Only understanding, not rewriting, history will help us meet the future

Unless you have been living in a cave — or like so many these days, voluntarily isolated in a bubble — you have likely noticed the somewhat disturbing resemblances to George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” sometimes written as “1984.” Published in 1949, Orwell’s predictions were off by a few decades. But today, we see more and more how his vision was right.

Orwell’s dystopian story involves a government that controls everything people read, hear, say, eat, breathe and know. The story’s protagonist, Winston Smith, was one of many who had the job of rewriting history to fit the evolving narrative of the totalitarian government. His job was to “fix” every book, magazine or newspaper containing what used to be the truth to conform to what is the new truth.

Today’s political correctness (PC) may be the most recognizable feature from Orwell’s novel. PC mania has been around for several years, and is gaining strength these days. While PC comes from a non-government faction, rather than a totalitarian government like that of “1984,” the results from the non-governmental faction may be little different, as it converts what “used to be” into “what now is.”

An element of PC today is “white supremacy,” or “white privilege.” All of the white folks in America, who had nothing to say about who their parents are, what color their skin is, or where they were born, are the current main target. Nothing is so disliked in America as white Americans.

Have you ever been to Spain? Or to Germany, France or Mexico?

The people in those and other countries are unconcerned with people of other nationalities that visit them. They are simply and naturally the Spanish, the Germans, the French, and the Mexicans. No doubt they like the money foreigners spend in their countries, but they continue to do what Spanish, German, French, and Mexican peoples want to do. 

This is so because those countries have relatively few people there who are not natives of that country. The natives comprise the vast majority of people, and therefore are the dominant element in their culture. And the dominant element in a nation determines what is important and not important.

So, some people say “I really like Spain, except for the Spanish people. They have this supremacy thing going on.”

Is it really surprising, then, that in America, where the white, non-Hispanic people are still the majority of the total population — about 61 percent — that the long-standing American values and ways still dominate the cultural norms of the country? 

The proportion of white Americans compared to others was much larger not so long ago. Our desirable national characteristics have always invited people from other places to come here, and they did, and do. But the culture the white American majority created decades ago still is dominant.

Yet some of those in other races/ethnicities are offended by “white supremacy” and “white privilege.” Somehow, living as the great majority of people have lived for decades is no longer legitimate to these folks.

Even some white Americans have jumped on this bandwagon, feeling the guilt that the others have convinced them they should have, merely because they were born with white skin.

Today, some people say, “I would like America better if it wasn’t for those darned white people.”

It is easiest to criticize something if you know very little about it. The less you know, the easier it is to disparage it. And this is what is the basis of much or most of the cancel culture mania now hobbling the country.

That applies to hating white people, and to removing vestiges of certain people of historical note.

People who have done great things in their lives, sometimes great things for their country, have now fallen into disfavor with the cancel culture faction for something not-good they did that these folks think obliterates all the good they did.

A person that has lived for 60, 80 or more years has had a long period of time to make decisions and take actions. Some of those may not have been good ones. Should we rate their entire lifetime based upon a couple of not-so-good, or even bad things, or should we take the more reasonable route of evaluating all they have done, rather than one or a few things?

It is also common these days for the cancel culture to apply the practice of “Monday morning quarterbacking” to things and people. Without a solid knowledge of what living in past times was like, these quarterbacks feel capable of judging the past using the standards of today. 

That is profoundly imprudent. Without a deep understanding of how things were at a certain time, it is not possible to make a sensible judgement about things that happened long ago. These folks are ill-equipped. It’s like going to play 18 holes of golf with only a putter.

History, the story of our past and how it built the present, is crucial to our future success. If we erase it over some discomfort based upon superficial understanding, we will substantially cripple ourselves.

Rather than erase history because it offends us, we need to study it and learn from it.

Biden’s reversing of Trump immigration policies is very dangerous

Last month, more than 78,000 illegal aliens were arrested at the southern border. That is the largest number of illegal aliens caught at the border during January in more than a decade. Except for the high number, we shouldn’t be surprised by this. 

With the election of Joe Biden as President of the United States, caravans began to form in Mexico and Central American countries, with many thousands of hopeful Hispanics heading north to cross our border illegally.

Many Americans were surprised by how quickly these trips were formed, and not everyone is opposed to the resulting masses moving our way. Many, perhaps most, of those on the Left support the loosening of restrictions on illegal border crossings and illegal immigration in general. And the Biden administration is delivering to them what they want and expect.

Most Americans are alarmed, however, because of the pain and agony the country and its citizens have experienced previously under similar circumstances.

So far, Biden has weakened immigration laws and promised to deliver amnesty and free healthcare to illegal immigrants. And his administration has announced that it plans:

* to expand refugee resettlement to 110,000 persons annually

* end the "Remain in Mexico" policy

* end travel bans on countries with terrorist concerns

* shackle Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from arresting illegal aliens for what they perceive as minor offenses, including drunk driving, drug dealing, and "low-level assaults"

What could possibly go wrong with tens of thousands more illegal aliens in the country, as well as travelers from countries with terrorist histories, some of whom may, like the 9-11 terrorists, have an evil plan in mind?

And if ICE cannot arrest illegal aliens for drunk driving, drug dealing and low-level assaults, will that rule be extended to law enforcement personnel and all citizens and residents in the country? Some governors and mayors may be so inclined, as we saw last summer in riots in several cities/states that went unpunished.

The American people, however, see problems with liberalizing illegal immigration enforcement. A National Public Radio poll from August 2020 found that 78 percent of people wanted to close the border except for essential travel; 60 percent wanted to prevent illegal aliens from bringing their families to the United States, and 58 percent wanted to suspend admittance of refugees and asylum-seekers.

Also, there is concern about potentially COVID-infected people being among the illegal entrants. Daily coronavirus cases this month are roughly double what they were in August.

Biden, however, insists that despite these radical policy changes, he is just "eliminating bad policy."

Some of those imagined bad policies worked well for southern border states. One of them is Texas, and Biden’s proposed 100-day moratorium on deportations got the attention of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. He has sued the Biden administration, seeking a permanent injunction while the merits of the case are being argued in court.

Biden’s executive orders have effectively sent the message that America’s borders are open, Paxton charges, and that they create a risk for his state, which has the largest border with Mexico of all border states.

Paxton said that Texas already is grappling with human trafficking, drug smuggling and gang issues at the border, and that Biden’s orders will only increase the cost of law enforcement, education and health services in the state. "It’s an unfunded mandate for my state and it’s really hard for us to assess what ultimately that’s going to end up costing us," he said.

Biden and those in his administration are making some changes and proposing others that encourage illegal entry into the country, and will put the safety of taxpaying citizens in jeopardy. And yet, some of those citizens think these are wonderful policies that should be celebrated and continued. 

Who knows about the importance of a cogent border policy better than an ICE director? Former director Tom Homan said that Biden’s immigration policies have caused a surge at the border, and it was "designed to be this way" to help Democrats. He added, "It's no longer illegal to be here illegally."

"Be clear what's happening here: President Biden has declared the entire country a sanctuary jurisdiction, which means more tragedies [are going to] come," Homan said. 

How much longer can the United States survive with these foolish and dangerous ideas being given such broad acceptance by people who should know better? People are sensible enough to lock the doors and windows of their homes, and to control who gets into their homes, but many, strangely, do not understand that the same sensible rules are needed for their country.

Among all the potential and likely dangers there may be a bright spot, if history repeats itself. Going back to 2013, then-President Barack Obama did not act to resolve a similar border crisis. As the crisis worsened, so did Obama’s approval ratings, settling in the low 40s. And the Republicans gained substantial victories in the 2014 election.

How much damage can Biden’s foolish policies cause in the next year? Only time will tell, and perhaps there will be a heavy price for it. And there should be.

Congress creates H.R. 1/S. 1 to address varied election processes

With the chaos of the 2020 presidential election, much of it due to the COVID-19 pandemic, something desperately needs to be done to stabilize and secure election procedures.

Under the direction of the U.S. Constitution, state legislatures have the duty and authority to establish how elections are handled in their state. Consequently, there are lots of variations in election processes.

Responding to this chaos, the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have created legislation to fix this. Titled H.R. 1 in the House, and S. 1 in the Senate, the “For the People Act of 2021,” this legislation is designed “To expand Americans’ access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and implement other anti-corruption measures for the purpose of fortifying our democracy, and for other purposes,” according to the introduction to the bill.

That description certainly identifies some good and needed improvements. And while drastic action is called for to repair the heavily damaged election process in many of the states, two organizations have published reasons why they believe the “For the People Act of 2021” is seriously flawed, unworthy of passage, and even dangerous.

AMAC, the Association of Mature American Citizens, “is centered on American values, freedom of the individual, free speech, and exercise of religion, equality of opportunity, sanctity of life, rule of law, and love of family,” it’s website states. “This legislation – 791 pages – is a monstrous federal takeover of elections and an assault on the First Amendment. AMAC is working to block this bill from ever becoming law.”

The other organization is Heritage Action, a component of The Heritage Foundation. Heritage Action states that the “For the People Act of 2021” “is full of unconstitutional and unnecessary policies that liberals want to use to further hijack America’s election processes. It is ANYTHING but ‘for the people.’”

Yes, these two organizations are conservative in nature. And some find that fact enough to ignore anything and everything associated with them. But an objective analysis of H.R. 1/S. 1 shows many significant problems.

Heritage Action cites three major problems with the bill:

“1. It forces taxpayers to finance political campaigns. If it passes, you’d be paying for the campaigns of self-professed socialists like Bernie Sanders and AOC. To add insult to injury, H.R. 1 will also allow politicians to double dip and take a second salary from their campaigns. 

“2. It eliminates the ability of states to control their own elections. H.R. 1 forces states to enact same-day voter registration, automatically register voters, implement online voter registration, allow voters to cast ballots outside of their precinct, keep ineligible voters on voter rolls in perpetuity, register voters without verifying eligibility, and allow people to vote without showing any identification.

“3. It undermines our 1st Amendment rights. H.R. 1 unconstitutionally increases government censorship over political campaigns, activity, and speech. Using a very vague standard, the bill regulates any speech that is deemed to impact an election (which is almost anything). 

“H.R. 1 would also force political nonprofits to publicly disclose donors, but don’t be fooled, this isn’t about transparency. This is about making it easier for the militant Left to dox conservatives, threaten their families, and get them fired from their jobs.”

The government of the United States of America is a federal system. In such a system, much power and authority are not held in a central government, but are retained by the individual states. Remember, it was through the agreement of the states that the nation was created.

The 10th Amendment to the U.S Constitution states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This is a fundamental element in our nation’s creation, and is part of the Bill of Rights.

Much of what H.R. 1/S. 1 proposes would transfer some authority now held by the states to the federal government, against the design of the nation, and the 10th Amendment.

Further, the items in point 2 of the Heritage Action objections would open voter registration, voter eligibility and voter identification to massive fraud, and make it possible for thousands of ineligible people to cast ballots, or to cast ballots in places other than where they may legally do so, or even in more than one place.

In many instances, this bill will legalize many of the questionable and illegal goings-on of the past election, where at least four states changed election procedures, ignoring the Constitutional mandate to make changes through the state legislature.

The weakening of the voter registration process and other elements of voting are preposterous. Their lack of secure requirements invites voter fraud. These same weaknesses were present in several states in the 2020 election.

Proof of identity — not the mere say-so of a person — and proof of eligibility must be provided at voter registration, when requesting absentee ballots or voting by mail, and when showing up at polling places. No exceptions!

Additional censoring of political speech is an outright contravention of the First Amendment.

The “For the People Act of 2021” is a disaster waiting to be unleashed.

Many praise Biden for his unifying tone in inaugural address

Published Feb. 2, 2021

Following the wildness pre- and post-election, President Joe Biden set a new tone in his inauguration speech on Jan. 20.

“Credit where it’s due: The president’s repeated calls for unity were a tonic,” wrote Kyle Smith in National Review. “[O]ur new chief executive poured soothing oil on roiling waters and patriotically reminded us of how much we all have in common.”

And some Republican senators had the same evaluation. Maine’s Susan Collins noted that Biden "struck the right themes of unity, a call for us to come together to stop viewing one another as adversaries but rather as fellow Americans."

Addressing the inauguration ceremony, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska termed it "very well done," adding that "I thought it was what we needed." And Utah Sen. Mitt Romney called Biden's remarks "very strong."

After the four turbulent years of Donald Trump’s presidency, some of it self-induced, these comments were comforting, indeed. However, that was only the start of day one.

Shortly after the inauguration, Biden retired to the Oval Office and began signing what would become more than three dozen executive orders (EOs) and directives as of Jan. 29.

These actions put Biden in first place among all presidents for the number of such actions so early in their term. Even The New York Times, usually a dependable supporter of Democrat policies and practices, headlined an opinion piece, “Ease up on the Executive Actions, Joe."

There were 11 actions on the COVID-19 response; two each on Workforce, Economic Relief and Healthcare; five on Immigration; two on LGBTQ Rights; three on Racial Equity and Racism; and three on Government.

The enormous number of presidential edicts in the first few days is one problematic issue. Another is the scope and particular effects some of them will have.

Our government was deliberately organized with three co-equal branches. One of them, the Legislative Branch, passes laws. Recent presidents have increased the use of EOs to get things done. Some of these topics properly belong in the Congress, not the Executive Branch.

While Biden is off to the races with early executive orders, he has a long way to go to surpass some of his predecessors. U.S. News tells us that “Bill Clinton had 364 orders over two terms, George W. Bush signed 291 over his eight years in office and Barack Obama issued 276. Trump in his one term signed 220 orders.”

One of Biden’s EOs, released to the press late on inauguration day, is titled “Modernizing Regulatory Review.” That sounds innocent enough. But the intent of the order is to effectively toss out the cost-benefit analysis that puts the brakes on regulatory actions where the cost of compliance far exceeds the benefits it provides. 

This could return the country to the days of rampant and unnecessary regulation, which would do great harm to the progress of actions taken by former President Donald Trump, who reduced unneeded federal restrictions.

Another one, the “Executive Order on Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation,” takes aim at sex discrimination. This order will make it okay for men to go into women's restrooms and changing areas on federal property, including any public high school and university that receives federal funding.

Should a biological male at any time say he “feels like a woman,” he may now legally enter a woman’s restroom, even if females of any age are already in there. That is potentially dangerous.

The new order reads, in part: "Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports." It is common knowledge that females and males are physiologically different. 

Males have significant physical advantages over females in strength and speed. Allowing biological males to participate in female sports puts females at a significant disadvantage, which is very unfair to them. 

Furthermore, the Justice Department is going to enforce this order via Title IX. Schools that don’t comply by allowing males claiming to be females to use female facilities and participate in female sports risk losing federal funding, according to U.S. News. 

Then there is the Keystone XL Pipeline order. “This is a slap at Canada, and it sends a message to investors that playing by U.S. rules provides no immunity from arbitrary political whim,” said a Wall Street Journal Editorial Board opinion column.

“Killing Keystone won’t keep fossil fuels in the ground. It will merely strand billions of dollars in Canadian investment and kill thousands of U.S. jobs while enriching adversaries and alienating an ally,” the Journal column continued. 

A news release for TC (Trans Canada) Energy Corporation explained that, “the total number of American union workers constructing Keystone XL in 2021 will exceed 8,000 and $900 million in gross wages. In total, Keystone XL is expected to employ more than 11,000 Americans in 2021, creating more than $1.6 billion in gross wages.”

The unity for which Biden was praised in his inauguration speech was heavily damaged only a few hours later with the dis-uniting features of some of his executive orders.

The Biden presidency will be far less wonderful than millions expected it to be.

Two of Biden’s proposals spell serious problems for the countr

Immediately after his inauguration, President Joe Biden began stirring the pot, making the unity he pledged to work for next to impossible.

Among the divisive ideas he supports are raising the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour, so that all workers would supposedly earn a “living wage,” and turning the District of Columbia into America’s 51st state.

In 2019, minimum wage workers were concentrated in the leisure and hospitality industry in a service occupation, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). And, the number of workers paid at or below the minimum wage has been dropping. In 2019, this category of workers was comprised of just 1.6 million, down dramatically from 4.4 million in 2010. 

These numbers include some workers who receive tips, commissions, or overtime pay, all of which raise their pay above the minimum wage level. Minimum wage workers make up just 1.9 percent of all hourly-paid workers.

Relative to the education level of minimum wage workers, the BLS reports that “among hourly-paid workers age 16 and older, about 3 percent of those without a high school diploma earned the federal minimum wage or less, compared with 2 percent of those who had a high school diploma (with no college), 2 percent of those with some college or an associate degree, and about 1 percent of college graduates.”

Generally, minimum wage jobs go to those with little or no job experience, those with little or no job skills, or to those who work in jobs that require no specialized skills.

My first job paid the minimum wage: $1.00 an hour. That did not allow me to rent or purchase a place to live, buy groceries, a car, etc. But I was 15 years-old and living with my parents. Many minimum wage workers are often teenagers working on weekends or after school. Some are college students. Hardly any are trying to support a family, and therefore do not need a “living wage.”

Raising the minimum wage carries with it some true negatives. Doing so will force employers find ways to cover the increase in personnel wages and related taxes. That may include reducing the number of employees, which increases unemployment; reducing employee hours, which directly cuts the supposed benefit of a higher minimum wage; replacing people with machines, again increasing unemployment; raising product and/or service prices — inflation — which hurts the middle class most. And higher prices make what is needed for a “living wage” higher yet.

It will also pressure employers to raise the wages of those who had been making more than the minimum, so that they will maintain the distance above the minimum wage that they had been receiving. If employers do not do this, workers will be unhappy. Plus, this further increases personnel costs.

America is a land of opportunity. Each of us is allowed to pursue the kind of work we choose for how we earn a living. Or, we can start our own business. And unless we are, through some physical or mental issue, unable to do so, that is what we are supposed to do when we become an adult.

Being able to select the kind of work we want to do is an advantage many countries do not offer. The only thing is, we expect people to learn how to perform that work, or some kind of work, and then do it. 

A higher minimum wage discourages people from getting training for a job, which robs employers of needed skilled personnel. If people can make a “living wage” without going to trade school or college, why go?

As for making DC a new state, well that is problematic, too. Last year the House Oversight and Reform Committee approved legislation that would make the District of Columbia a new state to be named “New Columbia” or “Douglass Commonwealth,” in honor of abolitionist Frederick Douglass. Later, the full House, with its Democrat majority, approved H.R. 51 — aptly named, as it would make DC the nation’s 51st state — along party lines by a 21-16 vote.

The Founders could have put the nation’s capital in a state, or could have made the capital a state. But they didn’t. Instead, they decided that the new nation’s permanent capital should not be in a state, or be a state itself. Doing so would give great power to that one state. The nation’s capital should not be controlled by any single state, and the federal government should not be beholden to any state for hosting the government.

Furthermore, the Department of Justice, under both Democrat and Republican administrations, has held that a majority vote by the Congress is not sufficient to make the District of Columbia a state. An amendment to the U.S. Constitution is needed.

And amending the Constitution is an arduous process, one that might very well not succeed. And it should not succeed.

The Founders were very wise in creating this representative republic. They did a fantastic job. And we need to be smart enough to appreciate the gift they gave us, and not transform it into just another socialistic failure, as the Democrats seem determined to do.

Big tech silences conservative voices as House concerned with pronouns

Published Jan. 19, 2020

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and chairman of the House Rules Committee Rep. James McGovern, D-Mass., announced a resolution recently intended to “honor all gender identities” by modifying pronouns in the House rules and references to family relations, such as father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, as reported by the Daily Caller. These words would be changed to “parent, child, sibling, spouse, or parent-in-law,” the resolution said.

The announcement said that hereafter “pronouns and familial relationships in the House rules [will] be gender-neutral,” and removes references to gender, “to ensure we are inclusive of all Members, Delegates, Resident Commissioners and their families – including those who are nonbinary.” 

“Nonbinary” is the term that is applied to those who see themselves as neither female nor male. The changes also mandate that extended family members, such as an aunt or uncle, would be referred to as “child’s parent.”

Not long after announcing these critically important changes in allowable language, Pelosi’s Twitter profile still reads: “Speaker of the House, focused on strengthening America’s middle class and creating jobs; mother, grandmother, dark chocolate connoisseur.”

Given the COVID pandemic, which we are told has taken the lives of nearly 400,000 Americans; the new impeachment effort of Congressional Democrats days before President Donald Trump’s term ends; the riot at the Capitol two weeks ago; and the inauguration of the new president coming up tomorrow, one might expect there to be much more important things for the House of Representatives to busy itself with than a politically correct remaking of acceptable gender language in the House. If so, one would be wrong.

* * *

Tech giants Facebook, Twitter, Amazon and Google have grown too big for their britches. Protected from repercussions of what participants post on their sites by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, these platforms have rushed past these protections into the unprotected land of publishers, just as are newspapers and magazines.

Problems arose when people and other platforms were shut down or otherwise punished by these Big Tech firms. They turned out to be primarily, or perhaps entirely, those expressing conservative ideas.

Having had their voices silenced by Twitter, some users then migrated to a new platform named “Parler.” These mistreated users were then followed by millions of others who were angered by the censorious stuffed-shirts of Twitter.

Similar actions have been taken by Facebook and Internet site host Amazon AWS and search engine and Web host Google. Parler has since been banished by Amazon for having dared to allow free speech.

By their actions of selectively deciding who can post on their site, or who can have a site hosted by them, these platforms have abandoned the protections of Section 230, and become publishers. They are not the nation’s Internet babysitters; they are not in charge of protecting the masses from ideas that do not fit the narrow range of thought they find acceptable.

These harmful acts are not immune to negative consequences. Twitter has been punished for suspending President Donald Trump’s accounts.

Politico Daily reported that “Twitter’s stock price fell by 12 percent and erased $5 billion from its market capitalization after choosing to delete an account that had about 88 million followers. The stock dropped as low as $45.17 per share,” from its high of $52.44.

The report added that “the stock fell after people saw the decision as one that was politically motivated and a way to silence a major conservative voice among the public. This also erodes interest in social media platforms that look to censor free speech.” 

* * *

President- elect Joe Biden deserves congratulations and the admiration of us all. He masterfully engineered and operated a plan to get himself elected in November, overcoming great odds. Biden’s win is truly historic.

As someone not leading the pack when the nomination race began, he managed to get the nomination. And then the really surprising win occurred.

His incumbent opponent, President Donald Trump, earned 74,111,419 votes, which was 11,126,594 more votes than he got in the 2016 election. Incumbents usually win a second term, and the last time one did not was George H.W. Bush in 1992. An incumbent losing has only occurred 4 other times in the last 100 years.

Biden’s vote total of 81,009,468 was the most ever for a presidential election, and roughly 18 million more votes than Barack Obama, a very popular Democrat, received in 2012.

In winning election, Biden beat the odds to win over an incumbent president, and at the same time increase the number of people who voted by a significant number.

In 2012 more than 129 million voted. In 2016, 137.5 million people voted, six percent more than four years earlier. And in 2020, there were more than 159 million voters, and the number of voters increased by nearly 16 percent. Wow!

He also won despite losing most bellwether counties, and significant Democrat losses down ballot. 

And, Biden was able to win even though officials in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin broke their own state laws and breached the terms of the U.S. Constitution governing elections when they changed election procedures improperly.

This election is certainly one for the books.