Fear and desperation define the Democrats’ election strategy

December 26, 2023

In their never-ending effort to prevent former President Donald Trump from being elected for a second term, the Democrats have taken yet another step. Their fear that Trump will win in 2024 has driven them to levels of desperation likely unseen before of as a weapon against a presidential candidate in our history, or certainly in the last hundred years.

Without listing all of the efforts so far unleashed, suffice it to say that every imaginable contrivance has been used. The most recent is perhaps the most ridiculous.

The Colorado Supreme Court, a panel of seven Democrats appointed by a Democrat governor, has ruled that "President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President" under the 14th Amendment.

There was, of course, much delight from this decision, and much irritation. Let’s focus on the response from those who disagree with the Court’s action.

Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, called the action a “flawed decision.” “This is the most dangerous attack on your constitutional right to vote I have ever seen.”

House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y. commented that "Four partisan Democrat operatives on the Colorado Supreme Court think they get to decide for all Coloradans and Americans the next presidential election. This is un-American and Democrats are so afraid that President Trump will win on Nov 5th, 2024 that they are illegally attempting to take him off the ballot."

 “We trust the U.S. Supreme Court will set aside this reckless decision and let the American people decide the next President of the United States,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-LA, wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter.

Trump attorney Alina Habba commented that “This ruling, issued by the Colorado Supreme Court, attacks the very heart of this nation’s democracy. It will not stand, and we trust that the Supreme Court will reverse this unconstitutional order.”

Attorney and former law professor Alan Dershowitz, a long-time Democrat, appearing on Newsmax "National Report," said the following: "In the 60 years I've been practicing and teaching law, I've never seen a decision that's so anti-democratic and so unconstitutional; it is absurd," 

Dershowitz told National Report co-hosts Emma Rechenberg and Jon Glasgow, "The idea that the 14th Amendment was supposed to substitute for the impeachment provision, carefully drafted by the framers, is wrong."

He added that the 14th Amendment stipulates the process, which clearly says Congress shall have the power to ensure that a person cannot run for office.

"If you want to impeach a president, if you want to make him not be able to run in the future, there's a provision. It requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate," he said. "But the idea that the framers of the 14th Amendment intended to circumvent that carefully drawn provision and simply allow any state to make up grounds for denying him the right to be on the ballot undercuts democracy."

Because Trump allegedly engaged in an insurrection, according to the challengers, he is disqualified by Section 3. There are three major legal problems with that claim, however.

1. Trump didn’t hold an applicable office

2. He was not charged, let alone convicted, for ‘Insurrection or Rebellion’

3.  Section 3 is no longer extant. There is an argument that can be made — and which was already adopted by one federal court — that Section 3 doesn’t even exist anymore as a constitutional matter.

Offering more information on this, attorney Hans von Spakovsky with The Heritage Foundation wrote: “First, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment applies only to individuals who were previously a ‘member of Congress,’ an ‘officer of the United States,’ or a state official. Individuals who are elected — such as the president and vice president — are not officers within the meaning of Section 3. Second, no federal court has convicted Trump of engaging in ‘insurrection or rebellion.’ In fact, the Senate acquitted Trump of that charge in his second impeachment.”

Notre Dame University election law professor Derek T. Muller wrote in a blog last Tuesday, “This is a major and extraordinary holding from a state supreme court. Never in history has a presidential candidate been excluded from the ballot under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. United States Supreme Court review seems inevitable, and it exerts major pressure on the Court.

The Democrats, who loudly defend “our democracy,” are now trying to save it by trying to eliminate their chief political enemy in a manner that is stunningly un-democratic. It is more like what one sees in banana republics.

A recent headline regarding the Colorado Supreme Court action read: “Colorado Saves Democracy By Not Allowing People To Vote For Preferred Candidate.”

It is worth noting that among the seven Democrats on the Colorado Supreme Court, three of them disagreed with this action.

This partisan action will act as a lesson for the future, as political parties may use this and similar methods to fight political enemies. Will there soon be a movement to remove Joe Biden from the ballot, too?

If this ridiculous, irrational action is allowed to stand, our nation will suffer a foundational transformation at the hands of Democrats.

What happens when professional ethics are replaced by politics

December 19, 2023

Over the last few years, we have heard from federal government agency employees, former and current, telling about their experiences doing and/or witnessing improper things in dealing with serious and sensitive matters.

These whistleblower’s allegations, if true, paint a troubling picture of how federal government agencies often work to the benefit of one group at the expense of another group.

These alleged activities are the epitome of what our government is not supposed to be. The government must be a fair, balanced and just organization that serves the interests all of the people.

Like the government, the news media is expected to perform its duties in a fair and balanced manner, and make certain that opinion and news reporting are clearly separate.

The Founders of this nation thought that a free press was so critical that they granted protection to do its job properly in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, along with the guarantee of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to peaceably assemble, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

But as with so many of our noble and cherished traditions, the honesty and integrity of the nation’s news media has been abandoned by far too many of its practitioners.

Recently, a news story broke regarding the New York Times. The Times once was regarded as the greatest newspaper in the world. It had become known as the Gray Lady. It has since become regarded as politically biased, and a weapon of the left.

The internal workings of the Times was the topic of a cover story published in The Economist by senior editor James Bennet titled, "When The New York Times Lost Its Way."

Bennet worked at the Times for many years, most recently as its editorial page editor. He was forced to resign in 2020 after he published an article written by Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark. The article stirred a great deal of emotion among the Times’ staff, due to its non-left content, prompting the paper’s publisher asking him to resign. 

Cotton, who had served in the U.S. Army, had suggested using military troops to protect businesses under assault by Black Lives Matter rioters following the death of George Floyd at the hands of a white police officer.

In the story in The Economist, Bennet described how as the Times moved leftward, he was encouraged to attach “trigger warnings” to conservative opinion pieces to alert the paper’s leftist readers about material that may offend them.

"It was a frenzied time in America," Bennet wrote. "It was the kind of crisis in which journalism could fulfill its highest ambitions of helping readers understand the world, in order to fix it, and in the Times’s Opinion section, which I oversaw, we were pursuing our role of presenting debate from all sides."

Comparing the current attitude of Times’ reporters to that of his time as a reporter, Bennet commented that today’s reporters "may know a lot about television, or real estate, or how to edit audio files ... many Times staff have little idea how closed their world has become, or how far they are from fulfilling their compact with readers to show the world ‘without fear or favor.’”

And in citing his former paper’s increasing bias he called attention to the Wall Street Journal, saying that the Times could “learn something” from its rival.

The Journal, he wrote, “has maintained a stricter separation between its news and opinion journalism, including its cultural criticism, and that has protected the integrity of its work," concluding his cover story.

Although the Times’ leftist orientation has been well recognized and discussed for many years, the actual experience of a long-time and ranking former employee adds much credibility to that belief.

It is a further sad commentary on the condition of many of our news media that an editor of a major newspaper lost his job for actually doing his job: presenting all sides of an issue so that readers would be equipped to make sensible, informed judgements about that issue.

Deliberately burying opinions that differ from the chosen narrative, fearing that those opinions will be accepted by your readers, is cowardly. And, it is un-American.

Back in 1997 the Carnegie-Knight Task Force began a national conversation to identify and clarify the principles of proper journalism. After four years of research, a Statement of Shared Purpose that identified nine principles was released. The sixth principle is: It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.

It reads: “The news media are the common carriers of public discussion, and this responsibility forms a basis for our special privileges. This discussion serves society best when it is informed by facts rather than prejudice and supposition. It also should strive to fairly represent the varied viewpoints and interests in society, and to place them in context rather than highlight only the conflicting fringes of debate. Accuracy and truthfulness require that as framers of the public discussion we not neglect the points of common ground where problem solving occurs.”

How wonderful it would be if the instructors, students, and practitioners of journalism would adopt this concept.

Our government has grown beyond what it was intended to be

December 12, 2023

After the Revolutionary War when the Founders were working on a governing document, they worked hard to not only develop a good design, but a design that protected the people from a government that could control everything they did and thought.

The design they came up with was spectacular, creating a nation governed by a philosophy of limited government and individual freedom. It had three co-equal branches: the legislative branch to pass needed and beneficial laws; an administrative branch to run the country and enforce the laws; and a judicial branch decides the constitutionality of federal laws and resolves other disputes about federal laws.

The design was not perfect, but included a mechanism to amend the Constitution to make it better. Of course, the success of the design depended upon those working in government: the employees and appointed and elected officials. It was expected that everyone involved would understand and support the design.

But, as fate would have it, some politicians and bureaucrats have their own ideas about what should be done, and how. Consequently, the government has grown in size and power, well beyond what the Founders imagined. Still, despite the excesses of the politicians and bureaucrats, many of whom were honestly trying to make things better, the government has grown too big and too powerful.

Columnist George Will in a recent column provided some insight into where we are, discussing a lawsuit before the Supreme Court that could be a start to changing things back toward the original design. The column started with a quote from James Madison in Federalist 47. “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands … may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

He then went on to discuss the case, but used an example of bureaucratic/administrative overreach, and how such behavior weakens what was and could again be the best governmental design ever.

The example he used describes the typical enforcement activities of some federal agencies, in this case the Federal Trade Commission, as published in the Harvard Law Review.

“The Commission promulgates substantive rules of conduct. The Commission then considers whether to authorize investigations into whether the Commission’s rules have been violated. If the Commission authorizes an investigation, the investigation is conducted by the Commission, which reports its findings to the Commission. 

“If the Commission thinks that the Commission’s findings warrant an enforcement action, the Commission issues a complaint. The Commission’s complaint that a Commission rule has been violated is then prosecuted by the Commission and adjudicated by the Commission. This Commission adjudication can either take place before the full Commission or before a semiautonomous Commission administrative law judge. 

“If the Commission chooses to adjudicate before an administrative law judge rather than before the Commission and the decision is adverse to the Commission, the Commission can appeal to the Commission. If the Commission ultimately finds a violation, then, and only then, the affected private party can appeal to an Article III court. 

“But the agency decision, even before the bona fide Article III tribunal, possesses a very strong presumption of correctness on matters both of fact and of law.”

In this case, and many other similar instances, even if the rules in force have been assumed to be appropriate, or found to be appropriate by the courts, the behavior of the government agency in being the only party prosecuting the rule breaking, and deciding whether things are right or not, is more than just a little heavy-handed.

This is precisely what Madison was referring to in the Federalist article. When the government makes the rules, adjudicates the rules, decides the outcome and also the penalties, the people are not being fairly or constitutionally dealt with. 

In a government set up to be fair in its dealings with the people, it is clearly not in the best interest of the people when the politicians and bureaucrats work under the table to increase their power over the people, the very people they are elected and hired to serve.

In the example cited, and likely many others we may not have heard about, what is the difference between life in the United States, and in some third world or authoritarian regime? Realistically, we are not there yet, but have been walking in that direction.

What we find and have observed for a long time is a strong effort on the part of politicians and bureaucrats to engage in what former President Barack Obama promised during his 2008 campaign: “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” 

There have been efforts to pack the Supreme Court; do away with the Electoral College; replace the local and state government control of elections with federal control of elections; move away from dependable energy sources; end our energy independent status; heavily restrict or ban citizen gun ownership; dictate what type of light bulbs and other conveniences and appliances we may have; and effectively open our southern border to all who want to enter, for whatever ends they may seek.

Our country is weaker and further from its original design than in many decades. Or, perhaps, ever.

Biden’s weak policies increase our risk of terrorist activity

December 5, 2023

No objective person can look at the chaos at the southern border and not be alarmed. Of course, the Biden administration’s Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, insists that the border is closed.

However, the New York Times reported in October that “Migrants were caught crossing the southern border of the United States more times in the past year than in any other year since at least 1960, when the government started keeping track of the data.

“It is the third record-setting year in a row,” and there were “more than 2.4 million apprehensions in the 2023 fiscal year, which ended in September. That tops the previous record, set a year earlier, of more than 2.3 million, according to government data released on Saturday. During the 2021 fiscal year, there were more than 1.7 million apprehensions.”

Question for Mayorkas: If 2.3 and 2.4 million people can enter the country illegally in two consecutive years, and those numbers have set records for illegal entry going back 50 years, how many illegal entries constitute a situation where the border could reasonably be considered open?

No doubt the response will be: crickets.

And while states on the border are suffering immensely, and illegals are being transported around the country by the federal government, even the sanctuary states and cities are beginning to understand the pain of these lax federal policies, and want action to be taken.

Critics point out that while many or maybe most of these illegal aliens merely seek a better life, many of them have other intentions: trafficking children, women, and drugs; gang violence; and worse. 

In former President Donald Trump’s final 32 months in the White House, Border Patrol agents apprehended 1.9 million illegal aliens. By contrast, in the first 32 months of President Joe Biden’s tenure, the Border Patrol apprehended 6.3 million illegal aliens.

In addition to the millions of illegals apprehended, there have been 1.5 million “gotaways,” illegals that were spotted and counted, but not apprehended. As the number of those apprehended increases, so does the number of gotaways. We don’t know who they are or why they came. And we don’t know where they went.

Illegals on the terror watch list that have been apprehended have increased in number since fiscal year 2017, when two were caught. In 2018, there were six; in 2019 there were none; and in 2020 there were three.

And then the increases began. In 2021 - 15; in 2022 - 98; in 2023 - 169.

If that by itself isn’t bad enough, wait until you see which countries they are coming from.

From October 1, 2021 to Oct. 4, 2023 some 73,000 “Special Interest Aliens” entered the country from places including Afghanistan, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey and Syria. 

In the first half of October of this year, more than 30 came from Iran and Pakistan each. More than 100 came from Russia. Almost 2,000 came from China.

Are any of these illegals associated with Iranian terrorist proxies, like Hamas or Hezbollah? And many of these illegals are military age males. And what about those from China, our most serious adversary?

This is the reality that the feeble and perilous Biden border policy has produced.

To call on their supporters to conduct attacks on our own soil,” Wray said.

“Terrorists and criminal actors may exploit the elevated flow and increasingly complex security environment to enter the United States,” said the fiscal year 2024 threat assessment by the Department of Homeland Security.

And, FBI Director Christopher Wray told reporters on a call in October that “Here in the U.S., we cannot and do not discount the possibility that Hamas or their foreign terrorist organizations could exploit the conflict to call on their supporters to conduct attacks on our own soil.”

The weakness demonstrated by the Biden administration on the southern border has not gone without notice around the world. Since the butchery carried out in the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel on October 7, Iranian terrorist proxies have attacked U.S. military installations in the region 75 times. The U.S. response has been meek and scarce. The only good news is that while some military personnel have been injured, none have been killed.

This sort of under-reaction will not deter future attacks; they invite more. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said at the end of October, two weeks after the attacks began, “Iran wants to hide its hand and deny its role in these attacks against our forces. We will not let them. If attacks by Iran’s proxies against U.S. forces continue, we will not hesitate to take further necessary measures to protect our people.”

Austin’s words had no effect on Iran and its terrorist proxies; the attacks have continued. And the tough talk threatening “further necessary measures” has not led to one significant retaliatory strike.

Biden hasn’t been moved to stand up to Iran and order an action to exact a substantial price from the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism. And until Iran is shown that we will back up our words with significant action, these attacks will continue, and likely get worse.

Is social justice really a serious problem in the country?

November 28, 2023

Social justice is an old concept that has become a hot topic lately.

The Britannica website offers this description: “Social justice, in contemporary politics, social science, and political philosophy, the fair treatment and equitable status of all individuals and social groups within a state or society. The term also is used to refer to social, political, and economic institutions, laws, or policies that collectively afford such fairness and equity and is commonly applied to movements that seek fairness, equity, inclusion, self-determination, or other goals for currently or historically oppressed, exploited, or marginalized populations.”

Human Rights Careers online offers the following: “The connection between social justice and human rights has strengthened over the years to the point where many use ‘social justice’ and ‘human rights’ interchangeably.”

And, from Wikipedia: “Social justice is justice in relation to a fair balance in the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society where individuals' rights are recognized and protected.”

While the idea of social justice in America has involved everyone having an equal opportunity to make their own choices about their future, there is a faction that believes that certain groups have been discriminated against, and therefore deserve what the Wikipedia description says: equal distribution of things, not equal opportunity to pursue things.

Yes, discrimination does exist. But is it really a major problem?

A new book analyzes the “social injustice” that many people claim to be rampant in America. Titled “Social Justice Fallacies,” the author is Dr. Thomas Sowell, a Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, and a brilliant thinker. 

Comments on the cover of the book say that “The quest for social justice is a powerful crusade of our time, with an appeal to many different people, for many different reasons.”

“’Social Justice Fallacies’ reveals how many things that are thought to be true simply cannot stand up to documented facts, which are often the opposite of what is widely believed.”

“History shows that the social justice agenda has often led in the opposite direction, sometimes with catastrophic consequences.”

Those errors were the result of human fallibility, due to the fervor of the crusader mindset, which often is so strong in its followers that they make serious mistakes in their efforts to correct a problem, including ignoring contrary evidence.

In the book Sowell details the problems with this error-ridden theory.

Addressing the idea that everyone should get the same opportunities, or the same amounts of all things, he notes that people with different backgrounds do not necessarily even have a desire for the same things, and certainly do not want to do whatever may be necessary to achieve them. This may perhaps be the case even if those things are given to them.

An example he cites is that some social justice warriors blame sexual discrimination for the fact that women are statistically under-represented among Silicon Valley employees. But a step further into the data shows that the work done in these companies requires engineering skills, and women receive less than 30 percent of the needed engineering degrees. Why? Because they do not choose to study engineering. 

People are not all the same. There are natural and lifestyle differences that play a part in a person’s capabilities and desires. Geographic areas encourage different lifestyles and behavior. Living in Florida is not like living in Alaska, or Iowa, or West Virginia. Growing up in farm country is different than growing up in a big city.

A person’s family and the family’s experiences most often play a major part in how children develop, and how they pursue life.

Sowell wrote that “children raised where there is only one parent present have been found in a number of studies to have a higher incidence of many social problems.” Boys without fathers have a higher incidence of things like truancy and murder. Girls raised by one parent have a higher incidence of teenage pregnancy. 

So, the question of why Billy made the football team and Joe didn’t; why Mary was the valedictorian and Freda wasn’t; or why Jane got the promotion to sales manager over Frank, probably was not the result of discrimination. There are many factors that may be involved in most outcomes other than race, ethnicity or gender.

In seeking persons to fill advanced medical research positions, Sowell posits, do we want equal numbers from all population groups, and hope for the best? Or will we make sure that we get those from whatever backgrounds who have demonstrated a mastery of medical science?

He wrote, “But neither society nor government comprehends or controls all the many and highly varied circumstances — including a large element of luck — that can influence the fate of individual classes or nations.”

And, “Circumstances beyond our control are major factors in economic and other inequalities. Trying to understand causalities is not necessarily the same as looking for someone to blame.”

Is the alleged “white supremacy” real and the result of racial discrimination? Is it because white people make up 59 percent of the population? Or, is it a false flag promoted for some political purpose?

Sowell shows us that social justice is another politically correct concept that causes more problems than it solves.

A Tale of 2 Nations: Ancient Rome and the United States of America

November 21, 2023

Rome is generally considered to be the cradle of Western civilization and Christian culture. It was a republic — as is the United States of America —from about 509 BCE (Before the Common Era) until 27 BCE.

It was responsible for many things that we now see as normal and important aspects of our country, including state institutions, law, cultural values, religious beliefs, technological advances, and engineering. Rome was unique, espousing the principle of moderation in politics, unheard of at that time.

It became the most powerful state in the world in a fairly short time through a combination of military power, political flexibility, and economic expansion. And it survived for nearly 500 years. 

The Roman republic may have been the model for, or at least an influence in the formation of the United States of America. It had a separation of powers, with the Romans and their magistrates, Senate, and assemblies and tribunes. In America we have a president, Congress, and a federal court system.

A republic with as long a life as Rome experienced has become somewhat of a target for America: Can America last as long as Rome did? Perhaps we can learn from Rome’s demise, and behave accordingly.

The primary reasons cited as responsible for Rome’s downfall are: 
* government corruption and political instability; 
* economic and social problems, such as the loss of traditional values; 
* the weakening of its military; 
* the weakening of its border, resulting in an invasion by Germanic tribes.

About America’s point of evolution, William Strauss and Neil Howe wrote the following in The Fourth Turning, An American Prophecy. “Though we live in an era of relative peace and comfort, we have settled into a mood of pessimism about the long-term future, fearful that our superpower nation is somehow rotting from within.” 

“Not long ago, America was more than the sum of its parts. Now, it is less,” they continued. “Around World War II we were proud as a people but modest as individuals. Fewer than two people in ten said ‘yes’ when asked, ‘Are you a very important person?’ Today, more than six in ten say ‘yes.’ Where we once thought ourselves collectively strong, we now regard ourselves as individually entitled.”

This assessment seems pretty much on the mark. And it was written in 1997. Did we turn the corner and change our ways, refocusing on the positive aspects of our country’s design? Or, are we still heading down the same road to demise as ancient Rome?

Unfortunately, things have only gotten worse. 

We see our government growing in size and imposing more and more restrictions on “we, the people.” Parents who express their displeasure with the schools that their taxes support are sometimes labeled “domestic terrorists.”  Inflation resulting from poor policies has hurt everyone in the country.

Our government has adopted the practice of cancelling some good things that were done in the past. Like reversing our recently re-achieved position of energy independence, and being a net exporter of oil and natural gas. Canceling construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline, that cost 11,000 jobs, 8,000 of which were union jobs. 

The government also temporarily stopped granting permits for oil and gas operations on federal lands, which reduced U.S. oil production so that we have to make up the difference by purchasing from other countries. These actions also forced other countries who were buying fuels from us to now also purchase them elsewhere. 

The disaster at the southern border allows tens of thousands of people to illegally enter the country every month. We have little or no idea who these people are, and what their reasons are for coming here. 

Hundreds of thousands of Americans have died from fentanyl coming in illegally. Other drugs also come in illegally. Children and women are being trafficked, and an unknown number of potential terrorists have entered from other countries. Some are on the terror watch list.

The military has leaned toward wokeness, which weakens its critical abilities. Three of the four major services are having trouble recruiting new members. 

These problems come not from the men and women in the military ranks, but the leaders. They seem to think emphasizing differences based on race, ethnicity, and sex, and basing promotions on quota requirements rather than merit are good.

The government has been quietly watching as China’s highly disciplined military is growing. The influence of Iran in the attack on Israel is not being met with a sensible response, and attacks on nearby US bases are not being actively or effectively countered with actions.

Our long-standing traditions have not been passed on to younger generations. We have allowed the two-parent family to virtually disappear. Our education system and news media are suffering from significant corruption. The attitude of so many younger people to support Hamas terrorism and condemn Israel’s justified response is mind boggling.

There is still time to correct these grave problems, but not very much. If we don’t soon restore the original and unique American spirit and its sensible values, we will follow in the tracks of the Roman Empire, and be nothing more than a sad story of stupidity in future history books.

Where does the hate for Jewish people on college campuses come from?

November 14, 2023

NOTE: Updated version of column that should have run last week.

What is happening on a lot of the country’s college and university campuses these days is quite troubling. Back in the “good old days” young people went to college to study a subject with which they could get a job that would provide them with enough income to live a decent life. They went there to get educated, and the school faculty and administration were heavily focused on that mission.

In far too many schools these days, there are majors that do not prepare students to get a decent paying job, if they can even get a job in their major.

Many colleges are more focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion; everyone being identified by their chosen pronouns; making sure students are not offended in their classes, or elsewhere; presenting history lessons that are politically oriented; and being instructed on what to think, rather than how to think.

A new problem has taken over the news since the October 7 evil massacre of 1,400 innocent Israel and American civilians by Hamas terrorists from Palestine. 

Somehow, an existing anti-Israel sentiment on many campuses has resulted in the advocates of this mindset blaming Israel for retaliating for the Hamas savagery, instead of condemning the barbarians for murdering civilian men, women and children. Some of the children were babies and some of the men and women were elderly. 

The subsequent protests of hundreds or thousands of misguided students on several campuses has produced dangerous threats of violence against Jewish students, whether they are from Israel, or even America. 

College administrations have inexplicably been less than responsive to these threats and vile protests. Yes, allowing expressions of thoughts and feelings is permissible, even encouraged, particularly on college campuses where students are learning about adult life and their chosen major. Such speech is protected by the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. 

But sometimes violent expressions of hatred toward a particular group of persons is not permissible, and supporting terrorism is unacceptable. Those activities should have been stopped immediately.

How did such a huge and violent hatred of Israel come to exist on so many campuses? A hatred so strong that the haters do not condemn savage terrorism, but condemn Israel for responding to it, as every nation has the right and duty to do.

Perhaps the following examples will help explain how this hatred came about.

A Cornell professor publicly expressed his opinion of Hamas terrorists committing these savage acts against civilians. It was “exhilarating” and “energizing,” he said. Unfortunately, some of his fellow faculty members then went public with condemnation of Israel for things it didn’t do. Truth plays second fiddle to political and ideological positions among many college faculty members.

People at other institutions, like Harvard, Brown, Duke, Yale, Georgetown, and Columbia, also jumped on the propaganda band wagon, blaming Israel for bombing a Palestinian hospital. Investigations found that the hospital was not bombed by Israel, but was hit by an off-course rocket fired by the Islamic Jihad, a terrorist partner of Hamas, both funded by Iran. 

At a rally at the City University of New York’s Graduate Center, an adjunct professor accused Israel of carrying out 75 years of “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide” against Palestinians. Later, New York City Councilman Charles Barron, a graduate of the school, claimed that Israelis had no claim over the land they have lived in since 1,000 BC.

Many people do not know what happened, or do not care, and continue to blame Israel, not Hamas.

Do these radical professors keep their political and ideological preferences out of their classroom activities, even though they are happy to publicly express them in ways students may have access to them? Are they part of the indoctrination of college students that has proliferated over recent years?

Deliberate efforts to influence students’ thinking processes by pushing their personal ideas onto students is not only a breach of professional integrity and a showing of low character, but is subversive when it includes un-American and anti-American ideas.

While college administrations have refused to respond, other people in positions of responsibility are critical of what is going on.

Last month, a bipartisan group of six U.S. Senators sponsored a resolution calling on higher education leaders to engage with Jewish students and to condemn speech that incites or celebrates violence against any people based on their religious beliefs, national origin or ancestry. 

Later, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin issued this statement on Fox News Channel: “While we always want to protect our constitutional rights, I absolutely condemn what’s being chanted at these rallies, and I think we need leadership from our college campuses.” 

This ignorance of what happened on October 7, and the strong anti-Semitism are clear evidence that America’s values and traditions are under attack on many campuses.

Now, some colleges have finally begun to act. Columbia University has suspended two pro-Palestinian student groups from campus for repeatedly breaking rules on holding campus events.

Meanwhile, the tone-deaf Biden administration has been promoting a project to counter Islamophobia which, if it is a problem, it is a tiny one when compared to the huge problem of anti-Semitism. Last week, the White House finally added anti-Semitism to the program.

Anti-Semitism is disturbingly high on many college campuse

 

November 7, 2023

NOTE: Due to an error at the Daily Telegraph this column did not run. Instead, the BDT ran last week's column two weeks in a row. This column was updated and ran on 11-14-23

What is happening on a lot of the country’s college and university campuses these days is quite troubling. Back in the “good old days” young people went to college to study a subject with which they could get a job that would provide them with enough income to live a decent life. They went there to get educated, and the school faculty and administration were heavily focused on that mission.

In far too many schools these days, there are majors that do not prepare students to get a decent paying job, if they can even get a job in their major.

Many colleges are more focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion; everyone being identified by their chosen pronouns; making sure students are not offended in their classes; being presented with history lessons that stray from real history; and being instructed on what to think, rather than how to think.

A new problem has taken over the news since the October 7 evil massacre of 1,400 innocent Israel civilians by Hamas terrorists from Palestine. 

Somehow, an existing anti-Israel sentiment on many campuses has resulted in the advocates of this mindset blaming Israel for retaliating for the Hamas savagery, instead of condemning the barbarians for murdering civilian men, women and children. Some of the children were babies and some of the men and women were elderly. 

The subsequent protests of hundreds or thousands of misguided students on several campuses has produced dangerous threats of violence against Jewish students, whether they are from Israel or even America. 

College administrations have inexplicably been less than responsive to these threats and the vile protests. Yes, allowing expressions of thoughts and feelings is permissible, even encouraged, particularly on college campuses where students are learning about adult life and their chosen major. Such speech is protected by the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. 

But expressions of hatred toward a particular person or group of persons is not permissible, and supporting terrorism is unacceptable. Those activities should have been stopped immediately.

How did such a huge and violent hatred of Israel come to exist on college and university campuses? A hatred so strong that the haters do not condemn savage terrorism, but condemn Israel for responding to it, as any nation has the right and duty to do.

Perhaps the following examples will help explain how this hatred came about.

A Cornell professor publicly expressed his opinion of watching Hamas terrorists commit these savage acts against Israeli civilians. It was “exhilarating” and “energizing,” he said. Unfortunately, some of his fellow faculty members then went public with condemnation of Israel for things it didn’t do. Truth plays second fiddle to political and ideological preferences among many college faculty members.

People at other institutions, like Harvard, Brown, Duke, Yale, Georgetown, and Columbia, also jumped on the propaganda band wagon, blaming Israel for bombing a Palestinian hospital. Investigations found that the hospital was not bombed by Israel, but was hit by an off-course rocket fired by the Islamic Jihad, a terrorist partner of Hamas, both funded by Iran. 

At a rally at the City University of New York’s Graduate Center, an adjunct professor accused Israel of carrying out 75 years of “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide” against Palestinians. Later, New York City Councilman Charles Barron, a graduate of the school, claimed that Israelis, being “European converts to Judaism,” had no claim over their land.

Many people do not know what happened, or do not care, and continue to blame Israel.

Do these radical professors keep their political and ideological preferences out of their classroom activities, even though they are happy to publicly express them in ways their students and other students may have access to them? Are they part of the indoctrination of college students that has proliferated over recent years?

Deliberate efforts to influence students’ thinking processes by pushing their personal ideals onto students is not only a breach of professional integrity and a showing of low character, but is subversive when it includes un-American and anti-American ideas.

While college administrations have been reluctant to respond, criticism of what is going on exists from other people in positions of responsibility.

Last month, U.S. Senators sponsored a resolution calling on higher education leaders to engage with Jewish students and to condemn speech that incites or celebrates violence against any people based on their religious beliefs, national origin or ancestry. The group consisted of both Republicans and Democrats: Marsha Blackburn, R-TN; Jack Rosen, D-NV; James Lankford, R-OK; and Chris Van Hollen, D-MD. 

A few days later, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin issued this statement in an interview on “Sunday Morning Futures” on Fox News Channel: “While we always want to protect our constitutional rights, I absolutely condemn what’s being chanted at these rallies, and I think we need leadership from our college campuses.” Citing the increasingly common idea of what is occurring on college campuses, he said, “The bottom line is, I question what’s being taught on these college campuses if we have students that don’t fully understand the brutality of a terrorist group.”

This ignorance of what happened on October 7, and the strong anti-Semitism are clear evidence that America’s values and traditions are under attack on many campuses.

The less frequently published side of the climate change debate

October 31, 2023

One of the hottest issues occurring these days is the debate over whether we are harming the planet and threatening human life by burning fossil fuels and adding dangerous amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

There are many people on each side of this debate, including scientists. The more frequently expressed point of view in the media is the climate catastrophe side. But to add a strong opinion to the other side of that argument, the following information from Patrick Moore is offered.

Moore is a co-founder of Greenpeace, a Canadian environmentalist who previously served as president of Greenpeace Canada and director of Greenpeace International.

In a video produced by Prager University, he presented his position. “All life is carbon based. And the carbon for all that life originates from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. 

“All of the carbon in the fossil fuels we are burning for energy today was once in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide before it was consumed by plankton in the sea and plants on the land. Coal, oil and natural gas are the remains of those planktons and plants transformed by heat and pressure deep in the Earth’s crust. 

“In other words, fossil fuels are 100 percent organic, and were produced with solar energy. Sounds positively green. 

“If there were no carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere, the Earth would be a dead planet. Period. Talk about catastrophic climate change. Take away CO2 and you’d have it. 

“And yet the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has deemed this essential ingredient for life a pollutant. But how can something that makes life possible be bad?” 

He went on to say that “carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless, tasteless gas which is an indispensable food for all living things. Can you have too much of it? In theory, yes. That’s what climate alarmists say is happening now: CO2 levels are getting too high.

“Are they right? Well, if we look at the big picture, we find something surprising. For most of the history of life on Earth, carbon dioxide has been present in the atmosphere at much higher levels than it is today.”

Continuing, Moore said that “From a big picture perspective, we’re actually living in a low carbon dioxide era. The optimum level of CO2 for plant growth, for example, is four to five times what is currently found in our atmosphere. That’s why greenhouse growers worldwide actually inject additional CO2 into their greenhouses.”

That certainly is not a common perspective on CO2 and the environment.

Ian Plimer is a geologist and professor emeritus at the University of Melbourne. He spoke at the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Challenge, a conference for climate change deniers. According to The Australian newspaper, in closing his speech, Plimer stated that "They’ve got us outnumbered, but we’ve got them outgunned, and that’s with the truth." 

An online video produced after the conference shows Plimer saying, “No one has ever shown that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. Never been shown. 

“And if it could be shown, then you would have to show that the 97 percent of emissions which are natural do not drive global warming. Game over.

“We are dealing with a fraud. That’s a scientific fraud from day one. We hear the propaganda that increases of the gas of life, a trace gas in the atmosphere, will bring a disaster. And that we will have runaway global warming. 

“Sorry, folks. We’ve known for 200 years from chemistry that it’s the exact inverse. When we drill into ice we have chemical fingerprints that tell us what the temperature was, and we have little bits of trapped air [to examine]. And we can show that when we had natural warming, some 650 to 6,000 years later we had an increase in carbon dioxide. 

“It’s not carbon dioxide that drives temperature, it’s the exact inverse. Another fraud.”

Godfrey William Bloom is a former British politician who served as a Member of the European Parliament. His position on the argument is one that often arises when governments attempt to do something that many disagree with.

“Isn’t this really just about the state being able to get its hands in ordinary people’s trouser pockets to still get more tax from them,” he asked. “Isn’t this all about political control? Isn’t all of this about politics and big business?

“The whole thing’s a sham, this bogus hypothesis, this ridiculous nonsense that manmade CO2 is causing global warming.  Enough, please, before we damage irrevocably the global economy.”

It is crucial to recognize the need for carbon dioxide to sustain life, and also that it is possible to have too much of many things. But, if it is possible to have too much carbon dioxide, how much is actually too much? And, are we really there, yet?

This argument is not going to be resolved anytime soon. Both sides of the issue have strongly held positions. And neither side seems ready to give in to the other.

But it is important to have as many different ideas about important topics as possible so that after considering all relevant points, good decisions can be made.

Hamas attacks Israel, and Republican infighting stops the House

October 24, 2023

At about 6.30 a.m. — about dawn in Israel — on Saturday, October 7, the Jewish high holiday of Simchat Torah, the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas fired a huge barrage of at least 2,500 rockets across southern Israel. This served as cover for an unprecedented multi-pronged infiltration of fighters, as Palestinian gunmen crossed into Israel.

Some 1,400 innocent civilians, and around 250 military personnel, lost their lives in this attack, an attack aimed at civilians, not the military. About 250 people died at an outdoor music show. Others died in the streets and in their homes. 

Some were shot, others stabbed, and still others burned to death. Men, women, children and the elderly were summarily slaughtered, with some children killed in front of their parents. Parents were killed in front of their children. Babies were beheaded as their parents watched in horror. Another roughly 200 people were taken hostage by Hamas.

Obviously, this brought on a well-deserved response by Israel.

During the Israeli response, Hamas announced that Israeli forces had targeted a Palestinian hospital, and up to 500 innocent people were killed. And the news media jumped on this horrific story:

Hospital Strike Kills Hundreds – The Washington Post
Blast at Gaza Hospital Kills Hundreds – The Wall Street Journal
Blast Kills Hundreds at Gaza Hospital – The New York Times

The message being communicated supported the accusation of Hamas, against Israel. It was readily received, and acted upon by thousands.

Following the allegation by Hamas, Israel answered, not by confirming the allegation, not by challenging it, but by saying it was investigating the allegation.

And the investigation by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and the investigation by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency have determined that no, the hospital was not hit by an Israeli missile or bomb, but by the failure of a rocket aimed at Israel by the Islamic Jihad, a terrorist partner of Hamas. Rockets fired by these terrorist groups have 20 percent to 30 percent failure rates.

Furthermore, the rocket did not hit the hospital and did not kill 500 people. It landed in the parking lot and, yes, there were some casualties, but numbers are not available.

Despite this important revelation, there is an enormous anti-Israel mood in our country. Protests began when Israel responded to the attack, and continued after the investigations showed Israel did not attack the hospital. Israel is blamed for starting the war, even though no country on Earth would just sit back after being savagely attacked, as Israel was.

And, there are anti-Israel protests in other countries, as well. 

Why are so many in America gathering for anti-Israel demonstrations, given the realities of this fighting? A country is viciously attacked by inhuman savages intentionally targeting and murdering civilian men, women and children, and thousands blame Israel for fighting back.

A lie posited by the terrorist group that carried out the attack that Israel intentionally bombed a hospital, killing 500 civilians is proven false, and yet thousands still blame Israel for this war.

At least two elected House of Representatives members — Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., and Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich. — have and are spreading anti-Israel propaganda, further riling people up. 

Omar, born in Somalia, calling for a ceasefire, tweeted that “the IDF reportedly blowing up” the hospital is “horrific.”

Palestinian-American Tlaib, tweeted that “Israel just bombed the Baptist Hospital killing 500 Palestinians,” blaming the Biden Administration for failing to “facilitate a ceasefire and help de-escalate.”

Both women jumped the gun and automatically accepted the Hamas allegation, lacking any proof, and neither had deleted their statements, as of last week.

Radical Muslims in Middle East nations have long vowed to eliminate Israel and every Jewish person on the planet. They also believe in the “death to America” idea.

On the other side of the political aisle, House Republicans are racking up thousands of negative points by keeping the House from getting anything done over the House Speaker debacle.

When Kevin McCarthy, R-CA, was elected Speaker, he agreed to a totally absurd measure: the idea that the Speaker could be removed from the position if only one of the 435 members of the House made the motion to vacate the chair, and a majority voted for the motion. In agreeing to this, McCarthy was trying to resolve the choice of a Speaker, which had gone through 16 unsuccessful votes.

Florida Republican Matt Gaetz stepped into that mudhole, making the motion to vacate the chair and McCarthy was removed with a vote that included eight Republicans. Eight Republicans constitute only about 3.6 percent of the Republican majority. But along with 100 percent of the Democrats McCarthy was removed, and chaos has ensued. 

Gaetz’ partners in crime are: Andy Biggs of Arizona, Ken Buck of Colorado, Tim Burchett of Tennessee, Eli Crane of Arizona, Bob Good of Virginia, Nancy Mace of South Carolina, and Matt Rosendale of Montana.

The Gaetz Eight has shown the world that petty politics is more important to them than doing the job they were elected to do.

Israelis are being blamed for responding to the terrorist attack

October 17, 2023

Some of the reactions to the brutal terrorist attack on Israel last weekend are stunning. 

Rushing to the defense of the Palestinians who live in Gaza, people all over the world are condemning the Israelis for responding to these brutal attacks. They say that Israel started the war, and that the brutal attack against the Jewish people was warranted.

Quite a few Americans have taken that position, and many that hold that position are on college campuses. Given what goes on at many colleges and universities these days, maybe that isn’t so strange.

But, what exactly is Gaza? It is a Palestinian territory along the West Bank of Israel, which Israel gave up nearly two decades ago, and has been governed by the political and militant Islamist group Hamas. Since 2007, the area has been under blockade by both Israel and Egypt because of the presence of Hamas.

And many people accuse Israel of going after Palestinians in response to the attack. But Israel’s response isn’t against the Palestinian people, it is against Hamas terrorists, who are supported by Iran. The Palestinians in Gaza live with and are governed by Hamas.  

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank based in Washington, DC, polled Palestinians in East Jerusalem and in the Gaza Strip last summer. The results show that 64 percent of East Jerusalem Palestinians have at least a positive opinion of Hamas, as do 57 percent in the Gaza Strip.

News reports tell us that at least 1,300 people — including 265 soldiers — were killed in Israel in the terrorist attack, and more than 3,300 were injured. At least 29 Americans were killed, as were other non-Israelis, and an  unknown number of Americans may be hostages.

An estimated 260 innocent Israelis were murdered at a music festival by Hamas. And others were shot and burned in their homes and on the streets. Women, children and the elderly were murdered by the terrorists. These are not the legitimate victims of war. They were the deliberate targets of vicious barbarians, not normal human beings.

Students at several colleges and universities across the country held pro-Palestinian/anti-Israeli demonstrations following the beginning of the Israeli response to Saturday’s attack. There were also pro-Israeli factions present.

Lawrence Jones, a co-host of “Fox and Friends,” a weekday program on the Fox News Channel, spoke with pro-Palestinian protesters at Hunter College in New York City. He asked them how they could support the beheading of children and the raping of women in Israel by the Hamas terrorists. 

One of the female demonstrators responded, "I support decolonization and the liberation of Palestinian people and the end of a mass genocide in the Gaza Strip."

"Are you talking about the genocide of the kids being beheaded?" Jones asked. 

“That's false. That is actually false," she responded, claiming that "Israel is notorious for creating propaganda" so they can "massacre" Palestinians. The female protester then said, "I stand with the Palestinian people unequivocally." 

And when another female protester was asked about the brutality of Hamas, she answered, "That was already proven that didn't really happen," adding that "The U.S. military money that goes there, $4 billion a year should stop going to Israel to support their war crimes."

A male protester appeared unaware of the reports of Israeli children being slaughtered and women being raped and dragged through the streets. 

"The kids there were beheaded," Jones told him. "Wait, Jewish kids?" he responded.

Are these students completely denied news about what is going on, or do they avoid those news items in favor of their chosen narrative? Are they taught to be anti-Israel? They obviously not understand that by blaming Israel for starting the conflict that led to the brutal attack by Hamas, they are supporting terrorism, defending murder, rape, and unimaginable savagery.

Ben Shapiro, a conservative political commentator, who is Jewish, issued the following comment: “Every single part of the suffering occurring in Gaza is Hamas' fault. For those too slow to understand, I'll break it down into small words. Israel abandoned the Gaza Strip in 2005. It is now 2023. Hamas has ruled the Gaza Strip since 2006. 

“Hamas is in control of the Gaza Strip. Hamas is in control of its own civilians. Those civilians live under the rule of the Hamas government in the Gaza Strip. Those civilians are Hamas' responsibility. 

“Hamas is holding hostages. It is a war crime to place civilians in front of military targets. It is a war crime to shield your rockets with children. It is a war crime to put hostages in a war zone to try to prevent bombings. 

“All of these are war crimes. Every ounce of blood that is spilled, every building that is taken down, and every ugly photo you see from Gaza is the fault of Hamas. It's that simple. There is no duality about this.”

For various reasons, many people dislike the Jewish people. And their hatred blinds them to reality in situations like this, and they fall for the false narrative put forth to shift blame to the Jews when conflicts arise.

The true story must be told, and be heard.

Coal has been and will be an important factor in our lives

 

October 10, 2023

Some of us remember the days of many years ago being in downtown Bluefield, West Virginia and looking at the then-Norfolk & Western railyard, and seeing dozens, perhaps hundreds of train cars filled with coal, waiting to be taken to market. We also saw dozens of empty cars waiting to be taken to the mines to be refilled.

Those were the days when Bluefield, southern West Virginia and southwest Virginia were bustling with businesses and higher populations, largely due to a vibrant coal industry. But, alas, things began to change, and Bluefield and the surrounding area are much different today as a result.

Changes to coal’s popularity and broad usage have had a big impact on our area and other coal-producing areas. Some of the change was due to normal evolution, as other fuels became more popular and took more of the market. 

But more recently it has been a deliberate effort to kill coal as a fuel, highlighted by President Joe Biden and his fellow “progressives” as they drive toward the goal of killing fossil fuels in the name of protecting the environment.

In addition to, or perhaps a part of that effort is the announcement by former New York City mayor and billionaire Michael Bloomberg of a $500 million commitment to expand the Beyond Carbon campaign. Its goal is to close the nation’s remaining coal-fired power plants, to cut natural gas plant capacity in half, and stop any new gas plants from being opened within the next six years.

An email from the West Virginia Coal Association (WVCA) contains a statement from the president of the Pennsylvania Coal Alliance, Rachel Gleason. She commented that “It is an absolute attack on our state, our livelihoods, and our families. It is un-American that someone would use their wealth to destroy our state and nation’s industrial base and also seek to send a large segment of the 381,000 American workers in industry to the unemployment line while destabilizing electric reliability and security in America.” 

Likewise, our area will be further affected by this action. And Chris Hamilton, President of the West Virginia Coal Association, expressed his concerns about the future if this effort continues: “Energy experts agree that the U.S. will not have enough reliable energy production to meet demand, and Bloomberg’s efforts, if successful, may result in black- and brown-outs across the country. Bloomberg, the ultra-liberal national Democrat Party, and their environmental extremist group co-conspirators are marching America off an energy cliff and dooming American families to darker days.”  

This also concerns other coal-producing states. Wyoming’s Mining Association Executive Director, Travis Deti, also commented on this development. “It truly is astonishing to see an eccentric billionaire spend his fortune on cutting off people’s electricity. Bloomberg should be held accountable for his callous actions.”

In a communication from the WVCA, Hamilton tells about the coal industry today, and paints the dismal picture that West Virginia faces: “Remarkably, there’s been over $8 billion dollars in new investments in West Virginia mining operations over the past several years, including approximately $2 billion in 2022-2023. These investment dollars may not be of much value to those chasing shiny objects or, like President Biden, forcing a questionable transition away from fossil energy, but to 50,000-plus West Virginians who show up at a mine every day it is extremely important, and will serve to keep our state’s coal industry a vital part of West Virginia’s economy for decades to come.

“The impact the production of met coal alone has on West Virginia is significant, generating approximately $9.6 billion in total economic activity, supporting about 30,500 jobs, contributing nearly $554 million in tax revenue for US state and local governments, and producing about $2.5 billion in labor income in 2019. West Virginia is the leading producer of met coal nationally and we supplied nearly 63 percent of all the met coal distributed to U.S. coke plants.

“The coal industry also provides jobs in predominantly more rural areas of the state, allowing employees who choose to work in the sector the opportunity to stay in their communities.”

Whether the efforts of Biden and the others in the manic drive away from fossil fuels are built upon a true concern for the environment, or just one more effort to increase the level of control government has over the people it is designed to serve, is open to debate.

But if they were giving any value to the many scientists who say the war on CO2 is based upon faulty data, and that the country will not be able to function satisfactorily without a substantial amount of fossil fuel energy for many years in the future, they would not be so blindly determined to continue this war.

Some of the information presented comes from America's Coal Associations (ACA) which represent 381,000 American Workers and $261 billion in America’s economy. The ACA issued its statement on behalf of a dozen coal organizations across the country.

The problems of killing coal and the other fossil fuels are far from over.

Biden administration: gas cars are racist and a problem

October 3, 2023

Back in 2021 the Biden administration said that its proposed $2 trillion infrastructure program would expand mass transit and launch an era of green energy.  Adding another feature to that, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said that it would also reverse the “racist” history of America’s highway system.

Buttigieg has now appointed 24 new members to the Advisory Committee on Transportation Equity. This is an Obama-era committee that former President Donald Trump shut down, and Buttigieg is reviving it.

This move harkens back to President Joe Biden’s executive order shortly after taking office that instructs federal agencies to "pursue a comprehensive approach to advancing equity for all." Agency heads are to conduct an “equity assessment” to identify policies that create "systemic barriers" in minority communities.

America’s once sensible and productive idea of people getting recognition or a position based on their earning it through performance is being challenged by the idea that everyone gets the good positions without regard to their abilities and performance. This began years ago when, so as to not make anyone in a group who didn’t win or place high feel bad, everyone started being given participation trophies, or ribbons, or something.

Two members of the Committee have made some interesting comments. Andrea Marpillero-Colomina, who has been identified as a "spatial policy scholar," said "all cars are bad" given that they cause "a myriad of environmental issues and conditions." The other member, Veronica Davis, is a self-described "transportation nerd," and said that cars perpetuate "systemic racism" and are therefore "the problem" in our transportation system.

Marpillero-Colomina said that she is not "advocating for a complete erasure" of cars but thinks America needs to end its reliance on private motor vehicles. She asked, "How can we reimagine streets to prioritize people instead of cars? How can we create streets that are inclusive of modes other than cars?"

Along the same line of thinking, Biden is set on getting rid of gas-powered cars in favor of electric ones. And there are now regulations in the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Safety Administration that require automakers to ensure that two-thirds of the new vehicles they sell by 2030 are electric vehicles.

It does not seem to matter to Biden and his fellow travelers that lots of people do not want electric vehicles, and lots of people cannot afford an electric vehicle. The batteries do not last forever, and cost thousands of dollars to replace.

It is also important to recognize that while driving EVs is far cleaner than driving gas and diesel vehicles, the production of the lithium-ion batteries for EVs is a process involving a huge amount of mining and the use of fossil fuels. It is very energy-intensive and is very damaging to the environment. This process may equal the pollution of driving conventional vehicles. 

When their lives are over EV batteries have to be dismantled to recycle the valuable contents. They also contain hazardous materials that must be handled with care. Further, only about 5 percent of batteries are able to be recycled. Some of the contents of batteries that are just thrown away are harmful to the environment. 

It also seems unimportant to those that champion EVs that by going overboard on EVs we are dependent upon China for much of the materials for batteries. 

The U.S. ranks 15th among the 25 nations producing lithium-ion battery metals like cobalt, graphite, lithium, manganese, and nickel, according to BloombergNEF in 2021. And the U.S. is expected to only move up two places in that ranking by 2025.

Sources predict that Japan, now in 12th place, will move up four places as things progress, and that is a good thing. However, China will likely maintain its dominance for the foreseeable future.

And then there is the problem of being able to support the additional demand for electricity when two-thirds of new vehicles are EV by 2030. And remember, much of our electricity is still produced by burning fossil fuels.

While burning less gasoline, diesel fuel, coal, oil and natural gas is a good thing, the actual value of this reduction depends upon what is going on while changing from fossil fuels to wind, solar and EVs. And when you look at all of the information objectively, at this point in time we likely will be causing a lot of problems for people -- like higher prices for so many things and many items we like and need will no longer be available, thanks to administration regulations -- without really making much of a difference in the amount of CO2 that America produces. 

And in considering that tiny improvement in CO2 production, when you recognize that China, India and some other countries are not trying to lessen CO2 production, but are actually increasing it, and all this discomfort and increased expense on the American people is for naught.

Someday, when things naturally progress to that point, wind and solar power will be easily the best way to go, and perhaps EVs will also make sense. That day is a long way off.