions of illegal aliens coming into the country? They apparently like the chaos in the border states and the sanctuary cities, the drug deaths and other deaths caused by illegals, and the potential for some illegals to be terrorists in waiting.

Otherwise, why would they not openly work to fix the problem? Why would they continue to deny that there is a crisis of monumental proportions at the southern border that threatens the very people they were elected to protect?

A teacher’s view of how America’s history is being taught

February 13, 2024

A major problem in America is that so many of us do not have a correct understanding of the origins of our country, and the ideals put forth in the founding documents.

The political left is working very hard to transform the country from what it is and was to something that suits the left’s ideals, the primary one of which is perpetual control of the government and the people residing here.

That concept is 180 degrees from what our Founders created. Their idea was a limited government with the maximum degree of personal freedom: a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

The concept of government of, by and for the people was part of a speech by then-president Abraham Lincoln several decades after the Constitution was ratified in the Gettysburg Address in 1863 as the nation fought the Civil War.

Lincoln’s now-well-known phrase is an apt description of the way our government was perceived and designed, and has operated for over 200 years..

In every nation, regardless of its ruling ideology, there are some who have different ideas about how things should be. In many of those nations, you can die or be severely punished for expressing ideas contrary to the ruling philosophy. But not in America, where we have the Bill of Rights as part of our Constitution that guarantees us the right to free speech, among other valuable freedoms.

Today, we see free speech and other guaranteed rights being restricted by some. We see efforts to challenge our history and aspects of that history under attack, both in plain sight and under the table.

Education is one of those places where un-American ideas are being pushed on our children at every level of schooling. These efforts are being strongly denied by the indoctrinators, who blame critics of their efforts by those with conservative, traditional views of America as exaggerations or lies.

“American history must be taught fully, fairly and honestly or else we have a limited understanding of the past, with no way to explain the present, and no hope of building a better future.”

That truth was written by Michael R. Burgess, in The Island Packet on Hilton Head Island, South Carolina. Burgess is and has been for many years a history teacher, and now teaches in Lexington County, SC. He was selected as the state’s 2023 History Teacher of the Year by the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History, and is recognized by the S.C. Department of Education.

Of what is currently happening, he wrote, “We are at a crossroads in South Carolina with how American history is to be taught in our classrooms. We are trapped between those who want to whitewash and sanitize our state and national story to omit those truths we find uncomfortable and those who want to erase any part of our past that does not meet our 21st century social and cultural norms.”

He described a false perception that “the dedication to learn, embrace and understand American history is lost among our youth.” It is the education system that is to blame for the failure to present true history to children, not a lack of interest.

“We do not devote enough time to teaching it at the elementary, middle or high school levels. Our standards do not require a thorough teaching of key figures and events in American history. We are losing our best U.S. History teachers as a consequence of large class sizes, long hours, low pay, and bureaucratic overreach. And, U.S. History teachers are the focus of a war being waged against them by groups who wish to whitewash or erase our history.”

“Many U.S. History teachers believe it is safer to create neutral, vanilla, plain -rice-cake learning experiences which fall short of needed instruction, but avoid the onslaught of those who tear teachers down.

If we want American history to be told and taught fully, fairly and honestly, and if we want our children to be prepared to lead this nation forward, we must make significant changes to the way we approach teaching American history.”

Burgess goes on to say that those teachers presenting U.S. History in the proper way need the strong support of the public, and not attacking the devoted and honest ones with “innuendo and false accusations for the wrong-doings of a few rogue actors.”

The problems he sees in his state are not restricted to South Carolina. This same mentality exists in many states, perhaps every state in the country. There is an active faction determined to subvert the strong traditional education that has been the rule for many decades.

Burgess closes with a quote from George Orwell: “The most effective way to destroy a people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”

And the actions cited by Orwell can be easily seen in education in many, many classrooms, schools, and districts across the country. If they are not reversed and our education system returned to its previous structure of honesty and integrity of mission, our nation will continue its slide toward the misery of socialism.

What is our country? A constitutional republic, if we can keep it!

February 6, 2024

As has been noted here before, the United States of America is a unique and very special country. While it is based upon democratic principles, it is not a pure democracy. It is a constitutional republic.

What’s the difference? In a pure democracy, 50% + one person can decide what happens to the 50% less one person. In a democracy, two wolves can decide to have the lamb for dinner, without the lamb having anything to say about it.

If America was a pure democracy, our elections would be decided by those living in New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, and a few other large cities. There would be no point in voting if you live in places that think differently.

Scottish history professor Alexander Tyler, who taught at the University of Edinburgh, said this about democracies back about the time the United States adopted its constitution in the late 1700s: “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.” This comment was based upon history.

“A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury,” he said. “From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”

Another piece of history is that the average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been only about 200 years.

The rather short history of pure democracies and great civilizations drove our Founders to develop a system that could outlast the previous civilizations. Therefore, they created our constitution establishing the United States of America as a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

Despite this great work, there are Americans today working their hearts out to change our system to one like those with short lives, and making the life of the unique United States much shorter than if we stick to the Founder’s plan.

Former President Ronald Reagan once said about our country, “Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction.”

“It is not ours by inheritance, it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people,” he said. “Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.”

Some 50 years ago, former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, speaking to an audience about the way the British Labour party wanted to do things, said: “You want to keep more of the money you earn? I’m afraid that’s very selfish. We shall want to tax that away. 

“You want to own shares in your firm? We can’t have that. The state has to own your firm. 

“You want to choose where to send your children to school? That’s very divisive. You’ll send your child where we tell you. 

“The trouble with Labour is that they’re just not at home with freedom. Socialists don’t like ordinary people choosing. For they might not choose socialism.”

In an interview, she said of the idea of the government controlling everything: “You know when the state does everything for you, it will soon take everything from you. You will then have no basis for personal freedom, political freedom, nor economic freedom. 

“The state must never substitute for personal responsibility. I know that we’ll only get the kind of country, the kind of prosperity, the kind of standards that I wish to see if everyone says ‘it’s my job to do my best. It’s my job to try to lend a hand to others and not to say, oh, I’m not going to do that, that’s for the state.’

“What sort of society do you think we’d have if you have people saying that it’s the state’s job to find a job. It’s the state’s job to house me. It’s the state’s job to look after my family? Freedom is inseparable from personal responsibility. You know there’s a famous quote from George Bernard Shaw … ‘Freedom incurs responsibility. That’s why many men fear it.’”

Ideas like packing the Supreme Court with liberal justices that change, rather than follow the intent of our laws and Constitution; doing away with the Electoral College; making Washington, DC a state; allowing millions of illegal aliens to come into the country at will, giving them benefits, and perhaps citizenship or voting privileges; putting into effect soft-on-crime policies that encourage rather than discourage criminal activity; allowing rules with the force of law to be made by unelected bureaucrats, giving government broader authority to control our lives; parents being labeled “terrorists” for protecting their children from indoctrination; not protecting free speech in online forums, are leading us down a deadly path.

The America of the Founders can last many more years. But we have to not only resist further changes to the way America works, but seriously work to restore those original qualities that have been eaten away by those wishing for more state power, and less personal freedom.

Biden’s catastrophic border policy puts Americans in danger

January 30, 2024

Most people in the United States today understand that the situation at our southern border is a crisis. Looking back to FY2001 (October 2000 through September 2001) at the illegal border crossings, here is what has happened since then.

Using data from Statista, a global data and business intelligence platform, here are the numbers.

In FY01 there were 1,266,214 illegal entries. That was when George W. Bush was President. Through the rest of his term, until FY2009 the number generally decreased, and during the last fiscal year of Bush’s second term, the number was 733,825.

During Barack Obama’s two terms, the numbers were lower, but started to rise during Obama’s second term, ending at 415,816.

During the tenure of Donald Trump, in the first two years, the numbers were lower than that of Obama’s last year in office. During the Trump’s third year, FY2019, the number rose to 859,501, and during Trump’s last year in office, FY2020, the number was 405,036. During Trump’s 4-year tenure, the total of illegal entries was 1,979,210.

Joe Biden became President in FY2021, and the illegal entries totaled 1,662,167. The following year, the number rose to 2,214,652, and in Biden’s third year, FY2023, the number was more than 3.2 million.

Since Biden took office, 6.2 million illegal entries have occurred at our southern border. In his first year, more than 400% more illegals entered the country than in Trump’s last year, and nearly as many as in Trump’s total after four years as President.

A report released on October 26th by the House Committee on Homeland Security contains these Key Facts:

* Encounters at the Southwest border in FY2023 increased over 40% since FY2021, 4% compared to FY2022, and more than 100% compared to FY2019.

* Last month, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reported a 40% increase compared to September 2021 and 18% compared to September 2022. 

*Since President Biden took office, there have been 7.5 million encounters nationwide and 6.2 million encounters at the Southwest border, in addition to 1.7 million known gotaways.  

*In FY2023, 169 individuals whose names appear on the terrorist watchlist were stopped trying to cross the U.S.-Mexico border between ports of entry. 18 were apprehended in September alone.

*So far in FY2023, CBP has arrested 35,433 aliens with criminal convictions or outstanding warrants nationwide, including 598 known gang members, 178 of those being MS-13 members. 

*In FY2023, CBP, including Air and Marine Operations, has seized 27,293 pounds of fentanyl, coming across the Southwest border—enough to kill more than 6 billion people.

An opinion article authored by Simon Hankinson appearing in The Hill last month lays the blame for this catastrophe at the feet of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. “It is hard to think of a single appointed official in U.S. history who has done more harm to this country’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and rule of law than this one man,” he wrote. But as culpable as Mayorkas is, he must share the blame with his boss, Joe Biden, who approves of his “work.”

In contrast to today’s goings-on, here are the opinions of two prominent Democrats from several years ago.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY had this to say about border security and illegal entries to our country in 2009, during Barack Obama’s presidency.

“People who enter the United States without our permission are illegal aliens, and illegal aliens are people who should not be treated the same as people who entered the U.S. legally.

“Illegal immigration is wrong, plain and simple.

“Until the American people are convinced that we will stop future flows of illegal immigration, we will make no progress in dealing with the millions of illegal immigrants who are here now.

“When we use phrases like ‘undocumented workers,’ we convey a message to the American people that their government is not serious about combating illegal immigration, which the American people overwhelmingly oppose.

“If you don’t think it’s illegal, you’re not going to say it. I think it is illegal, and wrong.”

And in 2007 during George W. Bush’s presidency, then-Senator Joe Biden, D-DE, offered this advice.

“Ladies and gentlemen, no great country can say it is secure without being able to control its borders. Period. What I would do about it is what I proposed to do about it almost 13 year ago. 

“I would radically ramp up the number of border security guards we have, the use of electronic surveillance material we have to guard the border, and the number of what they call ‘virtual fences.’ They’re not really fences. Virtual fences from aerostat balloons … whereby we could control the border much, much better.”

Very wise words from men who today hold two of our most important government positions, and who are now 180 degrees in opposition to their sensible positions of several ago.

This crisis can be ended fairly quickly if Biden would reverse his Executive Orders that changed so many things about border enforcement, by enforcing existing laws, restoring “remain in Mexico” and Title 42, and following Texas’ example of blocking the border. 

Globalist elites meet again this month in Davos, Switzerland

January 23, 2024

You may have heard a good bit lately about what’s going on in Davos, Switzerland. It is the annual winter conference of the World Economic Forum (WEF). For many, perhaps most people, the WEF is just a name without definition.

So here, from Britannica online, is some background: “World Economic Forum, international organization that convenes an annual winter conference, traditionally in Davos, Switz., for the discussion of global commerce, economic development, political concerns, and important social issues. Some of the world’s most prominent business leaders, politicians, policy makers, scholars, philanthropists, trade unionists, and representatives of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) attend the meetings. Headquarters are in Cologny, near Geneva.”

This annual get-together ran five days, from January 15 through 19, under the theme “Rebuilding Trust.” Topics for discussion fell under three headings: global, industry and economic.

Taking part in the WEF were more than 300 public figures, which included over 60 heads of state and government, plus there was representation from key regions of the world. 

Leading the conference was Klaus Schwab, who is the founder and executive chairman of the organization. Schwab founded a meeting of European corporate leaders interested in making their businesses competitive with American firms way back in 1971. In his day job, Schwab is “a German scholar of business policy and a professor at the University of Geneva.”

The name “World Economic Forum” became effective in 1987, reflecting “the importance of global economic and political issues, including poverty, environmental problems, and international conflict, which it immediately began working to resolve,” the Britannica article tells us.

However, like what happened with the United Nations, the actions of the WEF are not always in the best interest of everyone in the world that it hopes to rule one day.

On that topic, Britannica had this to say. Despite some successes, “the WEF was heavily criticized in the late 1990s by antiglobalization activists, who accused the organization of disenfranchising poorer countries through an excessive promotion of global capitalism. 

“The American political scientist Samuel P. Huntington labeled the group ‘a watering hole for the elite’ and coined the term ‘Davos Man,’ a pejorative reference to the WEF member, whom he believed possessed an erroneous sense of international identity. Protests over the group’s activities continued into the early 21st century, and the group responded by extending forum invitations to NGOs and developing countries and introduced the Open Forum Davos (2003), a free public forum held in parallel with the WEF.”

Sometimes American presidents attend, and sometimes not. President Joe Biden did not attend this year, and former President Donald Trump did not attend this year. Barack Obama, George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush all skipped Davos during their presidencies.

However, some administrative and Congressional personnel did attend. Democrats who attended this year include: Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Labor Secretary Marty Walsh, climate chief John Kerry, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan, Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, New Jersey Rep. Mikie Sherrill, and Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker.

Republicans that attended include: Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, and Florida Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar. Independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona also attended.

One other person from the U.S. to attend and speak to the group was 

Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts. Talking about the next U.S. administration, he said: “I will be candid and say the agenda that every single member of the administration needs to have is to compile a list of everything that has ever been proposed at the World Economic Forum and object to all of them wholesale,” he said. “Anyone not prepared to do that and take away this power of the unelected bureaucrats and give it back to the American people is unprepared to be part of the next conservative administration.”

Dealing with specifics of what the WEF does that is so disagreeable, he said 

that it promotes illegal immigration as a positive for our country, and that it does not present a public safety threat in large American cities. He argued against the prevailing idea of the WEF that climate change is catastrophic. 

The WEF’s soft attitude toward China brought this comment from Roberts. “China, the No. 1 adversary not just to the United States, but to free people on planet Earth. Not only do we at Davos not say that, we give the Chinese Communist Party a platform.” 

To a group of global elitists who firmly believe they are capable of deciding for all of the rest of us what the entire world must do to sustain the Earth, these and the other wonderful ideas they conjure up may seem beneficial. But as Roberts pointed out, some of them are just plain dangerous for the United States.

And, we should take note that the WEF’s ideas closely match those of the Biden administration.

The United States has for nearly 250 years had a government design where the people of the country determine its course. That has worked very well. And despite the current efforts to undermine that unique design, it is still the best ever. We must not surrender to a global elite.

The younger generations have serious problems affecting the nation

January 16, 2024

Many of us who have been around for a while are somewhat befuddled by the attitude some in the younger generations have about their country. An article credited to a 26-yearold female college graduate student addresses this situation. The article is titled, “My Generation Is Blind to the Prosperity Around Us!”

The article was written within the last few years, and the author is listed as Alyssa Ahlgren, who's in grad school for her MBA.

Not far into the article she wrote that the infamous “Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently said to Newsweek talking about the millennial generation, ‘An entire generation, which is now becoming one of the largest electorates in America, came of age and never saw American prosperity.’ Never saw American prosperity! Let that sink in.”

Her reaction was, “When I first read that statement, I thought to myself, that was quite literally the most entitled and factually illiterate thing I've ever heard in my 26 years on this earth. Many young people agree with her, which is entirely misguided.”

She noted that people in the coffee shop where she was working at the time were talking among themselves, ordering food and being served rather quickly, working on their laptops, and watching cars go by. They can and probably have ordered something from an online retailer very easily, and had it at their door in a day or two. Her peers were enjoying what they had chosen to do at that time, but did not appreciate the things that made that enjoyable. They took them for granted.

That is when she realized that we are fortunate to live in the “most privileged time in the most prosperous nation.” But she noted that so many people are clueless about that.

Our freedoms, our many features in life, like the many modern objects at our disposal, are not considered as special among many of our young people. And she cited some headlines of presidential candidates who are campaigning on policies to "fix" the so-called injustices of capitalism.

“We are so well off here in the United States that our poverty line begins 31 times above the global average. Thirty-One Times!!!” She added that few Americans are truly poor by global standards.

We simply do not appreciate how good we have it and are ungrateful for all that we have. She attributes much of this to the rising popularity of socialistic thinking among her generation. 

“My generation is being indoctrinated by a mainstream narrative to actually believe we have never seen prosperity,” she said. “I know this first hand, I went to college.” She sees things a bit differently than her peers, as she grew up with a much different understanding of her country.

She believes that her generation has truly seen prosperity, but they have only experienced prosperity. They have no direct memories, or even second-hand stories of the great depression or the two world wars, or the wars in Korea or Vietnam. They have not experienced the tragedies of communism and socialism.

And somehow, many of the young Americans were not taught — or did not learn — the true history of America.

While America has many blessings and freedoms, that does not mean that everything is perfect. Far from it. We are a very politically divided nation. We are currently fighting high inflation, ridiculous numbers of illegal aliens coming into the country at will, and we have a political party that leans far to the left that wants to fundamentally transform our government structure from its current one-of-a-kind design that has put the U.S. at the top among the world’s nations to another system that has never achieved anything near to what America has.

Having always had the internet, their own cars, smartphones, laptop computers and so many other wonderful things that they take for granted, they are entitled, but have no idea that they are. They do not understand the comparatively good life that exists today. 

Many of them expect to be paid a good wage just because they have a job, without regard to their particular background, the value of the job they have, and their level of performance. Merit is not a factor to many of them; diversity, equity and inclusion rule.

Our military is suffering from failure to attract enough young people into the services. Many of these young people are unable to pass the requirements to join the military, while others are not inclined to join.

This is a very serious problem, as we are in a time where our adversaries are testing our resolve, such as the Iranian proxy Hezbollah pushing the limits of our patience with attacks on our bases in the mid-east. We must have a military that can address such things and conquer them. And we must have an administration that is not afraid to use it.

Many of the younger generations are poorly prepared to succeed in their country, and do not understand its design, its nearly 250 years of great success, and the degree of personal freedom designed into it.

This is serious problem.

The U.S. suffers under a soft-on-crime wave among prosecutors

January 9, 2024

Many people today apparently do not understand the concept of law and order. Our country has a body of laws that were enacted to prohibit conduct that is harmful to the people and to our country.

When those laws are broken, our justice system provides for penalties to be imposed on the guilty. They teach the wrongdoer a lesson and serve to discourage people from indulging in the unlawful activities.

However, these penalties and deterrents only work when they are implemented as the law requires. 

Police and other law enforcement personnel have the duty to find those who have broken laws, and charge them with criminal offenses. Certain positions that are filled by election and by appointment exist to enforce these laws and to apply charges and penalties as appropriate, such as prosecuting attorneys and judges. 

These persons have the sworn duty to apply the laws without fear or favor. Today, and not for the first time, we find public officials who do not apply all of the laws that exist, and when they do, they are sometimes not done fairly.

An article in U.S. News last month explained that there was a tidal wave of progressive prosecutor victories several years ago that campaigned on policies that seek different types of penalties than now exist. These largely consist of counseling and treatment regimens, monetary fines, parole or community service, rather than jail time. 

“A Republican state attorney general is asking members of Congress to probe a Justice Department grant that he says benefits a ‘radically progressive’ group responsible for training prosecutors in ways to implement a soft-on-crime approach to their work,” a Fox News online report begins.

Letters to Congress were sent by Missouri’s Attorney General Andrew Bailey asking members "to further investigate and eliminate funding for programs that are counter-productive to public safety" and that "aid or encourage prosecutors to abuse discretion by refusing to bring criminals to justice."

In the letters Bailey described a situation where St. Louis circuit attorney Kim Gardner, who he described as "a progressive soft-on-crime prosecutor," released a repeat criminal on bail. The man then hit a young girl with his vehicle at a high speed, resulting in her having her legs amputated.

After much criticism and evidence of dereliction of duty, Gardner resigned from the office.

A case in Austin, Texas, features District Attorney Joseph Garza. Roberto Rangel was arrested for his 7th DUI, that resulted in the deaths of two people in their early 20s. But Garza reduced the charges and bond amount, allowing Rangel back on the streets. 

One of the most notorious of these soft-on-crime prosecutors is Los Angeles County, California District Attorney George Gascon, who was elected in 2020 and is up for reelection this year.

After just one year in office, criticism of Gascon was so intense that a recall campaign was begun. While it failed, more than a half-million signatures have been collected for another recall.

Gascon now faces a challenge at the polls from an attorney that works in his office. John McKinney said Gascon “values the rights of offenders more than victims.”

He added that a lot of crime in Los Angeles County is “not committed out of desperation,” but because “people see an opportunity” due to the soft-on-crime atmosphere created by Gascon.

“We’re down 250 attorneys from what we’re budgeted for,” he said. “We have been handcuffed, gagged … and told to do things that are counterproductive and counter to justice. We’ve had enough. We want change.”

We have seen a dramatic and dangerous move away from holding people to account for their criminal behavior.

These idiotic ideas have produced a significant rise in crime in some cities and states. Victims are not being given the satisfaction of seeing those who have robbed them, assaulted them, damaged their property, or perhaps injured or killed a family member get the satisfaction of the guilty parties being punished.

People in important positions in the justice system don’t punish many instances of wrong-doing, but try to punish some people when they haven’t been convicted or even charged. These people also want to make things more difficult for law enforcement personnel and agencies, and even sometimes support closing down prisons.

And then there are those who use criminal prosecutions for ill. While former President Donald Trump may indeed be guilty of the crimes he allegedly committed years ago, why have those charges only been brought now as Trump seeks the presidency in 2024?

And why did the Maine Secretary of State — Shenna Bellows, a Democrat — decide that she is capable of determining guilt, and that she has the authority to determine that Trump is guilty of “insurrection,” even though he has not been found guilty of it in a court, or even officially charged with the crime?

If you don’t like some laws, you may work to change them, but you must not be allowed to ignore them. You must be required act properly when you are in an official capacity.

If the people are expected to honor the actions of public officials, then those officials must act honorably, legally, fairly and sensibly.

Christmas message of hate spoils the annual celebration

January 2, 2024

On Christmas Eve, a unique description of the event which is celebrated on Christmas Day was posted on Instagram.

"In the story of Christmas, Christ was born in modern-day Palestine under the threat of a government engaged in a massacre of innocents," the post begins. 

"He was part of a targeted population being indiscriminately killed to protect an unjust leader's power. Mary and Joseph, displaced by violence and forced to flee, became refugees in Egypt with a newborn waiting to one day return home. 

"Thousands of years later, right-wing forces are violently occupying Bethlehem as similar stories unfold for today's Palestinians, so much so that the Christian community in Bethlehem has canceled this year's Christmas Eve celebrations out of both safety and respect.

"And yet, also today, holy children are still being born in a place of unspeakable violence - for every child born, of any identity and from any place, is sacred. Especially the children of Gaza.

"The entire story of Christmas and Christ himself is about standing with the poor and powerless, the marginalized and maligned, the refugees and immigrants, the outcast and misunderstood without exception.

"This high Christian holiday is about honoring the precious sanctity of a family that, if the story were to unfold today, would be Jewish Palestinians. Merry Christmas. May there be peace on Earth, amen," the post concluded.

This version of the Christmas story has little to do with truth and history, but has much to say about the anti-Semitic mania that is now sweeping our country.

This particular work of fiction is representative of the illusions possessed by those who hate Jews and blame Israel for the bloody savagery unleashed upon it by the Hamas terrorist organization on October 7.

It was created by one Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat Representative from the state of New York. She is casually known as “AOC.”

Her diatribe created quite a stir, both from supporters and opponents of Israel and the Jewish people. One of her critics is Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas, former presidential candidate, and someone who knows the real story.

Huckabee noted correctly that “Jesus was Jewish.” And he also provided some accuracy about Palestine and other relevant factors.

“’Palestinian’ meant Jewish people until 1962 when Yasser Arafat co-opted the term and created a nation and made up a people, and called them the ‘Palestinians,’ who previously were Jordanian,” he noted.

“This is a person that is utterly ignorant about what she is talking about, and she may ought to stick to something she knows, like bartending,” he said. “She has no clue about the history of the Middle East, Jesus, the Jewish people, the State of Israel, or virtually anything else that she talked about in her post,” Huckabee said.

Speaking about the October 7th Hamas attack on Israel, he said that it’s the most “uncivilized act of atrocity that we have probably seen in our lifetime.” “And for anybody to defend this and scream ‘from the river to the sea,’ it’s not just anti-Semitism, it’s anti-humanity. This is evil.”

Since the slaughter and barbarism committed by Hamas last October, the United States has seen many pro-Palestinian/Hamas, anti-Israel protests. Many of them have been and are on college campuses.

There, Jewish students have been threatened and unable to move about freely, even to the point of having to miss classes. College administrations seemed unconcerned with this situation.

Recently, holiday travelers were heavily inconvenienced by protests blocking roads to airports, resulting in many travelers missing their flights.

In desperation, many of these people left their blocked vehicles and walked through the protesters trying to get to the gate before their flight took off.

Earlier in the year, a group of pro-Palestinian/Hamas protesters disrupted the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, and vandalized the New York Public Library, sparking a wave of outrage.

Hundreds of demonstrators disrupted the Macy's Parade by gluing their hands to the pavement in the center of Sixth Avenue. Dressed in white jumpsuits, they were covered in fake blood. Some of them went to the library, and sprayed the words “free Palestine” in spray paint on the building, and damaged the buildings columns.

Exactly how this criminal behavior helps the Palestinians, or Hamas, is left to the imagination.

America still prides itself as a nation with freedom of speech protected in the U.S. Constitution. Yes, speech is still a protected right, despite the fact that some media are allowed to censor some speech. 

But the question is: why do these anti-Semites insist on blocking traffic and indulging in other criminal activities while exercising that right?

* * *

As we begin a new year, let us hope that 2024 returns the nation to the good old days of 2020, when prices were better, the southern border was more secure, we were not so illogically focused on the false hope of electric vehicles and green energy “saving the world,” and we were more focused on preserving the great country our founders had given us than on fundamentally transforming the United States of America into just one more socialist failure.