Are they defending democracy? Or, eliminating democratic principles?

October 8, 2024

Many of those on the left have been observed using the term “democracy” when talking about the United States of America. And some activities, and some individuals are often termed “threats to our democracy.”

Of course, our nation does operate on democratic principles. Our Founding Fathers came here from other countries, and were familiar with how things were done in other countries. Some countries may have been democracies while others may not have been. They developed our system to avoid the problems they witnessed in other countries. 

The first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution — the Bill of Rights — exist for that very purpose. And, notably, the first of those amendments is the one guaranteeing us freedom of speech and other things. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Despite this very clear statement, from day one of our republic there have been efforts to limit free speech, and many of those actions were exercised by those in the federal government.

And that effort continues today, as those who are objective and have been paying attention have witnessed. During COVID, and on controversial subjects, speech is frequently limited by the news media and social media, and yet again, by some of those working in and for our government.

When you are trying to control a nation, people being able to say whatever they are thinking is not a good thing. Some ideas that do not agree with the status quo are out there for the public to consider. And the controllers cannot prosper under those conditions.

To combat these alternative ideas, they are labeled as false, misleading, disinformation, misinformation, etc., and are removed, or requested to be removed, from communication vehicles and thrown into the trashcan.

Last month John Kerry, former Secretary of State and former Special Presidential Envoy for Climate in the Biden administration, took part in a World Economic Forum panel discussion on Green Energy. Near the end of the event an audience member asked what could be done about the disinformation being heard surrounding the climate change fracas.

"You know there's a lot of discussion now about how you curb those entities in order to guarantee that you're going to have some accountability on facts, etc.,” Kerry said. “But look, if people only go to one source, and the source they go to is sick, and, you know, has an agenda, and they're putting out disinformation, our First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just, you know, hammer it out of existence,” he continued.  

“So, what we need is to win the ground, win the right to govern, by hopefully winning enough votes that you're free to be able to implement change."

"The dislike of and anguish over social media is just growing and growing. It is part of our problem, particularly in democracies, in terms of building consensus around any issue. It's really hard to govern today. The referees we used to have to determine what is a fact and what isn't a fact have kind of been eviscerated, to a certain degree. And people go and self-select where they go for their news, for their information. And then you get into a vicious cycle," Kerry said.

In another comment, Kerry remarked, "Democracies around the world now are struggling with the absence of a sort of truth arbiter, and there’s no one who defines what facts really are."

So, our First Amendment gets in the way of people like Kerry being able to easily shove their ideas down our throats with no opposition. It is a major block to combating other ideas, which they label as “misinformation.”

They want the government to be the “truth arbiter” and define what the facts are. And they need the Democrats/socialists to win the presidency and both houses of Congress so that they will have the power to rid the nation of the First Amendment that allows challenges to their chosen course of action.

The reason for this is that Kerry and his comrades believe they know all that is needed, and that climate change is going to end humanity and all plant and animal life on Earth. And they know exactly what is needed to prevent that. 

Other opinions — even those of scientists or science professors — are “disinformation,” and must be prevented from becoming public knowledge.

However, it ought to be obvious to any thinking individual that what Kerry and others are trying to do is precisely why there is a First Amendment, and why that amendment is the very first one in our guaranteed Bill of Rights. 

Without free speech government can do whatever it pleases, and anyone expressing a contrary opinion is subject to criminal charges, even death.

The Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution are designed to limit what the government can do, so that the United States of America will not become just one more oppressive totalitarian state.

The United States of America: Is it a democracy, or not?

September 17, 2024

An article on the Analyzing America website goes into a good bit of detail about America’s status as a democracy. Much of that article follows.

“A CNN reporter addressed Trump supporters calling the U.S. a republic as an ‘attack on democracy,’ sparking a debate on the country’s governance. 

Historian Anne Applebaum emphasized America as a democratic nation, attributing doubts to Trump’s influence and narrative. 

“The discussion delved into the constitutional definition of a republic, historical views on democracy, and the distinction between forms of governance. 

“‘America is a democracy. It was founded as a democracy,’ Applebaum said.

‘I’ve heard a lot of conspiracy theories. I hear a lot of things out on the road, but to hear Americans, people who would describe themselves as patriots, say that America is not a democracy, that stopped me in my tracks,’ CNN’s Donie O’Sullivan said.

“‘You are hearing people say America is not a democracy because there are people around Trump who want them to be saying that, who’ve been planting that narrative,’ Applebaum said.

“‘Honestly, the word ‘democracy’ and the word ‘republic’ have often been used interchangeably,’ Applebaum said. ‘There isn’t a meaningful difference between them.’

“‘If they can convince people that we don’t have a democracy, then it’s okay that Trump is attacking democracy, because it doesn’t really matter,’ Applebaum added. 

“‘There is, of course, a legitimate debate discussion to be had on what form of democracy we have here in the United States, direct democracy, representative democracy, in fact, constitutional republic, which you heard people mentioned in that piece, that is a form of democracy. But look, this is not actually a debate about government, about democracy, it’s an attack on democracy,’ O’Sullivan said. ‘People have heard the warnings that Trump is a danger to democracy, and therefore you have people trying to convince others that, well, the United States isn’t a democracy in the first place, and therefore Trump can’t be a threat.’”

The reality is that the U.S. is not now, and has never been, a pure democracy.

A democracy is a political system that focuses on universal equality, where the people select their rulers by a majority vote at the polls. Essentially, a 50.1 percent majority can decide what goes and what does not, and the 49.9 percent minority is at the mercy of the majority. These rulers have absolute power, and they may make whatever laws they want by a majority vote among themselves.

Similarly, a republic is a form of government more focused on individual liberty, and is ruled by representatives of the citizenry on the principle that sovereignty is with the people, not just the government. However, exactly who is considered in the category of “the people” is not a hard and fast thing that may be misused.

Our Founders saw potential problems with both of those systems in their pure form. According to Colonial Williamsburg online, a “democratic government, they feared, might dissolve into anarchy. A republican system, conversely, invited an aristocracy to rise.”

So, they decided to go with neither in its pure form, and instead designed a system which combined features of each of them, and which is superior to both: a constitutional republic.

In a constitutional republic the people also select their rulers by a majority vote at the polls. But these rulers are restricted in what they can do and how they must do it by the U.S. Constitution.

So, while the nation observes democratic principles, referring to it as a democracy is inaccurate. And criticizing those who refer to it as a republic is out of bounds, because it actually is a republic, the government of which is controlled by a constitution.

However, by criticizing those identifying the country as a republic, their effort to sell the democracy angle is somewhat advanced.

Many of those who call the country a democracy know that the term is not accurate, but wish it was. They prefer a democracy to the constitutional republic we now have.

Efforts have been underway for many years to subvert our constitutional republic and turn it into a democracy. This would provide the left the control over the rest of us that they have been so desperately seeking.

By continuing to do this, these people obscure the true system of our government. It is their hope that most Americans will go along with this mis-identification and come to regard America as a democracy. 

In doing this, the door for America to become a totalitarian state is opened, and the effort to put into the dustbin of history a government system superior to any yet devised is well underway.

All great nations eventually fall, sometimes because of actions of other nations, but also sometimes from factions within it. If that is allowed to happen to the United States of America, the likelihood of there ever being another like it is virtually nil.

Should this effort succeed, it will be due in large part to the failure of our culture, particularly the family, the education system, and the no-longer-neutral or honorable news media.

We must strongly oppose this subversive effort.

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

February 6, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The fundamental transformation of the United States is well underway

August 22, 2023

Way back when Barack Obama was campaigning for President of the United States he famously said, “we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

Years later, in an interview with then-Fox News host Bill O’Reilly, then-President Obama somewhat walked back his statement. But looking at what has happened between Obama’s original statement and today, it is pretty obvious that the Democrats are indeed working to fundamentally transform the country.

Democrats are increasingly comfortable attacking foundational principles and elements of American governance. Here are some of the efforts now underway.

They want to enlarge the U.S. Supreme Court by adding Democrat appointees to it. Unhappy with recent rulings, they want to add more liberal justices to the Court. 

This idea ignores the reality that the judicially conservative justices they want to put in the minority make rulings based upon existing law and constitutional principles that are understood today as when they were enacted. They are “originalists.” 

Democrats prefer instead to change these principles using a liberal majority on the Court. They want to pack it with justices who will reinterpret laws, not support them as intended.

They favor doing away with the Electoral College. One point made to support this transformation is that in a democracy, the winner of the popular vote should be President. However, as has been said here and elsewhere before, the United States is not a pure democracy; it is a republic. Thus, by design, not all decisions are to be made by 50 percent-plus-one vote.

And, only four times in the election of 46 Presidents in over 240 years has the Electoral College been in conflict with the popular vote. 

However, without the balancing of the varied interests of Americans provided by the Electoral College, every Presidential election would be decided by the big states and big cities. The rest of the country would be at their mercy. It is not what the Founders believed was best, nor is it in the best interest of all Americans for Presidents to be forever selected by a few states.

“Democrats in the Senate have introduced legislation to make Washington, DC a state, and they’re seeing overwhelming support,” House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., wrote in an email. More than 40 Senators support this idea, including Virginia Senators Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, but not West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin.

“Democrats know they can’t win with standard tactics,” McCaarthy wrote, “so they’re making a power play by trying to flip the game board to their advantage!” 

But here is why it can’t happen: Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution provides explicitly for a national capital that would not be part of a state nor treated as a state. It is a neutral district where representatives of all the states can meet on an equal footing to conduct the nation’s business. DC as a state, or any state, would carry too much power.

Federal regulations — both existing and planned — are limiting Americans’ ability to choose items they want and need, and making many things more difficult and expensive to produce.

Gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles are discouraged in favor of electric vehicles. Many household appliances that work on natural gas or other fuels are targeted for replacement, as are incandescent lightbulbs.

The massive set of federal regulations tell Americans things they can no longer do, and things they can no longer purchase. 

All of this is done under the premise of making things better. But ultimately, they increase the control that the federal government, under Democrat control, will hold over the people, and reduce our freedoms.

Biden’s failure to adequately secure the southern border, as required by the Constitution and laws, has allowed a huge increase in illegals entering the country.

“According to Customs and Border Protection, since January 2021 when Biden took the oath of office, there have been 5,118,661 encounters with illegal immigrants along the southern border,” as reported by Townhall.com. “Add to that the number of known ‘gotaways,’” which are illegal immigrants who were not apprehended.

“Through the first half of Biden's term from January 2021 through January 2023, Customs and Border Protection reported 1.2 million ‘gotaways.’”

While most of these people may be good people looking for a better life, others carry disease, are criminals or drug or child traffickers. The negative effects of illegals on cities and states is enormous, and the number of drug deaths has climbed.

Further, these illegal “residents” may eventually be given citizen status by the Democrat administration, without earning it, as in the past. This is both foolish and dangerous.

The ideas of Democrats/liberals/socialists are unable to win among all Americans on their merit. So, they want to gain control over the rest of us, and will do nearly anything to gain that position, and fundamental transformation is their number one tool.

And in the pure democracy into which they want to transform America, on a vote to end all fossil fuel uses, ban guns, limit free speech, have abortion after birth, or any wild idea, all it will take is a 50 percent-plus-one vote to accomplish that, or a Supreme Court with “law makers” instead of “law interpreters.”

Government spending; what the ice says; and troubled democracies

The federal budget for fiscal year 2021 was $6.8 trillion, and revenue was only $4.05 trillion. That added nearly $3 trillion to the $29 trillion national debt.

Congress just passed an infrastructure bill with bipartisan support of $1 trillion. And the House recently passed the Democrats' sweeping $1.9 trillion budget reconciliation package, which still needs Senate approval. Both of these spending packages will add nearly $3 trillion more to the national debt.

A meme on Facebook asked that we consider how long 1 trillion seconds is. One million seconds equals: 16.67 billion minutes; 277.8 million hours; 11.6 million days; and 23,800 years, counting leap years.

Then, it said, think about money. So, what can $1 trillion buy? 1 million houses that cost $1,000,000; 2.86 million houses at $350,000; 16.7 million cars that cost $60,000; 40 billion hours of labor at $25/hour, or a year’s wages for 19,200 people at $25/hour.

At the rate that the Democrats are spending money we don’t have, pretty soon, we will be talking about real money.

At some time, we must address this gargantuan debt, and start spending only what we collect, and that spending must include paying down the debt.

* * *

A recent emailed video contained a presentation from several years ago by Jorgen Peder Steffensen, Professor of Physics - Ice, Climate and Earth, at the Niels Bohr Institute.

In the presentation, Steffensen said that the NorthGRIP (Northern Greenland Ice Project) was reopened to drill the last few meters through the ice sheet to the rock beneath the ice station.

“The ice core, over 3 kilometers in length, has been hauled up to the surface piece by piece, and holds important data on the history of the climate of the Earth,” he said. “It bears the fingerprints of climactic conditions for more than 120,000 years.”

Steffensen used a chart showing the temperature changes in the ice core over a period of 8,000 years. The temperature changes are shown on a chart using 4 gradations, top to bottom, with 4.0 being the warmest, and 0.0 being the coldest. Remember, ice forms at 0 degrees Celsius and 32 degrees Fahrenheit.

The warmest temperatures are 3.7 on the 4-gradation scale starting 7,500 years ago, lasting until about 4,800 years ago. At that time a long period of cooling began, ending roughly 2.6 gradations cooler 2,100 years ago. The temperature at that time was at 1.1 on the scale.

Then a warming period occurred, during which the temperature rose to about 2.5 on the scale about 1,000 years ago, which Steffensen identified as the Medieval Warm Period. That temperature was about 1.0 gradation warmer on average than today.

Other core samples from elsewhere in Greenland confirm that the Little Ice Age ended 140 or so years ago, Steffensen said, the coldest point in the last 10,000 years, at 0.6, near the bottom of the scale. 

So, the warmest temperatures detected by NorthGRIP were 3.7 on the scale, and the coolest temperatures were 0.6 on the scale, a difference of 3.1 units on the 4-gradation scale.

Steffensen said, “I agree completely that we have had a global temperature increase in the 20th Century. But an increase from what?” 

The answer: From the Little Ice Age’s 0.6 mark. From there to today’s 1.5 mark is an increase of 0.9, which is less than the rise during the Medieval Warm Period.

NorthGRIP showed that Earth was much warmer 8,000 years ago than it is today, and a good bit warmer during the Medieval Warm Period about a thousand years ago than today.

While Earth’s temperature has been rising since the start of the 20th Century, this warming follows the coldest temperatures in 8,000 years. And a warming period is a natural occurrence after a cooling period.

Perhaps the visions of climate catastrophe we see all around us are not really warranted.

* * *

The Washington Post reported last week on a report released by the Stockholm-based International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA). The report, the Global State of Democracy 2021, listed “back-sliding democracies,” and for the first time, the United States is on that list.

The Post quoted from the report: “The United States, the bastion of global democracy, fell victim to authoritarian tendencies itself, and was knocked down a significant number of steps on the democratic scale.”

The organization bases its analysis of about 160 countries, looking at 50 years of democratic indicators.

“The study, which analyzed trends from 2020 and 2021, found that more than a quarter of the world’s population now lives in democratically backsliding countries,” The Post wrote, “which International IDEA defines as nations seeing a gradual decline in the quality of their democracy.”

The International IDEA report said, “The world is becoming more authoritarian as non-democratic regimes become even more brazen in their repression and many democratic governments suffer from backsliding by adopting their tactics of restricting free speech and weakening the rule of law, exacerbated by what threatens to become a ‘new normal’ of Covid-19 restrictions.”

Along with the other disturbing news we are dealing with, this is especially disturbing for those of us living in the “land of the free.”

Make Congress less remote by implementing remote working methods

That Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing is beyond debate. A set of polls from five different polling organizations running from June 1 through July 1 show an approval rate ranging from 9 percent to 17 percent, an indictment of current members and what they are doing if ever there was one.

There is little agreement between Democrats and Republicans in both houses on any subject, and Congress stooped to using the most devious process in recent years to ram through the highly partisan Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, which was opposed by a majority of the American people when it was being considered, and is even more strongly opposed today. Congress acted in opposition to the will of the people, a serious breach of trust.

It has long been the practice for Members of Congress to essentially become residents of the DC area when they are elected and spend scant time in their home states and districts, and despite their best intentions cannot avoid becoming Washington insiders to some degree, and thus residents of their home states in name only.

Furthermore, many members of Congress fancy themselves as "special," part of an elite group, and all of them benefit from job-related perks the rest of us don't have access to, like gold-plated health and retirement programs that ought to be illegal, a big salary and staff, being treated like queens and kings, and who often make decisions that are aimed at satisfying special interests rather than making the best decisions for their constituents and for the nation.

What we see today is a fulfilling of Thomas Jefferson's prophecy: "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild (Jefferson's spelling), and government to gain ground," which he wrote in a letter to Edward Carrington in 1788.

Power corrupts, they say, and the lure of power partially accounts for the increasing domination of the federal government over the citizens. Another reason is that it is much easier for special interests to access our Senators and Representatives than for the voters that elected them. That statement is not necessarily a slam at elected officials or their staffs, who may work diligently to serve the citizenry, but a criticism of the geographic distance from the official's home state or district and the small amount of time available to spend back home.

A popular concept about responsive government is that the most responsive leaders are those that can most easily be reached; it's easier to communicate your ideas to members of the city council and county supervisors than to your Congressional representatives. A trip across the street, downtown or to the next town is far more satisfactory than a trip to Washington.

In the beginning, those serving in Congress spent a few weeks in Washington each year and the rest of the time at home working at their jobs as farmers, business owners, doctors and lawyers. Perhaps despite its strong appeal it isn't realistic to return completely to that arrangement, but two Congressmen have suggested a change to the way the House of Representatives works that is a step in that direction.

California Democrat Representative Eric Swalwell recently introduced a proposal to amend House rules to enable lawmakers to take care of business from their district offices, instead of having to be in Washington so much of the time. His idea involves using the latest technologies like video conferencing for hearings, committee meetings and the like, and a secure remote voting system. As of last weekend, two others had signed on as cosponsors, Republicans Cynthia Lummis from Wyoming and New Mexico’s Steve Pearce, who had previously introduced a similar measure that would require representatives to appear in person for certain required or essential House activities.

This idea has great appeal. Wouldn't it be terrific for our elected representatives to be able to attend local events regularly? Wouldn't it be great to find yourself in line at the grocery store in front of your senator or representative, or to run into him or her at a sporting event or a restaurant, and when you visited one of the district offices to find them working there?

Undoubtedly, our officials would have a much better sense of what their constituents think about the pressing issues of the day when they interact with them on a daily basis than when they rarely see them face to face. And it would make more difficult the special interest lobbying that now poisons the legislative process.

Currently, Congress meets only three or four days a week for most of the year, due to holidays and allowances for members to travel to and from home to spend a little time with their families and constituents. Such an arrangement might also result in lower spending for Congressional operations, given the need for fewer flights home and back, and in this day of repeated trillion-dollar budget deficits, that would be a plus, even if the savings were relatively small.

It can't be a bad thing for elected officials to be more available for contact by their constituents. Both accountability and performance would improve.

Tax-and-spend policies have not and cannot solve America’s problems

British millionaires are looking for greener pastures. As reported in The Telegraph of London, “In the 2009-10 tax year, more than 16,000 people declared an annual income of more than £1 million to HM Revenue and Customs,” but that “number fell to just 6,000 after Gordon Brown introduced the new 50 [percent] top rate of income tax shortly before the last general election.” The story goes on to say that it “is believed that rich Britons moved abroad or took steps to avoid paying the new levy by reducing their taxable incomes.” Consequently, the increase in tax revenues Prime Minister Brown had anticipated turned into a nearly £7 billion loss.

This should serve as a cautionary tale for America’s tax-and-spenders in the White House and Congress, who want to raise taxes on “the wealthy,” but it likely will float past them un-heeded. When you consider the details of the first post-election offer from the White House, it is clear that the administration does not comprehend such economic realities. The proposal: $1.6 trillion in higher taxes over 10 years, $180 billion in new spending and vague promises to cut only the growth of entitlement spending at an indeterminate future date, all while giving the president the power to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling.

The proposal calls for double the pre-election tax amount, additional spending and no specific amount of spending cuts or dates certain for them to take effect. And, there’s that last item, which gets immediately crossed-off: it’s unconstitutional.

As idiotic as that proposal is, understand that President Barack Obama appears serious about it.

Big government liberals live on entitlement spending, and many would die without it. The president’s proposal includes allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for those making $250,000 a year or more, raising the top rate to nearly 40 percent, which he supposes will raise $80 billion annually. That’s enough to run the federal government for only 8.5 days. If America’s high earners follow the lead of the Brits and reduce taxable income or shift it into 2012, it will be even less than that relatively small amount.

But what is worse, when you understand that half of those affected by this rate increase are small businesses, it makes no sense to raise taxes on them with unemployment still more than 50 percent above normal levels nearly 42 months after the recession ended.

The tax-and-spenders need to get past their resentment of high earners and their appetite for their earnings, and get serious about fiscal reform. Out-of-control spending for entitlements, a bloated and inefficient government, a tax code that plays favorites, and other factors combine to produce huge annual deficits and 16 trillion in crushing debt, and it’s time to fix that.

Americans for Tax Reform has focused for years on getting newly elected U.S. Representatives and Senators to take a pledge against raising taxes, understanding that our problem is that we spend far too much, not that anyone needs higher tax rates. Grover Norquist, its president, is now a target of the tax-and-spenders for his organization’s efforts at controlling taxation. However, those Senators and Representatives didn’t make the pledge to Mr. Norquist, they pledged to their constituents they would vote against tax increases.

The problem we have today is not a new one. A Cary Orr political cartoon from 1934, in the midst of The Great Depression, shows a wagon filled with drunken people drinking from a “Power” bottle and shoveling bags of money out onto the road. On the back of the wagon is a sign reading, “Depleting the resources of the soundest government in the world.” And there’s a man on the side of the road painting a sign which says:

Plan of Action for U.S.

Spend! Spend! Spend!

Under the guise of recovery

Bust the government

Blame the capitalists for the failure

Junk the Constitution and declare a dictatorship

Other comments jotted around the scene say, “How red the sunrise is getting” near an ominous looking man labeled “Stalin,” and, “It worked in Russia.”

That is how Cary Orr saw what the government was doing then. And what is unsettling about this cartoon is the striking similarity to what is happening now.

He believed government’s actions were communistic. What our government is doing today may not be socialistic or communistic under the strict definition of those terms But an interesting coincidence is that the Communist Party USA is now organizing teleconferences and rallies supporting the plans to raise taxes and encouraging continued over-spending on entitlement programs.

We should recognize that no nation on Earth has ever achieved success that even approaches the level of success the United States of America achieved before it began changing from the capitalistic model that built it to a model that has produced mediocrity and fiscal peril worldwide.

We should heed the lessons of wrong-headed government policies that extended the Great Depression for years longer than it should have lasted, and try something different, like the economic principles of capitalism that built America.

Peace Through Strength Needed

Commentary by Julianne Jilinski

Nearly 70 years ago, my father piloted a B-17 over Europe and dropped bombs on strategic German targets. They included airfields, oil refineries, factories, and bridges. The goal, shared by all Americans, was to win World War II. After completing more than 30 missions, he returned home safely, but many of his colleagues gave their lives to defend the cause of freedom.

Today freedom is still under assault. In many countries, American ideals and interests are being attacked. In Iran, scientists are laboring on a nuclear weapon capable of wiping Israel off the map and possibly attacking Europe and the United States.

Yet, despite being the world’s only superpower, the United States seems impotent and unable to act. The president and his administration are reluctant to use the word “terrorists” to describe the people who killed four American diplomats in Benghazi.

This is not the America that my father knew and that the Greatest Generation defended. In the past four years, our nation’s strength and standing in the world has been sapped by Obama administration policies that “lead from behind,” put elections before national security, and ignore the words of George Washington who said, “To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace."

Rather than focusing on the nation’s national security, politicians are using our military as a pawn in a dangerous game of chicken over the deficit. If Congress doesn’t stop the so-called sequestration, nearly $500 billion will be cut from the Defense Department during the next 10 years. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has called the cuts “a disaster,” warning that, “we cannot maintain a strong defense for this country if sequester is allowed to happen.”

The nation’s defense also could be hampered by the administration’s energy policies, which have wasted taxpayers’ money on green energy programs instead of encouraging a steady supply of crude oil, a commodity that is critically important for our military preparedness. 

During his first term, Obama and his administration imposed a moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and issued a five-year drilling plan that will keep 85 percent of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf off-limits to energy development. They promulgated new layers of regulations that make drilling more costly and time-consuming and directed several agencies to consider new federal rules on hydraulic fracturing, despite the fact that the time-tested production technique already is heavily regulated by the states.

The president also gave billions of dollars to Brazil to help it drill for offshore oil, saying he hoped the United States would become one of Brazil’s best customers. And in a move that can only be described as pandering to his political base, Obama rejected the Keystone XL pipeline which could have delivered 830,000 barrels of secure Canadian oil to U.S. refineries.

More recently, the administration has failed to grant a waiver that could reduce the amount of corn-based ethanol blended into gasoline. As West Virginia poultry and beef farmers can attest, the ethanol fuel mandate has pushed corn prices over $9 a bushel, sharply raised feed costs, and is pushing up food prices.

These counterproductive defense and energy policies are hurting families and the economy, reducing our national security, and emboldening our enemies. They should be reversed and America should reassert its leadership.

By removing the threat of defense cuts, the U.S. military could resume its plans to maintain our national security.

By encouraging the production and distribution of U.S. and Canadian oil, our energy security and our economy would be improved. Analysts at the consulting firm Wood Mackenzie estimate that policies encouraging drilling and approving the Keystone pipeline could generate 1.4 million new jobs by 2030.

By granting the ethanol waiver, West Virginia farmers could get some relief from high feed costs, and consumers could see their dollars go farther.

These actions could make America stronger at home and abroad. Restoring America’s might and global leadership should be a high priority for the next president.  I will vote for the candidate who believes in peace through strength.

Julianne Jilinski is a retired government contractor who lives in Mathias, W.Va.

Observations on the 2012 election: odds and ends, and this and that

***** A major factor in this election was demographics. Depending upon your gender, your race, your age and whether you are married or not, that largely determined how you voted.

***** The candidate of hope and change in 2008 won an ugly, vicious victory in 2012.

***** Again, questions arise about the fairness or appropriateness of the Electoral College System for choosing the president and vice president. In 2000: George Bush got 50,456,002 votes for 47.87 percent of the total ballots cast. Al Gore got 50,999,897 votes for 48.38 percent of the vote, and won the popular vote by 543,895 votes, a half-point more than Mr. Bush received, but Mr. Bush won the Electoral vote 271 to 266. This year: Barack Obama got 61,718,420 votes for 51 percent of total ballots cast. Mitt Romney got 58,513,463 votes for 48.0 percent of total votes. Mr. Obama received 2,989,629 more votes than Mr. Romney, or 3 percent more votes, but received 332 electoral votes to Mr. Romney’s 206, a difference of 126 Electoral votes, or 62 percent.

***** During the campaign Republican U.S. Senate candidates Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock made controversial statements about rape, which led to their defeat, In Massachusetts, however, Democrat Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, despite her feeble and unsubstantiated claims of Native American heritage so she could qualify as a minority, was rewarded with a victory over her liberal Republican opponent.

***** According to exit polls about 50 percent of the voters who voted for Barack Obama said, indeed, it was still George Bush's fault.

***** Some 3 million Republicans reportedly did not vote in this election. There were also conservatives, libertarians and independents that voted for a third party candidate, or did not vote at all. They said things like, “Romney wasn’t conservative enough,” or “wasn’t libertarian enough,” and, “you know, anyone who’s not perfect doesn’t get my vote!” Each of those people who did not vote for Romney helped re-elect Barack Obama. Maybe they will be happy with the result.

***** Three days after the election Mr. Obama’s Interior Department shut down 1.6 million acres of federal land in the West originally slated for oil shale development.

***** By last Friday morning the Obama administration had posted 165 new regulations and notifications on its reguations.gov website.

***** Celebrating Barack Obama’s reelection and anticipating increases in taxes and fees on businesses from his policies, the Dow Jones Industrial Average immediately dropped 313 points on Wednesday and another 121 points on Thursday, losing 2.4 percent from Tuesday’s close to Friday’s close. Some 40 large companies announced staff cutbacks and closures to counteract increased costs, while other businesses cut back employee hours to part-time to avoid the huge expenses headed their way.

***** An actual “texting” conversation between two Obama-ites (punctuation and upper case added):

Obama-ite #1: “What is Obama’s last name?”

Obama-ite #2: “Obama is his last name. His first name is Brock.”

Obama-ite #1: “So his name is Brock Obama.”

Obama-ite #2: “Yep.”

Should people who don’t even know the president’s name be allowed to vote?

***** The most potent political force in the United States is not a political party, a political coalition, or a super PAC, it is the corrupt mainstream media. Its reporting was heavily biased against Mitt Romney, it has yet to adequately report on the deadly Benghazi scandal, shirked its responsibility to investigate Fast and Furious, and has virtually ignored the continued suffering of tens of thousands of people affected by the super storm that hit the northeast two full weeks ago. The mainstream media believe and dutifully repeat every word uttered by Barack Obama, and once he made his appearance after the storm, they assumed all problems were solved. These now-thoroughly discredited outlets should be required to register as components of the Democrat Party.

***** In his second term, Barack Obama will inherit a failing economy from … himself.

***** Three days after the election, President Obama said, “on Tuesday night, we found out that the majority of Americans agree with my approach." The results show that 51 of every 100 Americans voted for Mr. Obama and his ideas, but 49 voted for someone else and do not support his approach. There is no a mandate to do anything in that result.

***** Many of us recognize that things in America have not improved in four years and in some ways have actually gotten worse. If the president has a mandate, here it is:

• Put your ideological goals in the desk drawer and start addressing the country’s problems
• You were elected to serve all the United States and all its citizens; stop playing favorites and pandering to your favored constituencies
• Start reducing the national debt you increased by $5 trillion
• Stop spending 40 percent more than the country collects in revenue
• Stop killing American jobs
• Stop obstructing and punishing job creators
• Stop obstructing domestic energy development
• Admit that radical Muslims are terrorists and start treating them as our enemy

All pain and no gain: Manic regulation kills jobs, produces no benefits

In March of this year the federal Energy Information Administration (EIA) released data showing that in 2011 coal was responsible for 42 percent of U.S. power production, a little lower than years past, but coal still is the most commonly used fuel in producing domestic electricity.

Burning coal is dirty, but it is cleaner today than any time in the last 60  years. And mining coal is risky for workers, but so is commercial fishing, logging, flying airplanes, and farming/ranching, the four most dangerous occupations in the country. Yes, coal has its negatives, but so does every one of the energy sources suggested to replace it.

On the plus side, coal not only produces energy, it produces direct and indirect employment for hundreds of thousands of Americans, and billions in tax revenue from its production and sale, and from the income of industry businesses and workers.

Coal generates electricity in 48 states and is mined in 25 states. According to the National Mining Association (NMA) U.S. coal mining directly employs nearly 136,000 people, and the average coal miner earns $73,000 per year. For each coal mining job, an additional 3.5 jobs are created elsewhere in the economy. For example, 60,000 people work in coal-fired power plants, and thousands more work in the transportation industry delivering coal to customers. The NMA estimates that 50,000 new employees will be needed in coal mining over the next 10 years to meet demand and to replace retiring workers. And, coal is projected to be the dominant fuel for electricity generation in the U.S. through 2035, according to the EIA.

This information ought to be seriously considered when the vast army of government regulators is hard at work making life more expensive, but not necessarily better. It was clearly ignored when the Environmental Protection Agency developed the Utility MACT Rule, which establishes the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for emissions of hazardous air pollutants from coal- and oil-fired power plants. Primarily, Utility MACT targets mercury emissions.

You remember mercury. It’s the poison contained in every one of the new miracle light bulbs, called CFLs, which Congress mandated to replace the popular, inexpensive and safe incandescent bulbs we have used for decades. It is also released by coal combustion and the EPA fears it will settle into water supplies and cause birth defects when consumed by pregnant women.

The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) recently commented on a study by the Competitive Enterprise Institute that disputes the EPA’s data. “The EPA's December 2000 determination that triggered the rule assumed that 7 percent of pregnant women in the United States have blood mercury concentrations exceeding the agency's reference dose. In reality, only 0.4 percent (one in every 250 pregnant women) had blood mercury levels exceeding the reference dose.”

“Furthermore, the EPA's reference dose is overly cautious: the EPA's reference dose is 1/15th the lowest exposure level associated with mild, subclinical effects in epidemiological studies,” the NCPA reports. “Finally, the EPA produces no evidence of mercury exposure at these levels having any effect on unborn children.”

The report also says “EPA estimates that each year 240,000 pregnant women in subsistence fishing households eat enough self-caught fish to endanger their children's cognitive or neurological health, yet the agency has yet to identify a single woman who fits this description.”

The EPA justifies implementing this rule by claiming that the public health benefits of limiting coal burning will be greater than the compliance costs. It claims the Rule will save $80 billion a year, but relies on achieving levels of particulate matter discharge well beyond levels generally recognized as safe.

Furthermore, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission projects the Rule will result in losing 81,000 megawatts of electricity generation, almost eight times the EPA’s estimate.

American coal plants are vastly cleaner than those in other countries, where pollution control is virtually non-existent. China now emits more mercury than the United States, India, and Europe combined, and mercury pollution wafts across the Pacific to foul our air and water. The EPA would better serve Americans if it regulated China’s coal burning.

Americans for Prosperity predicts American families and businesses will see electricity bills rise by an average of 12 percent nationwide and by as much as 24 percent in coal country, and this “burdensome regulation” will destroy over a million American jobs in the coming years.

The U.S. Senate had the opportunity last Wednesday to put a halt to this anti-coal, anti-common-sense scheme, but failed by a 53-46 vote.

Incomprehensibly, two coal-state senators, West Virginia Democrat Jay Rockefeller and Tennessee Republican Lamar Alexander, voted against the measure, along with four other Republicans. Clearly, Senators Rockefeller and Alexander have failed their constituents and their states.

The EPA grossly overstated the dangers of mercury from burning fossil fuels and grossly understated the harmful effects of Utility MACT on the public. These folks will not be satisfied until every detectable particle of every substance that at some level of concentration might be harmful to something or someone is eliminated from the Earth, and they are eager to force job losses and higher consumer costs on us trying to achieve that impossible goal.

Click here to comment