The American legal system badly needs some modifications

April 1, 2025

Since Donald Trump entered the political arena the number of times he has been involved in legal actions has grown enormously. And as he continues to be involved in politics, that list continues to expand.

Each of the times he has been charged with a crime or sued excites his political enemies, and provides them with ammunition to fight him with. And his supporters and some others say that is mostly why these allegations are made and charges are brought in the first place.

The term “lawfare” has become a common term. It means to use legal elements as warfare, or using the law as a weapon of political war.

A shining example provided by Trump supporters of how lawfare is used occurred in New York not too long ago. In May of 2024, he was charged by a Democrat DA who campaigned on “getting Trump,” and he was tried in a court in a heavily Democrat county, presided over by a judge with heavy Democrat ties, and found guilty by a jury of all or mostly Democrats.

Democrats disagree with that description, of course. But the heavy influence of Democrats in that part of that heavily blue state are inarguable.

And as time has passed more questionable actions have only added to the concerns that our legal system is sometimes driven more by politics than it is by the law and the Constitution.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ordered the Trump administration to immediately halt efforts to remove criminal illegal aliens until he has more time to consider whether Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act was illegal. And, there are other instances where a district judge has also intervened in a presidential action.

There are 94 federal judicial districts and each one has at least one district judge, who is appointed for a life term. In total there are more than 670 federal district judges in the U.S. And as some of these judges see it, each of them, having judicial authority over a very small area of the country, somehow has the power to overrule the President of the United States.

Other actions by trial judges have brought about resistance. New York Republican House of Representatives member Elise Stefanik produced two ethics complaints, alleging judicial abuse by two judges in cases against Trump.

One of them was Judge Arthur Engoron of the Manhattan Supreme Court. Stefanik’s complaint noted that Engoron had called Trump “a bad guy,” and had supported Attorney General Letitia James for going after him. When challenged on this, he refused to recuse himself.

During the trial, Engoron told Trump’s attorney, who was trying to file a routine motion, that he wasn’t interested in what he had to say, and “to just sit down.” He then issued a gag order against Trump.

The second complaint was filed against New York state Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan, who presided over the trial in which Trump was convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records. Stefanik provided evidence that Merchan’s daughter was working for the Kamala Harris presidential campaign, calling into question his ability to preside impartially.

The New York Judicial State Commission on Judicial Conduct did not even consider those complaints.

A theory on what has led to many judges making rulings and taking other actions beyond their actual authority is the existing assumption that judges hold absolute immunity for their actions. There are cases where obvious errors and deliberate improper actions by judges have been ignored. Judicial immunity has been awarded to judges by other judges.

One example: An Indiana judge ordered a 15-year-old girl to be surgically sterilized for no better reason than that her parents asked for it. There was no hearing of evidence or a trial that determined this action, and the girl was told she was going to have an appendectomy, not sterilization. She didn’t realize what had actually happened until she was married years later, and discovered she could not have the children she wanted.

The victim later sued the judge, but his peers defended him from being held accountable for his horrific action. You see, he was protected by absolute immunity. The court wrote that, “A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority.” 

The idea of judicial immunity was inherited from English common law, and has survived several legal challenges. However, this situation has caused some organizations to seek a change to this assumption of blanket immunity from all actions. 

One of them, the Institute for Justice (IJ) — a nonprofit, public interest law firm — has launched the “Project on Immunity and Accountability.” The basis for this, IJ states, is this simple idea: “If we the people must follow the law, our government must follow the Constitution.”

We do not want a situation where judges and their decisions will be challenged every time one side or the other in a legal matter is displeased with the outcome. 

But what we must have are conditions in existence that will insure that judicial decisions are based upon the law and the Constitution, as written, not on personal or political opinions.

The left’s anger, fear and desperation cause misplaced actions

March 25, 2025

The situation of the resistance to everything President Donald Trump says and does has always been a bit crazy, but since he took office in January, this reaction has become even crazier.

Perhaps the best example of that is the reaction to the efforts to restore order and propriety to the use of taxpayer money that the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is doing. Specifically, the involvement in DOGE of Elon Musk, who owns X (formerly Twitter) and Space X, and is CEO of Tesla is problematic.

Musk has had criticism from all sorts of people, and even threats on his life, for his efforts to find and eliminate wasteful and improper spending of our money, something every American should support.

This criticism comes primarily from those on the political left. The left is concerned about the climate and the problems they ascribe to too much CO2 in the atmosphere. They heavily oppose the burning of fossil fuels, and heavily favor wind and solar power to replace them.

Musk has helped with that by owning the company producing the very popular Tesla electric vehicle (EV).

Some on the left who disapprove of DOGE’s activities have gone after Musk. And their idea of how to get even with him, in addition to direct actions and threats against him, is through violence, which includes destroying Tesla vehicles and charging stations, and even dealerships. 

Note to those leftists: Musk does not own the vehicles, charging stations and dealerships that you are bombing with Molotov cocktails and damaging through other means. Those vehicles are owned largely by people who agree with your position on the environment, believing EVs are beneficial to the environment. And the charging station and dealership properties are owned mostly by local businesses who provide jobs for local people and generally support their communities.

These violent attacks are suspected to not be spur-of-the-moment reactions, for the most part. Vice President J.D. Vance suggests that they are coordinated and paid for by someone.

"My guess is that if we do get to the bottom of this, we're going to find out that there are some very crazy, very deranged, but very wealthy left-wing people who are funding this stuff," Vance said.

Along that line of thinking, the FBI believes there is a “map” that supposedly charts the location of Tesla owners in the United States, and FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino said the bureau is investigating this. These actions have been described as a form of domestic terrorism by Attorney General Pam Bondi.

The Daily Signal reported that “A website called ‘Dogequest’ claims to have published the personal information of Tesla owners across the country, and it turns the user’s cursor into a Molotov cocktail. The site’s operators, who also posted the exact locations of Tesla dealerships, say they will only remove personal information if the Tesla owners provide proof that they sold their electric vehicles.”

Townhall.com reports that three people have been federally charged for destruction of Tesla properties, using Molotov cocktails. They will "face the full force of the law" for allegedly firebombing Tesla cars and charging stations, according to a Department of Justice press release. The charges carry a penalty of from five years to twenty years in prison, if those charged are convicted.

"The days of committing crimes without consequence have ended," Bondi said. "Let this be a warning: if you join this wave of domestic terrorism against Tesla properties, the Department of Justice will put you behind bars."

This attitude on the part of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice (DOJ) are very welcome, after the long four years of selective prosecutions in the Biden administration. Violence, including setting fire to police stations and other properties — which the main stream media reported as “mostly peaceful” protests, as buildings burned in the background — were brushed off. 

However, parents complaining about their children’s education to their local school boards, and others carrying signs opposing abortions near abortion clinics, ranked higher with the DOJ, which labeled them “domestic terrorists.” 

And the squad of liberal prosecutors behaved like political operatives, instead of living up to their pledge to enforce laws to protect the public, for whom they work.

The country approves of and protects free speech, which often appears as organized protests. There seems to be many people who do not understand what protests actually are. And instead of peacefully protesting, they stoop to committing violent, destructive and dangerous acts. What they are doing is not protected speech; it is grounds for arrest and jail time.

Political actions and events are intended to persuade people to your way of thinking. The left’s misfocused thinking and dangerous violence only shows people how out of touch they are, and it turns people away. These illegal and dangerous antics must be stopped, and the perpetrators punished.

And what Trump and his administration are trying to do is to restore our federal government to its original design, which includes making government smaller, less controlling and less expensive. 

Why this should drive people to violence is difficult to understand, unless they believe that violence is the only path to get their way.

Moving toward a limited and cost-effective federal government

March 18, 2025

Our country is currently experiencing many problems, and some are quite serious. As President Donald Trump’s opponents constantly remind us, he has not yet corrected these problems, even though he has been in office for almost two months.

But seriously, folks, we do have some real problems. And what the most serious of them is depends to a large degree upon whom you ask about that. Some of them are: the national debt, inflation and the resulting high prices, illegal immigration, military strength, big government.

But in whatever order you rank these problems, none of them can be cured overnight; they will all take time to be worked out. That amount of time will be shortened if everyone involved will work together for that purpose. And perhaps that is the most complicated problem of all.

Of those many problems, one that has attracted much attention, and one that is actively being addressed, is the size, cost, and activities of the federal government. Due to the way things have been going for decades, we have become saddled with a national debt of $35.46 trillion, as of fiscal year 2024, and this figure is rising every second. As of last week, it was $36.22 trillion. And the impact of that is enormous: the interest on the national debt is billions of dollars per day.

Our government is too big, it costs too much to operate, its reach has grown far too broad, and it has expanded its power and authority well beyond its originally designed limits. Almost every year the government has a sizeable budget deficit, which adds more to the national debt.

And not only are we spending far too much, billions of those dollars are being spent improperly. Many decisions on spending are being made not by Congress, as is the constitutional process, but by unelected bureaucrats, many with partisan motives.

The entire operation of the government and its spending practices are currently being examined by the newly created and temporary Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Despite the fact that the people pay taxes on what they earn, on what they spend, annually on property they own, and the Social Security payments they receive, and businesses pay taxes on their operation, the country still spends more than it takes in.

In 1789, several years after the creation of the country, there were only three federal departments: State, War, and Treasury. Today, there are 15 departments. The government has five times the departments it had in the early years. And there are fair points being made that we don’t need some of them, and that others need to be downsized and/or merged.

One example of this is that we don’t need USAID, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and that its work can be done by the State Department. Another is the Department of Education. Its job can be done by the individual states, who handled it before the department was created in 1979.

Liberal criticism of the Trump administration contains the scare tactic that Trump wants to create a dictatorship. That would mean a government that controls everything. But that situation has been building for many years, as evidenced by the increase of government departments and the authority they now exercise.

And what Trump is aiming for is reducing the size, cost and broad authority of the federal government. This is being done by DOGE and other efforts of the administration.

With our oversized federal bureaucracy, we are dependent upon other countries for some of the goods that our people need and want the most. And some of them are things that were once produced here, or that could be.

Due to various causes, many of those things were moved out of the U.S., and for the most part, the reason is that government interfered with domestic production by increased regulations that made production more difficult and more expensive. This caused production of some to be moved to other countries, and made foreign products more necessary.

Why shouldn’t a country as great as America not produce the things its people need and want at home? Why should we be at the mercy of other countries, some of whom love to make us suffer, when we can reorganize our country to produce nearly all of the things we need and want?

By appealing to companies that have moved out of the U.S. and encouraging them to return, and by attracting companies that have not been located here to move here, great things will happen. Thousands of new jobs will be created, and the prices on many items will be better. 

We can act to make domestic products more desirable than foreign made products, if some of them are threatening our own products.

Imagine a country that has an abundance of good jobs creating needed and wanted products. And one with a balanced budget, enough income to allow lowering the national debt, and with national spending low enough to allow a tax system with low tax rates that enable the people to keep more of their earnings.

All of this is possible. But the road to that future is not an easy one.

The problem with today’s protests at colleges and universities

March 11, 2025

Protests have been in the news over the last few months. They are not new things. Going back to the 60s and 70s, protests were reasonably common occurrences, and not unusual since then.

Some examples of what gave birth to protests were objections to the Vietnam War, and seeking an end to racial injustice and gender inequality.

The civil rights movement began in the 50s, but continued into the 60s and 70s. It was focused on racial equality, and ending segregation, and it involved nonviolent protests, sit-ins, boycotts, and marches.

Disagreement with the Vietnam War produced many protests and demonstrations, especially on college campuses. Other topics found sympathetic ears on college campuses, too. Major focuses were freedom of speech, and complaints about the status quo, which involved the women’s liberation movement, and the gay rights movement.

In the 60s there arose a rejection of traditional values, emphasis on peace and love, the hippie culture and alternative lifestyles.

For the most part, these protests and demonstrations were peaceful, but there were
some exceptions. And, they were protests of objectionable policies and ways of life that people didn’t like. 

Going back just a few years, we saw many protests based upon policies and events that were far less peaceful than those of the 60s and 70s. Property, both personal and public, was damaged and destroyed. And injuries to and the deaths of individuals occurred.

The recent campus protests have been mostly peaceful and involved students protesting, setting up tent encampments on campuses, and even taking over campus buildings. In some situations, both students and faculty members were actively protesting, as well as some college employees going on strike.

There are organizations representing and coaching the protesters. And these organizations and the protesters are making demands on the schools. Some of the demands are that schools sever financial and academic ties to Israel and companies involved in the current conflict, to disclose investments, and to cease accepting research funding. They also want the U.S. to end military support for Israel.

Protesters have damaged furniture and computers at one campus library, and shattered windows during their occupation of the buildings at another.

Several universities saw student protesters replace American flags with Palestinian flags on campus flagpoles. However, administrations and law enforcement personnel took down the Palestinian flags and put the American flags back up.

The major difference between these recent protests and those of the 60s and 70s, however, is that while actions and policies are part of the basis for the recent protests, the major factor is the high degree of hatred the protesters have for one group of people.

In the conflict between the Iranian terrorist proxy group Hamas and Israel, the college student protesters take the side of those living in Gaza and Hamas. Hamas is who the Palestinians selected as their government. The protesters express their objections to the nation of Israel, and hatred for Jews that live there. And because there are Jews living and attending colleges and universities in the United States, they are also the targets of the protester’s hatred.

Colleges and universities have begun to take steps to halt this unacceptable rule-breaking, and in some cases illegal activity. There have been many protesters arrested, some have been suspended or expelled, while others have been evicted from campus housing, and some have been financially charged for damages to campus property and facilities.

And while some, or hopefully all, of the protesters may get their just rewards for their breaking of rules and laws, will they ever understand or pay a price for their disgusting anti-Semitism?

“The Federal Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism announced that it will be visiting 10 university campuses that have experienced anti-Semitic incidents since October 2023,” reported the Department of Justice’s Office of Public Affairs website. “Created pursuant to President Trump’s Executive Order on Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism, the Task Force set as its first priority to eradicate anti-Semitic harassment in schools and on college campuses.”

The Task Force is aware of allegations that these schools have failed to protect Jewish students and faculty members from discrimination, potentially in violation of federal law, said Leo Terrell, Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, and leader of the Task Force.

The 10 universities are: Columbia University; George Washington University; Harvard University; Johns Hopkins University; New York University; Northwestern University; the University of California, Los Angeles; the University of California, Berkeley; the University of Minnesota; and the University of Southern California.

Terrell said that the Task Force will meet with various groups to gather information about what has been happening, including university leadership, impacted students and staff, local law enforcement, and community members. 

“The President, Attorney General Pamela Bondi, and the entire Administration are committed to ensuring that no one should feel unsafe or unwelcome on campus because of their religion,” Terrell said. “The Task Force’s mandate is to bring the full force of the federal government to bear in our effort to eradicate anti-Semitism, particularly in schools.”

Anti-Semitism, or any sort of racial hatred or discrimination, is the precise opposite of what America is about. And it must be eliminated.

Trump’s efforts to downsize government has Democrats going crazy

March 4, 2025

The left’s attitude toward President Donald Trump is — unsurprisingly — unchanged since he won reelection last November. In fact, a recent Pew Research Center poll shows Democrats dislike everything Trump does. Imagine that! 

It seems that anything that can be said regarding Trump to make him or his actions look bad is approved and encouraged.

Here is one example: “President Donald Trump announced late Sunday that he was naming former Fox News personality Dan Bongino as deputy FBI director, the latest in a series of controversial picks for high-profile law enforcement positions,” as reported by Politico. And, another source referred to Bongino merely as a podcaster.

However, these sources of important information that people depend upon neglected to tell the public that Bongino had served 4 years as a New York police officer and 11 years as a U.S. Secret Service agent during the tenure of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. He has much more substantive law enforcement credentials than a Fox News personality or a podcaster. 

This is a good example how the left “sort of” reports things, using negative and/or derogatory information while leaving out relevant information in reporting on the Trump administration, its personnel, and its actions.

And it’s not just the news media that are indulging in this behavior.

The left likes to think of itself as open-minded, inclusive, tolerant and peace-loving. However, the extreme portion of the left pursues hatred and intolerance as normal elements in its dealings with, and references to Trump supporters and Trump administration officials. And since voters voted against the radical left last November, this behavior is becoming more mainstream.

Down in Louisiana an LSU law professor criticized both Trump and Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry using vulgar language in class. A few days later, in response to student complaints, the professor was suspended by LSU pending an investigation into the complaints.

At a recent meeting of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, Florida Democrat Rep. Maxwell Frost called President Trump “the grifter in chief,” and referred to Elon Musk as “President Musk.” 

At a town hall held by a Republican Congressman near Atlanta, Georgia recently, he was repeatedly interrupted with shouts and jeers. A similar result was found in a town hall in La Grande, Ore., where the audience booed and yelled. A Wisconsin Republican Congressman was booed after saying that Trump has done “some very good things.” 

In response to the activities of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), one person said, “this is all a horror show,” and another person said that “Democrats should treat this as a war.” And California Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters screamed, “We have got to tell Elon Musk that nobody elected your [expletive deleted].”

Continuing her rant, Waters added, “We’re in a crisis in this country because Trump and Elon Musk and the billionaires have decided they’re going to put us all in our place. They’re going to run this country. They’re going to make sure that they take over everything.”

"This is what the start of dictatorship looks like," Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar said. "When you gut the U.S. Constitution and you install yourself as the sole power, that is how dictators are made."

New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) is trying to protect illegal aliens from being deported. This is a high priority for the Trump administration, especially for the violent criminals among the millions of illegals. “Believe it or not, in America EVERYONE has rights,” AOC wrote. “Citizen or not, we all should know our rights to protect ourselves and others from illegal search & seizure.” Even she ought to understand that the one right they do not have is to be here illegally.

Whether these Democrats actually do not know what they are talking about, or are deliberately distorting the truth for political gain, is an open question. Nothing seems to be more important to them than damaging Trump and his policies, the things that tens of millions of Americans support. Trump collected 77 million votes and 312 Electoral votes, when only 270 are required to be elected.

Doesn’t it seem odd that the Democrats who constantly complain about how “our democracy” is being treated, loudly demonstrate how little they understand about how “our democracy” — our constitutional republic — is supposed to work?

It seems to puzzle them, and in fact, set off their alarms, that by the U.S. Constitution the President of the United States of America, who was elected by a majority of the voters in the nation, controls the Administrative Branch. All of the people in the Administrative Branch work for the President, and they do not require Congressional approval or any approval outside that of the President.

A new Gallup poll shows that Democrats want their party to moderate their positions. And for the good of the people that those in Congress are elected to serve, this is a sensible idea.

The problem is that by moderating their talk and behavior they must abandon their political goals, which are more important to them than restoring and maintaining the nation as created by the Founders.

That is what Trump, Musk and the rest of the administration is working toward.

Coal’s future is better than the climate change faction hoped

February 25, 2025

Those of us who have been around for a good while remember the days when dozens of train cars loaded with coal filled the Bluefield railyard and were seen moving coal on the tracks throughout the area. The immense effect coal had on the economics of the southern West Virginia and southwest Virginia regions was a greatly appreciated fact. That is what actually built much of the area.

Over the years, coal’s use has declined substantially, due to various factors, a major one of which is the climate change mania that took aim at coal, oil and natural gas as fuels. This action cost the region a heavy price.

The climate change faction has been sounding the alarm that there is a dangerous level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and it needs to be immediately lowered. However, many scientists argue against that opinion. They say the CO2 level should be doubled to increase the growth of plants that in return produce the oxygen that feeds humanity and animals.

Even if the climate mania narrative is correct, the US effort to reduce CO2 by mandating cutting back on coal, oil and natural gas use made little to no difference in the CO2 level. The “improvements” we made were rendered moot by the greatly increased use by other nations. So, while thousands were put out of work, and other negative economic results were achieved in the US, China and India made that all seem pointless.

Friends of Coal is a non-profit organization based in Charleston, WV supporting the continued use of coal. “The supposed energy transition from fossil fuels to a suite of government-supported alternatives like wind and solar has always seemed more of a marketing campaign than reality,” a Friends of Coal newsletter stated. “It’s a transition that we are asked to believe has been ongoing since at least 2015 and the signing of the Paris Climate Accords, yet the percentage of primary energy supplied by oil, natural gas, and coal continues to hover right at the 80 percent level despite all the trillions of dollars in government subsidies thrown at the problem.”

Citing new leadership in West Virginia and the nation, Friends of Coal says that West Virginia’s coal industry has strong support for its part in “powering homes, businesses and national infrastructure.”

Coal also plays an important role in West Virginia’s economy by providing 15 percent of the state’s annual revenue and more than 50,000 jobs.

While coal’s part in producing electricity for the nation has been diminished over recent years, it is still active in that role, and is prepared to step up to help meet the predicted need for more electric power in the near future.

And the new US Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright, told interviewers at Bloomberg that the time has come to halt the closing of coal-fired power plants that resulted from the war on coal under the direction of former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden. "Coal has been essential to the United States' energy system for over 100 years,” he said. “It's been the largest source of global electricity for nearly 100 years, and it will be for decades to come, so we need to be realistic about that.”

And there is more good news for the industry. Increases in coal’s existing uses, and new uses for it are on the horizon.

Forbes reports that “India and the U.S. are plugging a hole in the market for steel-making coal caused by declining Chinese demand,” and the “dominance by China for steel-making, or coking coal, is fading as the Chinese Government encourages a slowdown in steel production.”

A report on the World Economic Forum website suggests that the uses of coal have not been fully realized. Coal is a highly varied material and its molecular complexity has not been explored for new uses.

Where coal has been being refined into basic elements and then used as a feedstock for the chemical industry’s production of plastics, dyes and solvents, it now is thought to be a basis for producing solar panels, batteries and electronic devices. 

It may also be used in manufacturing carbon products. Whereas petrochemical or biomass feedstocks are now used for products like carbon fiber and carbon additives for cements and the like, coal is now seen as a likely substitute for these processes. And, it has the further advantage of being a fairly cheap base material, which is a very positive factor.

Other new developments are also helping make coal more useful and less polluting. Through gasification and liquefaction processes, coal can be converted into synthetic gases or liquids, and these products can be processed into valued chemicals like methanol and hydrogen, which are used in industrial processes.

And processes like high efficiency low emission technologies work to reduce the emissions of coal-fired power plants. Carbon capture and storage processes are being developed to prevent CO2 emission from entering the atmosphere.

These new developments in the use of coal hold promise for the industry. And while it might not grow the industry to its former size and influence, it could again become a strong economic factor in places like southern West Virginia and southwestern Virginia.

Donald Trump, DOGE and Elon Musk are not the real problems

February 18, 2025

Things have certainly been active lately, especially since November 5th, and even more so since January 20th.

President Donald Trump and his administration are getting started doing the things he campaigned on. And the opposition party is quite active in objecting to, and opposing virtually everything Trump and his administration are doing to drain the swamp and restore the government to its proper role and size.

The newly formed temporary agency, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), is at the center of the controversy, with the socio-liberal faction freaking out at new levels. 

The leftists, whose previous actions to get Trump disqualified and jailed did not succeed, are vocally livid. They don’t complain about the misuse of billions of taxpayer dollars, they are angry at the investigators.

Some comments appearing in The Hill: “’He’s pushing the boundaries of a system as far as they can go,’ said one Democrat who works for an outside organization planning to take action as part of the burgeoning new resistance.”

“’This guy is doing some crazy [expletive deleted],’ added a second Democrat who is also involved in planning efforts. ‘This isn’t jamming through a nominee. This is when it starts to be alarming.’” 

“While Elon Musk is pouring gasoline and dropping lit matches across the federal government, voters don’t want their elected representatives acting like deer in the headlights,” said Karthik Ganapathy.

Discussing Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez D-N.Y., Ganapathy said: “AOC in particular is modeling what effective, clear leadership looks like. Making sense of the chaos and helping people understand what they can do to make a difference. We need more members following her lead.”

From Politico: “Ocasio-Cortez urged Democrats to ‘blow this place up.’ ‘We should not comply in advance,’ she said. ‘We should not make it easy for them to do what they need to do if they’re going to do it anyway. Make them do it anyway, but not with our help.’

In an interview, AOC said this: “This is not business as usual, and Senate Democrats should not be treating this as business as usual. We need to see a halt on all Trump nominees.”

“Some Democrats have tried to capture a sudden wave of activism that has popped up over the past week as Trump and Musk’s assault on the federal bureaucracy has come into focus. [N.Y. Sen. Chuck] Schumer, for instance, was among several Democratic lawmakers who protested Musk’s moves outside the Treasury Department on Tuesday.

“He led a boisterous crowd of lawmakers and supporters in chanting, ‘We will win.’ The crowd immediately followed by chanting, ‘Shut down the Senate.’”

Some comments made on Fox News: "[Expletive deleted], ‘shut down the Senate!’ Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-N.J., said during an anti-DOGE protest in Washington, D.C., Tuesday. ‘We are at war!’"

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., commented: "We are going to fight it legislatively. We are going to fight it in the courts. We're going to fight it in the streets." 

Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, said at a protest over DOGE and its chair, Elon Musk, earlier this month, "We are gonna be in your face, we are gonna be on your [expletive deleted], and we are going to make sure you understand what democracy looks like, and this ain’t it."

And Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J. said: "We will fight their violation of civil service laws. We will fight their violation of civil rights laws. We will fight their violations of separation of powers. We will fight their violations of our Constitution of the United States of America. We will not shut up. We will stick up. We will rise up." 

There are some obvious problems with some of these comments. But the main problem is that these people either think this process is not legal or constitutional, or they know that it is legitimate, and are just saying it isn’t to get their base angrier.

In organized protests some participants were carrying signs that said things like, “Elon Musk was not elected!” That is true. But Alejandro Mayorkas was not elected. Nor was Merrick Garland, Anthony Blinken, Anthony Fauci, or the bureaucrats who mis-spent billions of dollars at the USAID. All of them were appointed or hired through proper means, as was Musk.

DOGE is not a cabinet agency, it is a temporary administrative agency created by Trump’s executive order. The president has the authority and the duty to control administrative agencies and departments. Cleaning up messes like wasteful spending and improper actions is precisely what a president should do.

DOGE did not have to be approved by Congress. And, as an appointed government official, Musk does not require Congressional confirmation and has legitimate authority.

So, what the country now faces has two parts. One is a legitimate effort to clean up inefficient government agencies and departments, curb wasteful spending and eliminate excessive regulations.

The other is a politically-oriented opposition effort highlighted by adolescent behavior and vile discourse attacking the administration, and thereby creating anger among its followers, increasing the risk of lawlessness and violence.

In the efforts to prevent the correction of their mechanisms of inappropriate government actions and improper spending of taxpayer money, the leftists are the ones endangering “our democracy.”

Why do Democrats oppose making government more efficient?

February 11, 2025

That our federal government is too big, too powerful and too expensive is something that cannot be successfully argued. And President Donald Trump’s efforts to restore the government to its designed size and function has stirred a great deal of comment.

In particular, the examination of the expenditures of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has created quite a buzz on both sides of the political spectrum. USAID employs nearly 10,000 people and has an annual budget of $40-to-$50 billion.

USAID was not created by Congress, as federal departments and agencies usually are, but by an executive order of former president John F. Kennedy in 1961. However, Congress later passed a measure giving the agency the same security as one directly created by Congress.

Trump created the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) through an executive order he signed on Inauguration Day. DOGE will be a temporary organization within the White House, and will have 18 months — until July 4, 2026 — to carry out its mission.

Its mission is to reduce federal spending, shrink the size and increase the efficiency of the federal government. DOGE, through its leader, Elon Musk, has focused much attention on the actions of USAID.

USAID has great potential to assist in important and valuable efforts across the globe, and has often done just that. However, some of its spending may not be the best use of our tax dollars. This is especially true when you understand that the federal government has been spending ridiculous amounts of money beyond what was available for many years.

This ignoring of economic responsibility has created a National Debt of well over $36 trillion dollars, through many years of budget deficits under a long list of presidents.

Some of the USAID expenditures sound useful. Items such as $37 million to the World Health Organization; $12 million in support services to the Bureau for Resilience, Environment, and Food Security; $4 million in funding for the Center for Climate-Positive Development; and maybe even the $6 million spent for non-emergency funding for redundant administrative supports for the Center of Excellence.

But, alas, not all make sense, and some, on a list that White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt brought to a press conference, are plainly inappropriate:

* $2 million for sex changes and "LGBT activism" in Guatemala.

* $6 million advertising to fund tourism in Egypt. 

* Over $4.5 million to “combat disinformation” in Kazakhstan.

* Up to $10 million worth of USAID-funded meals went to al Qaeda-linked terrorist group the Nusra Front.

* Nearly $25 million awarded to Deloitte to promote green transportation in Georgia (the country). 

* $4.67 million to EcoHealth Alliance, one of the key nongovernmental organizations funding bat virus research at Wuhan Institute of Virology, in late 2021, which later refused to answer key questions about the funding.  

Administration efforts through DOGE to audit USAID spending have been met with resistance. Newly confirmed Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who was also named the USAID’s acting administrator, said in an interview that USAID 

is guilty of "rank insubordination" and is "completely unresponsive" to questions and requests, adding "we had no choice but to bring this thing under control." 

It has “basically evolved into an agency that believes that they’re not even a U.S. Government agency, that they are out – they’re a global charity, that they take the taxpayer money and they spend it as a global charity irrespective of whether it is in the national interest or not in the national interest,” Rubio said.

He refused to say whether the agency should be closed, but instead stressed the goal was always to reform it. "There are things that we do through USAID that we should continue to do, that make sense, and we'll have to decide, is that better through the State Department or is that better through something, you know, a reformed USAID? That's the process we're working through," he said.

Despite plans for restructuring, Rubio said the United States would remain the "most generous nation on Earth," adding, that this must be done in a way that makes sense, that’s in our national interests.

Interestingly, the opposition party has loudly complained about the way the administration has handled the matter. It is also interesting that Democrats seem unconcerned with the way taxpayer money is being misused, and with the resistance of the agency bureaucrats — who are unelected government employees — to respond to legitimate requests and orders from the administration. Instead, they call names, and charge the administration with trying to destroy our democracy and wreck the government.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said, “Before our very eyes, an unelected shadow government is conducting a hostile takeover of the federal government.”

And, as if that ridiculous comment wasn’t enough, he added another one: “This weekend, DOGE staffers also executed what can only be described as an illegal seizure of the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID.”

No doubt there will be some discomfort, as is necessary in making the broad changes that are needed in these situations. But there should be some real progress towards getting government under control, and that is a badly needed change.

Trump’s tariffs. Are they a good thing for America, or not?

February 4, 2025

One of President Donald Trump’s economic tools to equalize relationships with some other countries is to increase tariffs on foreign goods coming into the country, and impose new ones where needed.

Tariffs are taxes imposed upon goods from other countries. There are two types. A specific tariff is a charge for goods without regard for the cost of the goods, somewhat like a flat tax. Ad valorem tariffs are charges based upon the cost of the goods.

Tariffs have been around for as long as trade has existed between countries and are the subject of a vigorous economic debate. Economists do not agree on their exact effect on economic growth and government revenue. 

Trump’s idea, in part, is to get other countries to lower their tariffs on American-made goods. To do so, he will increase tariffs on them, or impose tariffs on them to equalize things, to give them a taste of their own medicine.

An example is that countries in the European Union charge a 10 percent tariff on American automobiles, but the U.S. only charges a 2.5 percent tariff on the autos imported from the European Union. Trump thinks this makes no sense, and has threatened to raise the tariff to 25 percent unless the EU reduces their tariff. There are other similar situations.

Tariffs can also be used to encourage other countries to do things that the U.S. needs and wants, such as an increase of the tariffs to 25 percent on oil and other products coming from Canada and Mexico, and also for Mexico and Canada to do a better job stopping drugs and illegals coming across their borders into our country.

Both Canada and Mexico have objected to this idea that was floated recently. The tariffs were to take effect February 4th.

He is also considering a 10 percent tariff on chemicals coming here from China that are used to make fentanyl, in addition to existing tariffs, and to increase those other tariffs on other Chinese products.

The MasterClass website offers these points on tariffs: “One common reason to enact tariffs is to promote infant industries that may not otherwise be able to compete directly with more developed foreign industries. This theory was extremely important in the early days of the U.S. when high tariffs were used to shield early American industries like textiles and manufacturing.

“Tariffs have also been used to protect industries related to national security. This is why countries often protect their domestic defense and aerospace industries with tariffs on foreign manufacturers, among other policies.” 

Tariffs will likely cause price increases on consumers for imported goods, and that may make imported goods less desirable than goods produced here at home. That will have a positive economic impact. But another positive from tariffs in addition to promoting American industries and protecting them from foreign competition is that they also raise government revenue.

One person schooled in economics, Stephen Miran, defends tariffs. He is President Trump’s nominee to chair the Council of Economic Advisors, and holds a doctorate in economics from Harvard.

Miran supports imposing tariffs of 20 percent on all nations, even our allies, using security guarantees that exist for allies of the U.S. as the leverage for them to submit to the tariffs without retaliating against us.

Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, believes that tariffs can help resolve issues like national security and unfair competition.

While Dimon generally supports Trump’s tariff plan, he urged being thoughtful in how they are used. “Like any tool, if it’s misused, it can do damage, too,” he noted. He added that the U.S. must consider the downsides of tariffs when used on key trading partners.

And the Associated Press, no friend of Trump, predictably took the negative side: “The Republican president posted on social media that the tariffs were necessary ‘to protect Americans,’ pressing the three nations to do more to curb the manufacture and export of illicit fentanyl and for Canada and Mexico to reduce illegal immigration into the U.S.

“The tariffs, if sustained, could cause inflation to significantly worsen, threatening the trust that many voters placed in Trump to lower the prices of groceries, gasoline, housing, autos and other goods as he promised. They also risked throwing the global economy and Trump’s political mandate into turmoil just two weeks into his second term.”

The American economy is best served when Americans buy things made here. The more goods and services we produce and sell here, the more businesses and jobs we will have, the more vibrant our economy will be, and the greater the revenue that is collected by the government. 

However, if people buy foreign-made goods rather than domestic goods, our economy is less strong than otherwise.

Yes, there are downsides to tariffs. And, while Trump’s tariffs may make imported goods more expensive, with which many will disagree, by imposing positive aspects into the domestic economy, they will strengthen the economy, and that is certainly a positive result.

Agree, or disagree? Of course, there will be effects of these tariffs. But it will take some time before things shake out and we know if they were a good idea, or a bad idea.

Trump is correct in wanting to end birthright citizenship

January 28, 2025

Among the many Executive Orders President Donald Trump has signed is one aimed at ending "birthright citizenship." That is the aspect of the U.S. Constitution that has enabled children born to illegal aliens or those on temporary visas while they are in the U.S. to become citizens, although their parents are not citizens.

Birthright citizenship is also known as the legal principle of unrestricted — or “pure” — jus soli, or the "right of the soil." 

Trump’s effort to end this element has stirred quite a lot of opposition. At least 22 states, the city of San Francisco and the District of Columbia have filed suit in opposition.

During the signing of the Executive Order, Trump said, incorrectly, that the United States is “the only country in the world that does this.” However, some 30 countries allow automatic jus soli, and most do not have any restrictions to it. However, while Trump’s assertion wasn’t correct, it is true that this concept is losing its appeal in these countries.

The part of the U.S. Constitution that enables this is the Fourteenth Amendment, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” 

Trump's order seeks to change the rules to deny the granting of citizenship to these children in the future. It does not apply retroactively.

However, although the Amendment’s language does not specifically say it, there was a specific and limited intent for creating the Amendment that has been disregarded for a long time.

Britannica online explains that the Fourteenth Amendment, approved in 1868, “granted citizenship and equal civil and legal rights to African Americans and slaves who had been emancipated after the American Civil War, including them under the umbrella phrase “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.”

To the need for the Amendment, National Immigration Forum adds: “In the aftermath [of the Civil War], Congress was eager to ensure that newly emancipated blacks not be deprived of their rights in states previously part of the Confederacy as well as to guarantee that African Americans were entitled to citizenship regardless of where they resided, overturning the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision.”

However, for the last hundred or so years, the original intent of the Amendment has been unheeded, and it has been allowed to apply to virtually anyone born in the U.S., regardless of the circumstances of why the parent or parents were in the country.

Consequently, today, and for many years, pregnant women have come to the U.S. and given birth to their babies, and the babies have been granted citizenship. 

Whereas the original intent of the Amendment made perfect sense and was the right thing to do, the more liberal interpretation of it has allowed any child born here regardless of who the parent is. The parents could be good people or bad people, but that doesn’t matter. And because their child is a citizen, special circumstances exist for them.

Giving a baby citizenship in the U.S. simply because its mother happened to be here when it was born makes no sense, and is not something that we should allow any longer. And as the Amendment is now understood, and has been for some time, it is an advertisement for illegal entry into the country.

From Wikipedia: “The Pew Hispanic Center estimated that in 2016, approximately 6 percent of all births in the U.S. (about 250,000 out of 4 million births per year) were to unauthorized immigrants, and a population of 5 million children under 18 with at least one unauthorized parent were living in the United States. In 2018, the Migration Policy Institute estimated numbers at 4.1 million children.”

Straightening this out could be a difficult task, some say. It would require an amendment to the Constitution, and that is very difficult and takes a long time. It requires a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress to approve an amendment to initiate the change, and it must then be ratified by three-fourths of the states, or 38 of the 50.

But the simple solution is to consider why the Amendment was created in the first place, and allow that original intent to once again be the correct interpretation.

And in doing so, seriously consider the importance of the clause “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This is interpreted to mean that the non-citizen must owe full allegiance to the United States and to no other country. Given that the non-citizen parent(s) entered the U.S. illegally, it would seem their allegiance would be to the country from which the non-citizen parent(s) came, rather than to the U.S., where they have broken the law when they entered.

The original idea was not to allow every, or any, child born in the country to be ruled a citizen, but to award citizenship to African Americans, slaves and their children. Otherwise, to become a citizen here, everyone desiring citizenship must follow the existing process. 

To reiterate, Trump’s end to birthright citizenship, should it be approved, will not be applied to those who have already come in, but to those in the future.

Our tax system, and what is the “fair share” for the rich?

January 21, 2025

Looking a bit deeper into the tax situation in the United States, the subject of the rich “paying their fair share” is a common point of discussion. It is especially popular with those who want to score points with voters by attacking the rich.

In his farewell address to the nation last week, and at other times, President Joe Biden made claims that are misleading or in need of context.

For example, he claimed that billionaires “paid an average of 8.2 percent in federal taxes.” Without further explanation, that figure is certifiably false. The truth is that under the current tax code, the top 1 percent of taxpayers pay an effective tax rate roughly three times that amount, about 25 percent on the income the government counts.

Whether Biden doesn’t actually know any better, or whether he just doesn’t care about the facts, is an open question. And, there is the theory that he just reads what he is given by the White House staff.

In general, Democrats think the lower income earners pay too much in taxes, and the wealthy pay too little. They are in support of an overhaul to the tax code and the tax system. They believe the country needs a tax code that rewards work and creates wealth for more people, which is certainly a positive goal. But they think we currently have a tax code that “hoards wealth for those who already have it,” and that we cannot afford to have tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

The Biden-Harris administration had proposed the following changes to the tax code:
* Raising the top income tax rate on the top 1 percent of earners from 37 percent to 39.6 percent
* Increasing the corporate income tax rate
* Taxing capital gains and dividends at ordinary income tax rates
* Increasing refundable tax credits for individuals

In response to the administration’s proposals, the Tax Foundation had estimated that the major tax increase proposals in the FY 2025 budget would reduce economic output by 1.6 percent, and reduce employment by 666,000 full-time jobs. Vice President and presidential candidate Kamala Harris had previously proposed to take the tax increases further, which would have made the economic losses even greater.

A look at the tax situation on The Balance website published last September cited these facts about the tax system in 2021:
* Most of the government’s federal income tax revenue comes from the nation’s top income earners. 
* In 2021, the top 1 percent of earners paid 45.8 percent of income taxes.
* The top 5 percent of earners — people with incomes $252,840 and above — collectively paid over $1.4 trillion in income taxes, or about 66 percent of the national total. 
* If you include the top 10 percent — everyone who made at least $169,800 — that figure rises to $1.7 trillion, or 76 percent of the total.
* The top 50 percent of earners contributed 97.7 percent of federal income tax revenue.

The unpopular and unfairly demonized “rich” carry the tax load for the rest of us. The top 10 percent of earners pay three-fourths of the tax revenue, much more than the relatively miniscule amount that some of the Democrat politicians would have everyone believe was the truth. And, the bottom 50 percent of earners contributed just 2.3 percent of income tax revenue.

It seems likely that given this information, any reasonable person would discount the old saw that the rich are not paying their fair share, with the wealthiest 1 percent paying nearly half of all income tax revenue.

There are seven different tax rates that an individual taxpayer, or taxpayers filing jointly, may pay, based upon their earnings: 10 percent; 12 percent; 22 percent; 24 percent; 32 percent; 35 percent; and 37 percent.

And taxes are collectable from a long list of income areas:
* Wages, salaries, and employee benefits
* Rental income
* Goods or services sold or bartered
* Royalties (e.g. from copyrights and patents)
* Business entities
* Capital gains (e.g. stocks and bonds)
* Digital assets (e.g. cryptocurrency)
* Government benefits (e.g. unemployment, Social Security)
* Tax refunds, reimbursements, and rebates
* Court awards and damages
* Gambling winnings
* Prizes and awards

Yes, we Americans — the citizens of the land of the free and the home of the brave — need to support our government’s functions. But Americans also deserve to keep as much of the money they work for as possible. And the government has a solemn duty to operate as efficiently and inexpensively as possible.

Our government is not living up to its economic responsibility. Those elected by the people, and the others who are hired to work in government, are there to serve the best interests of the American people. But they seem unconcerned about that duty. Rather than seek ways to economize, they seek expansion, which is both costly and infringes on the freedoms our Founders worked so hard to create for us.

We must hope that President Donald Trump’s incoming administration focuses on this duty, and that the opposition party is willing to help them.

“Taxation with representation” isn’t working so well, either!

January 14, 2025

These days, there are few things that Americans agree on. If there is one that has broad agreement, it is that we feel pretty much the same about taxes. Nobody likes paying taxes, although people do it with the understanding that it is necessary for the nation to survive.

Taxation has been around about as long as civilizations have existed. We know that taxation existed in Mesopotamia more than 4,500 years ago. And taxes here in the U.S. go all the way back to the colonies, when Great Britain taxed about everything that existed. The colonists objected, eventually creating the now well-known phrase "no taxation without representation." But the English king ignored them and this led to protests, the best known of them being the Boston Tea Party.

Even after the revolution and the creation of the United States of America taxes have been an important part of the lives of Americans. 

While understanding that they are necessary, there always has been much controversy about the system of taxation. One major issue is the length and complexity of the current tax code.

The tax code’s growth over the last century or so is hard to swallow. In 1913 the tax code was a relatively tiny 400 pages. Today, it is about 6,000 pages. But when you add in the IRS guidelines, with its nearly 10,000 sections it is 75,000 pages of regulations, instructions and guidance. Someone estimated that in order to read the entire code, it would take nine days of 24-hour reading. 

As explained by eFile.com, the code includes “categories for employment taxes, financing of election campaigns, coal industry health benefits, and the trust fund code. This incredible growth can be attributed to both expansions and revisions that are made to patch up tax loopholes. Over the past 10 years, it is estimated that the tax code has been amended or revised over 4,000 times.”

In the not so distant past, several changes were made to the tax code. President Ronald Reagan made two reforms, in 1981 and 1986, including the largest tax cut in our history, at the time. President Bill Clinton lowered taxes on the middle class in the 1990s, and President George W. Bush also cut taxes substantially in 2001.

President Donald Trump put forth the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017, which helped people with lower incomes and it also lowered the corporate tax rate. His efforts are regarded as the largest overhaul of taxes in the 30 years prior to its passage.

Even so, these actions did not actually make the tax code any shorter or easier to understand and deal with.

Our tax code is so large and complex that the Tax Foundation estimates that 6.5 billion hours are needed each year to get all the tax work done. That works out to the equivalent of 3.1 million full-time workers. And the wages of these folks total $313 billion. In addition, there are 83,190 people working as tax preparers, as estimated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

And then there is the issue of tax rates. If there is to be a tax on personal income, why should there be different tax rates depending upon how much you make? The old saw that “the rich ought to pay more” works with everyone paying the same rate. At 10 percent of wages, earnings of $30,000 = $3,000; $75,000 = $7,500; $500,000 = $50,000; $1,000,000 = $100,000.

Why do higher income earners have to pay a higher tax rate? When wealthier people pay higher tax rates, they have less money to spend on the things they need and want, like homes and things in them, autos and other personal items, investments, donations to charity, etc. 

Lower rates give them more money to spend. Having more of their money in the economy is a very good thing. It increases sales of items and services, and that creates jobs and prosperity. Lower tax rates also reduce or eliminate the need for tax loopholes.

People with incomes at or below a certain point cannot afford to pay taxes on their income, so they should continue to get a break. And those in the income area just above that point might need a lower tax rate than others. But we shouldn’t need more than two rates.

Taxes must be sufficient to pay for the actions of government. But the actions of government must for this and other reasons be only as expensive as is absolutely necessary to provide for the safety and well-being of the people. A smaller, more efficient government would require less income from taxation to pay the bills.

The tax code should not be thousands of pages long. And it should not be so complicated that the average American cannot understand it and comply with it without having to seek help from professionals.

Increasing government efficiency at the same time as we are reducing excessive regulations, eliminating unnecessary or unconstitutional departments and agencies, and establishing sensible and fair income tax rates is long overdue.

Hopefully, the incoming Trump administration will address these problems and take steps to fix them.

Political considerations still control how our government works

January 7, 2025

As we watch Joe Biden’s presidency ending and prepare for President-elect Donald Trump to take office, some notable things have occurred.

First, Biden continued his questionable behavior by killing the sale of the troubled U.S. Steel company to Japan’s Nippon Steel. This transaction, had it been completed, would have been for more than $14 billion. 

In doing this, Biden said it was his “responsibility to block foreign ownership of this vital American company” as “this acquisition would…create risk for our national security and our critical supply chains.”

There is little evidence to support that. However, had the purchaser been our most significant adversary, Communist China, those who condemn Biden’s action would have celebrated it.

U.S. Steel was founded 1901 by Andrew Carnegie, J.P. Morgan and Charles Schwab. It is the first U.S. company to achieve a worth of at least $1 billion not long after its creation. However, during the 20th century the company had serious problems, which brought about trying to sell it.

Japan is a strong ally of the U.S. and would have been a good owner of the company, keeping it alive. U.S. Steel had warned that, “without Nippon Steel’s cash, it will shift production away from its aging blast furnaces to cheaper non-union electric arc furnaces and move its headquarters out of Pittsburgh,” as reported by the Associated Press.

Biden, who prides himself as the most pro-union president ever, seemed to not notice that possibility.

Also, Biden awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to 19 people at a White House ceremony. The Medal is the Nation’s highest civilian honor, and is presented to individuals who have made exemplary contributions to the United States, to world peace, or other significant endeavors.

Prior to giving the awards Biden noted that the recipients are “a collection of people, with different backgrounds, beliefs, talents, generations, and agendas, using their remarkable gifts and unwavering passion to strengthen our resolve as one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Among those receiving this special award were some well-known people, including Robert F. Kennedy (posthumous), Michael J. Fox, Denzel Washington, Lionel Messi, Earvin “Magic” Johnson, Ashton B. Carter (posthumous), Bill Nye, and Ralph Lauren.

However, there were two others who are well known, and controversial: former Secretary of State and former Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and notorious philanthropist George Soros.

As Secretary of State, Clinton was lackluster. Her time as a senator and first lady were no better. She is best known for her erroneous claims, such as that as first lady she traveled to Bosnia, and “landed under sniper fire.”

More recently, she said that “If you’re just catching up: The Republican Party, taking orders from the world’s richest man, is on course to shut down the government over the holidays, stopping paychecks for our troops and nutrition benefits for low-income families just in time for Christmas.” Really?

George Soros is a strong supporter of progressive projects, and has poured billions of dollars into them through his Open Society Foundations. He funded groups supporting anti-Israel protests on college campuses.

Worse, he has invested heavily in political campaigns of far-left, progressive — read “pro-criminal” — district attorneys in major cities. Two of these are Manhattan’s Alvin Bragg and Larry Krasner in Philadelphia. These two prefer pursuing criminal justice reform over finding and prosecuting criminals.

Just last week as the 119th Congress prepares to begin working, the House of Representatives addressed its first step, which is electing its Speaker. The Republican candidate, who was depending on a very narrow majority, was former-Speaker Mike Johnson, and the Democrat candidate was Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.

The House can do nothing until it elects the Speaker, and a vote to certify the election of the next President is at the top of the list, right after members of the House are sworn in. So, a smooth and quick Speaker election is critical.

What should have been a simple task of taking an hour to count the votes and complete the election was thrown into chaos by a few Republicans who did not want Johnson in the position.

Of the 219 House Republicans all but three understood the importance of getting Johnson elected quickly so they could get on with the important work of the House did vote for Johnson. He then fell short of the needed 218 votes, which was the majority of those voting.

The three who wanted to play games with this important action were Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina, and Rep. Keith Self of Texas. It would have made more sense to elect Johnson and get to work, and if there was strong enough support to replace him, wait until the House was up and running. 

It appeared initially like a second vote would be needed. Johnson talked with each of the three to try and work things out. But ultimately, what did the trick was a phone call from Trump.

So, the efforts of three Republicans to continue the insanity that began with the ouster of former-Speaker Kevin McCarthy in 2023 did not succeed. And now the House can focus on passing legislation that will help restore America. 

2025 can be the year to get America back on the right track

December 31, 2024

Last November’s election has given many Americans reason to be optimistic about the future. This feeling is amplified virtually day-by-day as President Joe Biden continues adding items to the long Biden’s Worst Actions List.

Even some on the left have been shocked into reality, understanding that the Democrats’ radical “progressive” movement is well beyond what a substantial majority of Americans can stomach.

Things like open borders and the horrors that result; ridiculous level of inflation and the high costs of wants and needs; government agencies and departments straying from their duty and unelected bureaucrats making rules and punishments with the force of law; government spending well beyond income levels; important areas like education being infected by socialistic goals; the military adopting the idiotic concept of diversity, equity and inclusion; out of control and harmful mandates during the COVID pandemic; a high level of regulation that makes it more difficult for businesses to operate profitably; government propping up people who don’t want to work; and trying to relieve education loan debts in order to buy votes. 

While some of this has been going on for many years, the Biden-Harris administration has jammed the accelerator to the floor and removed protections that prevented or slowed problems from developing. They have done more damage than the guy who started all this, former President Barack Obama.

How will this next presidential transition go? Will the Democrats in Congress stick to their “oppose Trump on everything because he is Trump” behavior, opposing his nominations for key government positions? Or, will they return to the idea of being an American and make sensible decisions on these nominations, doing what Congress is supposed to do by approving a president’s nominees unless there are real and significant problems? We must hope for the latter choice.

One of the United States most serious problems is an enormous national debt caused by foolish spending levels by a government that is too big and too broad in its reach.

The federal government does not need to be controlling every aspect of our lives, or even be involved in many of the things over which it now has control or affects strongly.

Under our system of “federalism,” the federal government has limited powers, which are outlined in the U.S. Constitution, and the states are left with control of many aspects of daily life that are not given to the federal government, as per the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This sensible concept has been diluted over the past decades, and needs to be re-established.

Our federal government is too big and too powerful. It employs too many people, and has too many departments and agencies, and it exerts power over the people in far too many areas of their lives.

Back in 2011, Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-SC, was concerned with federal agencies that he said are not constitutional. He specifically mentioned the Department of Education, the Department of Energy and the National Labor Relations Board. If his was an accurate evaluation, then these departments should be eliminated, along with any others that may also be outside the limits of the Constitution.

According to a Gallop poll in 2022, “a 54 percent majority of Americans say the federal government has too much power, while 39 percent say it has about the right amount of power and 6 percent say too little. … Since 2005, no less than 50 percent of Americans have said they believe the federal government is too powerful, with some of those readings reaching 60 percent.”

As for the number of employees, USA Facts tells us that “as of November 2024, the federal government employed just over 3 million people. … Federal government employees work at departments or agencies housed under one of the three branches of government — executive, legislative, or judicial, though most federal agencies are under the federal executive branch. Across all US industries, it’s the15th-largest workforce overall.”

Trump has expressed his intention to address this situation. One beneficial idea for his presidency is the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency, called DOGE. This proposed presidential advisory commission will work to identify areas of inefficiency and over-reach, remove harmful and invasive regulations, identify wasteful spending and other similar things. Trump has nominated Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to run this operation.

All one has to do to understand that changes must be made is to look at the National Debt of $35 trillion, and the interest on that enormous amount of $1.2 trillion in 2023. 

We have to get the size, cost, and over-regulation of the federal government down; re-establish our energy superiority; and get inflation under control, among other important things.

We have seen so much domestic production and so many jobs in those production areas moved out of the U.S. and into foreign countries. America needs to be the primary provider of the products we need and want, and Americans should be the ones who produce them. We need to begin to bring those back.

Donald Trump intends to address these problems, but we must remember that it will take more than one year or four years to complete this gargantuan project.