Potpourri: Some thoughts on a few topics currently in the news

Condé Nast’s liberal online publication Teen Vogue is in the news, and not for anything positive that has happened. Alexi McCammond was hired at the magazine on March 5th, scheduled to start as editor-in-chief on March 24th.

But in the interim, magazine staffers got wind of something McCammond had done, and raised enough cane that the up-coming EIC decided to resign the position she had not yet taken.

What horrendous deed had McCammond done? Had she committed murder, or armed robbery? Pedophilia? Did she vote for Donald Trump?

No. She had committed the unpardonable sin of making insensitive, some say racist remarks in tweets. In 2011. When she was 17 years-old. And has since apologized profusely for her transgressions.

But in this day of hypersensitivity, when anyone can be highly offended by anything or everything, even what one did years ago as a teenager is a hanging offense.

Interestingly, the delicate sensitivities of the staffers of this young women’s magazine were not sufficiently provoked by the sponsored content from the Saudi Arabian government, a country where women are routinely mistreated and subjected to male dominance. 

This is the essence of the cancel culture: ignorance and hypocrisy.

* * *

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., continues to amaze with her impudence, deviousness and heavy-handed partisanship.

When Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., who was recently declared the winner of a challenged election, asked to have her son, a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, observe her being sworn in from the gallery above the House floor, Pelosi denied the request. 

“I guess he’s considered a risk,” Tenney said. No doubt. He’s the son of a Republican Representative, graduated from the Naval Academy and is now a commissioned officer in the U.S. Navy. Who could be more of a threat to Pelosi than someone with such a positive record? And he never had a relationship with a female Chinese spy, either.

No, he’s not a risk. Pelosi; Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.; Adam Schiff, D-Calif.; Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y.; Richard Blumenthal, D- Conn.; Elizabeth (the filibuster is racist) Warren, D-MA, et al, are risks. They are working overtime to weaken the Constitution, nationalize our elections and increase the incidence of vote fraud, assist illegal aliens entering the country by the thousands, ignore the 2nd Amendment, raise taxes, increase unemployment, and the list goes on.

* * *

What is supremacy? Merriam-Webster defines it as “the quality or state of being supreme,” which is defined as “highest in rank or authority.” 

How does a group — perhaps an ethnic group — gain supremacy? In the case of a nation, supremacy would naturally go to a group that is much larger than the others, likely larger than all the others combined.

In Spain, for example, the World Atlas tells us that 89.9 percent of its population is Spanish, and just 10.1 percent is of a foreign ethnicity. 

Guess what? In Spain there is Spanish supremacy.

In the United States, even after decades of immigration, the Statistical Atlas tells us that white people still comprise the majority at 62 percent. The next closest group is that of Hispanics at 16.9 percent. Blacks make up 12.6 percent, Asians are 5.2 percent, and mixed ethnicities are 2.3 percent.

As you go back through time, the white majority was much larger. So, when the culture and norms of the United States were evolving, white people overwhelmingly set those standards. And they still exist.

So, the “white supremacy” we hear so much about is not an unusual thing, and it is not automatically a bad thing. 

* * *

Why will the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) not allow the press to participate in ride-alongs with agents at the southern border? Since the news media are the source of the information we depend upon, that might make some think there is something being hidden down there.

DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas told Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace that the department is preparing video to distribute to news media, but cited the pandemic among reasons for not allowing reporters, photographers and camera crews into the facilities housing illegal aliens.

“We are focused on our operations, executing our operations, in a crowded Border Patrol facility where hundreds of vulnerable migrant children are located,” Mayorkas said.

Wallace challenged the Secretary, saying his answer sounded like an “excuse,” and that one pool reporter and camera crew could enter one facility and record what’s happening, without endangering the children or the crew.

Mayorkas emphasized the department’s efforts to provide such a video. Apparently, he trusts the government to provide the best information to the public. Yeah, right!

* * *

If you don’t like Dr. Suess, don’t read those books. If you don’t like Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson because they were Confederates, don’t try to have the carvings on Stone Mountain removed, just don’t go there. If someone you know of goes to an event sponsored by someone or something you dislike, just deal with the difference in opinion, don’t try to get them fired or otherwise punished. 

In America, small groups don’t get to decide what the rest of us can like.

Biden’s early days in office do not spur confidence for the future

The beginning of a new president’s tenure is often rough and tumble. Former-President Donald Trump’s certainly was. And President Joe Biden’s is also following that well-worn path.

In 2019, for the first time in 62 years the US achieved energy independence, or higher energy production than its energy consumption. But this good energy project, the Keystone XL pipeline, had been targeted by candidate Biden, and was ended by executive order, almost before Biden’s hand came down after taking the oath of office. 

The pipeline would have transported 830,000 barrels of crude oil each day from Alberta, Canada, to Nebraska. We haven’t lost access to that oil, but it will now be transported overland by trucks and trains instead of underground by pipe.

When you consider that about 70 percent of US petroleum products are already transported through roughly 200,000 miles of pipelines, why was canceling the XL pipeline project of such importance? Though used to move far less petroleum product, truck and train transportation are where a majority of mishaps occur. Trucks and trains also produce more CO2 than a pipeline.

The initial effect of this foolish move was to immediately end a thousand good-paying jobs. Roughly 10,000 more good jobs will not be created. And, $3.4 billion will never be added to the gross domestic product.

Another self-inflicted wound is the senseless change in attitude and policy addressing the security of our southern border and the constant entry of illegal aliens.

“Statistics released Wednesday by US border officials reveal that the surge of children at the US-Mexico border is worse than previously reported,” according to a story in the New York Post last week, “with nearly 30,000 unaccompanied minors crossing the border in a single month.”

The Post continued: “The one-month total in February is nearly as high as the count of unaccompanied minors in the entire year of 2020 and is five times higher than the 5,871 unaccompanied minors in January, which itself was an increase from 4,995” in the month following the Presidential Election.

More than 100,000 illegal aliens entered the country in Biden’s first full month, compared to 36,000 for the same period in 2020, an increase of 170 percent since Biden suspended the border security system. Most are not being tested for COVID, and of those who were tested, 10 percent were positive. 

For tweeting the truth that illegals were bringing the virus with them into the US, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich had his Twitter account suspended. Yet another blunder for Twitter owner Jack Dorsey and company.

To make a bad situation worse, most of these illegals are being released into the country, and sometimes are taken by bus to areas far away from the border, as far as New York.

Does anybody know who these people really are? Are 100 percent of them good people merely looking for a better life? No. How many are drug users or dealers, gang members, child traffickers or pedophiles, other types of sex offenders, or are infected with the virus. I don’t know. You don’t know. And Joe Biden doesn’t know.

The Epoch Times reported that 22 wanted felons were captured recently at the border in Texas, and that the Biden administration has proposed a plan to legalize an estimated 11 million illegal aliens living in the United States. 

If anyone thinks Biden’s border policy is foolish, this information certainly does nothing to contradict that idea. And, more than a few of those wishing to enter the US illegally were wearing tee shirts proclaiming “Biden please let us in.”

Yet, the administration continues to call this crisis a mere “challenge.”

Biden seems dedicated to the idea of overturning every action taken by his predecessor, even the good things. Of course, the Democrats do not acknowledge, or admit, that Donald Trump’s administration did anything good. It is a fool’s errand to try to compare the border situation under Biden with the much-better results under Trump.

During the Biden administration’s first two months of existence, the wall on the southern border has been halted, and a border wall around the US Capitol, and the National Guard security there have been maintained. This has the effect of making it easier for people -- some of whom are violent criminals -- to waltz into the country, and harder for citizens to access the people’s house.

Of those two conditions we know that the threat of illegal entry along the southern border is real; we don’t know that the alleged threat of illegal activities at the Capitol is real.

Biden seems content to rule by executive orders, sometimes circumventing the proper lawmaking process through Congress. And he gives public statements, occasionally answers a question shouted by reporters, but does not hold actual news conferences. 

This behavior gives some the idea that the Biden administration will be more of an authoritarian one than it will be the administration of a democratic republic. And his behavior with the press gives credence to the idea that he is unable to speak to the press and the public without a teleprompter.

The Biden administration may ultimately be as bad as many expect.

Big Tech has grown too big, and is a true threat to our freedoms

America’s Founders recognized that certain rights existed that were absolute and unassailable, and that those rights were fundamental to the nation they had created. Before some states would ratify the new Constitution, they insisted that these rights be specifically detailed. And they were, in the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights.

Back in the day, we learned important elements of our nation’s founding in school. We studied the Bill of Rights, and learned that the First Amendment cited the five freedoms of religion, speech, the press, peaceful assembly, and petitioning government for the redress of grievances.

Religion and speech have been under attack off and on for a long time. Religion has been under strong attack lately, and now free speech has also become a target.

In many countries, what the people say and do is controlled by a dictatorial government. In America, where the Constitution limits what the government can do, the current attempt to kill free speech is being carried out by a political faction that has among its members the fat-cats who own the Big Tech companies.

The Big Tech companies whose disrepute has blossomed of late — Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Amazon — have grown too big for their britches. The oligarchs who own and run these giants have gained such riches that their over-fed egos persuade them that they can and should control the rest of us for their own narrow purposes.

The level of control of Big Tech reaches into the news we read, see and hear; information we find online; the ads we see and the things we buy; and discussions in the political sphere.

These platforms gather information on users about their likes and dislikes, the websites they visit, videos they watch, issues they are interested in, and their political party affiliation.

This information is used to make money and to influence how users think about many things. Even the results of online Google searches are determined by this user information.

The arrogance of Big Tech has produced the censoring on their platforms of a story in the New York Post on the questionable behavior of President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden. Social media platforms Facebook and Twitter banned the now-former President of the United States Donald Trump from their platforms. And Big Tech took down the upstart social media site Parler, which has now been reborn.

There are continuing issues regarding the censoring of political posts and comments by Republicans and conservatives. Things that do not favor the leftist/liberal side of things are frequently blocked or removed on the grounds that they violate some internal policy.

These policies supposedly protect the public from dangerous speech, which is not the job of social media platforms. They originally were available for users to have their say about any topic, except for things like promoting violence or illegal activities.

The vast majority of speech, even that which is highly offensive to some, has been determined through litigation to be protected by the First Amendment. Nevertheless, Big Tech owners and employees, who should not be the judges of the appropriateness of their users’ comments, continue to do so. And they condemn language like what has been determined by law to be okay. 

Since these “platforms” frequently abandon that realm in favor of behaving like “publishers,” which are expected to control speech to a higher degree, they should lose the protections of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which protects platforms from lawsuits over content generated by users on their sites. It gives them the right to moderate content, but does not give them the responsibility to do so.

This allows platforms to operate without needing to moderate content, therefore, platforms must not go too far if they do moderate. Despite this, they continue censoring conservative speech.

Allum Bokhari, an author and technology correspondent, speaking to a conference of the Center for Constructive Alternatives at Hillsdale College, had the following comment in his address: “If Big Tech’s capabilities are allowed to develop unchecked and unregulated, these companies will eventually have the power not only to suppress existing political movements, but to anticipate and prevent the emergence of new ones. This would mean the end of democracy as we know it and place us under the thumb of an unaccountable oligarchy.”

Big Tech platforms are such a sham, I do not like them, Sam-I-Am.
They cheat, and censor what people say, but only those who don’t think their way.
They think they are king of what they do, but they must also be red, and not just blue.
Their egos swelled as they gained power, and now Big Tech needs a really cold shower.
They have gained the throne and now they are woke, but justice will be done if they go broke.

Freedom of speech must be protected. Big Tech should be sanctioned, regulated, or broken up into smaller, less powerful and less harmful units with little ability to control free speech. This would allow the public to express all but the most truly dangerous ideas, as platforms originally were.

Dems are frivolously spending money under guise of pandemic relief

In an early-morning vote last Saturday, President Joe Biden’s 591-page American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 passed the full House by a 219-212 vote along party lines. This plan would borrow and spend $1.9 trillion to, we are told, combat the chaos of the COVID-19 pandemic.

There is roughly $825 billion aimed at actual COVID-related spending. So where is the rest of the spending going? The majority of funds, according to the Editorial Board of The Wall Street Journal, is dedicated to “expansions of progressive programs, pork, and unrelated policy changes.” 

“Critics say that my plan is too big, that it costs $1.9 trillion,” Biden said. “Let me ask them: What would they have me cut?”

Well, since you asked: The measure included raising the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour by the fifth year of raises, but must be approved by the Senate, and is in question. This increase will result in reduced hours, job cuts, or price increases, or a combination of those, as employers struggle to offset the increased expenses.

One feature would provide an additional $135 million in funding to the National Endowment for the Arts, on top of the $167.5 million already budgeted for this year.

Rep. Adriano Espaillat, D-N.Y., said recently that he’s “not comfortable” with “embarrassing” spending unrelated to the COVID-19 pandemic. He told CNN of his misgivings on $1.5 million for the Seaway International Bridge between Massena, New York, and Canada, and also $100 million for an underground rail line linking House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco district and Silicon Valley.

There is $350 billion in aid to state and local governments, which is thought to be “bailouts” of poorly run Democrat areas like New York City and the state of New York. California, which recently reported a $10 billion budget surplus, is expected to receive more than $40 billion from the bill. Some folks think California doesn’t need it. The bill rewards poor stewardship of cities and states and is wasteful.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 95 percent of the bill’s $129 billion for K-12 schools won’t be spent until 2022-2028. That’s because much of the already appropriated $113 billion hasn’t yet been spent. Why not wait and see if all or any of the $129 billion is needed?

Freshman Congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., said in a tweet that, “Less than 1 percent of the COVID relief bill will actually go to vaccine development and distribution. When a top priority accounts for such a small part of the overall spending, it just shows how massive (and unnecessarily bloated) this spending bill is.” 

While the Democrat-controlled Congress is busy spending our tax money on frivolous things under the guise of pandemic relief, the attack on our individual freedoms continues unabated.

One of our freedoms that has been under assault for some time is the ability of business owners to control who they do business with.

When the seasoned citizens among us were young, it was common to see signs on the front door of businesses that said, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason,” or similar language. These days, the government of our free country will punish you and try to force you to do things that are not just things you don’t want to do, but things that are against your religious or personal beliefs.

No doubt more recent such signs saying “No shirt, no shoes, no service” will likewise be deemed illegal by the control-happy government that that thinks it knows best about far too many things.

A long-standing issue holds that while you may be opposed to abortion for religious or other reasons, if you have a business, you may be forced to provide insurance coverage that pays for abortion.

If you are a service provider — such as a baker, photographer or florist — you may be sued or otherwise punished for refusing service for same-sex marriages, regardless of your beliefs or personal feelings.

More recently is the issue of trans-gender women being allowed in women’s restrooms, locker rooms and showers, and participating in women’s sports.

And the State University of New York (SUNY) Geneseo has suspended a male student from his field teaching programs after he was found supporting conservative ideas, such as, “A man is a man, and a woman is a woman.” 

It is reported that two California Democrats, Representatives Anna Eshoo and Jerry McNerney, are pressuring cable companies to drop Fox News, Newsmax and One America News Network, or pay lower carriage rates in order to shut these networks down. The opposition must be silenced!

It is things like this that cement as reality the idea that our elected representatives have not read, do not understand, or don’t like the rather plain English of the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

Why, in the United States of America, the land of the free, is it sensible or permissable to say that being for something like same-sex marriage, trans-genderism or abortion is okay, but being opposed to one or more of them is wrong? 

We are guaranteed the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Does that not include making up our own minds about social and political issues?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biden’s reversing of Trump immigration policies is very dangerous

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

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

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

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

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

* to expand refugee resettlement to 110,000 persons annually

* end the "Remain in Mexico" policy

* end travel bans on countries with terrorist concerns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heritage Action cites three major problems with the bill:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many praise Biden for his unifying tone in inaugural address

Published Feb. 2, 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Big tech silences conservative voices as House concerned with pronouns

Published Jan. 19, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This election is certainly one for the books.

Rioting in federal buildings is not what peaceable assembly means

Thousands of demonstrators converged in Washington, DC, held a rally and marched to Capitol Hill. "We were planning to shut down the Capitol Building but the authorities were so scared of [us] that they shut it down for us. 1000+ women, survivors, and allies have gathered in the Hart Senate Building. Every hallway. Every floor," members of the Women’s March tweeted in October of 2018.

They gathered outside the Supreme Court building, entered the building and banged on its doors while a hearing was being held, chanting: "Kavanaugh has got to go!"

Last July, Antifa rioters tried to break into the federal courthouse in Portland, Oregon and attacked a federal officer with a hammer.

These events were not heavily criticized. And the media and liberals failed to condemn riots that destroyed many small businesses in several cities last summer. These riots were frequently termed “mostly peaceful” by the mainstream media.

On January 6th of this year, tens of thousands attended a rally in the nation’s capital, and later marched to the Capitol Building, where some entered illegally, wreaked havoc, and interfered with ongoing Congressional business.

Tragically, five people died during the attack. One women protester was shot and killed by Capitol Police for an unknown reason. Three other protesters died of “health issues” as a result of the activities. And one Capitol Police officer was injured, and later died. 

These five deaths should not have occurred. Thugs breaking into federal buildings and interfering with government business is wrong, and against the law. Such lawlessness and violence are inexcusable and must be punished.

President Donald Trump addressed the rally for over an hour before the march to the Capitol. He discussed the election and the long list of irregularities that he believes occurred, including illegalities. He believes there was fraud and has said so repeatedly. Nothing new here. And millions of Trump’s supporters agree with him.

He mentioned going down to the Capitol four times. But he never asked or encouraged anyone to break the law, to hurt anyone, or to damage federal property. 

Here are Trump’s comments about going to the Capitol, in the order they were spoken:

1. “After this, we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you. We’re going to walk down. We’re going to walk down any one you want, but I think right here. We’re going [to] walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women.”

2. “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

3. “So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue -- I love Pennsylvania Avenue -- and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give … The Democrats are hopeless. They never voted for anything. Not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans -- the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need our help. We’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.”

4. “So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I want to thank you all. God bless you and God bless America. Thank you all for being here, this is incredible. Thank you very much. Thank you.”

Those words certainly should not cause anger. Yes, Trump talked about his dissatisfaction with the election. And, yes, a lot of people disagree with him saying those things. But he did not encourage rioting and breaking into the Capitol Building.

Perhaps the actual rioters among the thousands of peaceful rally attendees heard only what they wanted to hear. Or perhaps what they heard had nothing to do with their illegal and violent actions.

Some people that I know personally attended the rally, each in their own group of friends. Their comments about what occurred reflect that the crowd was not angry or ready to riot, but enjoying the event, greeting each other and being happy. All very positive. 

It is convenient and easy to blame the wrongs that people do on a person or some issue. But the responsibility for any laws broken, damage done and other wrongs falls squarely on the shoulders of the ones that committed those acts.

Since this rally was not a surprise, why did Capitol officials not prepare in advance for it, as they did in 2018?

“Despite plenty of warnings of a possible insurrection and ample resources and time to prepare, the Capitol Police planned only for a free speech demonstration,” the Associated Press reported.

Three days before the rally and march to the Capitol, “the Pentagon asked the U.S. Capitol Police if it needed National Guard manpower,” the report AP continued. “And as the mob descended on the building Wednesday, Justice Department leaders reached out to offer up FBI agents. The police turned them down both times, according to senior defense officials and two people familiar with the matter.”

And despite all of that, and the absence of inciteful language in the address Trump gave, people rushed to blame him for the attack.

The message “never let a good crisis go to waste” comes to mind.

About Congressional term limits, and this week’s activities

Published January 5, 2021

Twenty-eight members of the House of Representatives, past and present, held office for 36-to-39 years, 49 were in office for 40-to-49 years, and seven were in office 50 or more years, with Michigan’s John Dingle leading the pack with 59 years and 21 days in office.

Thirteen members of the Senate, past and present, held office for 36-to-39 years, with nine in office for 40-to-49 years, and one, West Virginia’s Robert C. Byrd, was in office for 51 years and 176 days.

All of those people were in office after 1900, and some served in both the House and the Senate during their total tenure. Several of them are in Congress today.

The point of the preceding information is to call attention to how long they held these positions, rather than how many people have held elective positions for many years. 

It is generally accepted that a career lasts between 40 and 50 years, and it is not uncommon for people to work in different jobs during their career. Generally, people begin working in their late teens or early 20s, and retire in their mid 60s or in their 70s.

The intention of America’s Founders was for Congressional positions not to be a career, or even a large portion of a career. The country was intended to have citizen legislators who run for office and hold it for a few years, and then return to the private sector and the work they did prior to being elected. 

That way, legislators will be more in touch with the people they represent, since they have faced, and will relatively soon again face the same issues that their constituents must deal with. Having the same personal experiences as their constituents, they are well prepared to act to the benefit of the people.

Let’s look at the tenure of the leadership of the 116th Congress, which just ended.

The people currently holding leadership positions in the House of Representatives are listed with their position, their name, and the year they entered Congress: Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, 1987; Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer, 1981; Majority Whip, Jim Clyburn, 1993; Minority Leader, Kevin McCarthy, 2007; Minority Whip, Steve Scalise, 2008.

Those currently holding leadership positions in the Senate, listed with their position, their name, and the year they entered Congress: President pro tempore, Chuck Grassley, 1981; Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, 1985; Majority Whip, John Thune, 2005; Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer, 1999; Minority Whip, Dick Durbin, 1997.

The newest members of the leadership in both houses have been there at least 12 years, and those with the longest tenure have been there nearly 40 years. 

The average age of members of the House at the beginning of the 116th Congress was 57.6 years-old; of Senators, 62.9 years-old. This is perhaps somewhat of a good thing, as the older one is, the more of life he or she has experienced, and hopefully has learned from it.

In 1951, the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified, setting a term limit of two four-year terms on the presidency. It is time to do the same for members of Congress.

Changing faces more frequently would introduce more new ideas to law-making, and would allow newer members to perhaps get influential positions. With shorter tenures, members may be more willing to back good proposals that are controversial.

Where to draw the lines? Term limits of 12 years would allow six two-year House terms or two six-year Senate terms, or a combination that does not exceed 12 years.

This method is very close to the average tenure of members of the 116th Congress. The average length of service for Representatives at the beginning of the 116th Congress was 8.6 years (4.3 House terms); for Senators, 10.1 years (1.7 Senate terms).

* * *

This week, two important things take place. Today, the Georgia runoff elections for two U.S. Senate seats are being held. The stakes are important: if one or both Republicans, Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, hold on to the seats they now occupy, the Senate will remain under Republican control. If the Democrat challengers Raphael Warnock and John Ossof win, the Democrats and Republicans each would hold 50 seats, and the vice president would be the tie-breaker. If Democrat Kamala Harris is the VP, one party, the Democrats, will control the White House and both houses of the Congress. 

Tomorrow, the Congress meets to validate the Electoral College votes for president and vice president. Electoral votes will be tallied in a joint session of the House and the Senate, meeting in the House chamber. The president of the Senate —Vice President Mike Pence — is the presiding officer of the session.

Members of the House and Senate may file written objections to Electoral votes from any state, signed by at least one member of each house. House and Senate members will then separately debate the objection(s) and vote to approve or disapprove. If an objection is approved by both houses, the Electoral votes for that state are not accepted, and those votes are subtracted.

This procedure is not expected to change the Electoral College winners, Joe 

Biden and Kamala Harris, but it possibly could.

Government excess; correcting a wrong; and foolish leadership

Published December 29, 2020

Congress officially passed a $900 billion coronavirus relief package which was attached to a broader, $1.4 trillion government spending bill, clearing the House and Senate by overwhelming majorities. 

This bill is a monstrosity, running 5,593 pages long, but is perhaps the best of the many Congressional boondoggles with which to illustrate the current practice of bundling a ridiculous range of interests into one omnibus bill.

This tactic most often is used to get one or more highly controversial elements approved with relative ease. You want your favorite pork measure to get approval? Then tie it to a bill that 95 percent of Americans and their elected representatives believe “must” be approved.

Much of government over-spending and outrageous legislative measures have been born of this underhanded, but too-often successful tactic.

The “billionibus” bill has been inaptly referred to as a coronavirus relief measure. While it does fund coronavirus relief and some very beneficial things, it has a lot of money in it for other countries. 

For example, at least $15,000,000 for democracy programs and not less than $10,000,000 for gender programs, in Pakistan; $86 million for assistance to Cambodia; $130 million to Nepal, $1.3 billion for Egypt and their military; $135 million to Burma; $453 million to Ukraine; $700 million to Sudan; and $505 million to Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama.

It also gives $40 million for the necessary expenses for the operation, maintenance and security of The Kennedy Center (which has been closed, due to the coronavirus), and includes funds for the Resource Study of Springfield (Illinois) Race Riot that occurred in 1908. 

A proper House and Senate would write bills that dealt with, ideally, one single issue, or perhaps a couple of closely-related ones, instead of a popular issue with a bunch of self-serving, narrow, partisan, voter-attracting measures attached.

* * *

President Donald Trump pardoned Michael Flynn to end the nightmare against a man who had served his country valiantly for many years in the U.S. Army, retiring at the rank of lieutenant general, and had accepted President-elect Trump's offer for the position of National Security Advisor in 2016 and then briefly served as National Security Advisor.

People opposing the pardon rely on the claim that Flynn had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, but they fail to consider the sordid circumstances of that plea.

An FBI agent, who worked in the disastrous special counsel investigation into supposed Russian involvement with the Trump campaign and administration headed by Robert Mueller, “told investigators he thought the probe into Gen. Michael Flynn was ‘unclear and disorganized,’ and that the former national security adviser wasn't conspiring with Russia,” National Public Radio reported in September.

William Barnett was interviewed by Justice Department investigators, and his position on the Flynn matter was summarized in a 13-page document.

Later, FBI agents prepared to close the investigation of Flynn, having found no wrongdoing, but former FBI intelligence agent Peter Strzok demanded it be kept open. You may remember that Strzok, and his paramour and fellow FBI employee Lisa Page, were knee-deep in official FBI malfeasance. The lengthy and ridiculously expensive Mueller probe failed to find the much-ballyhooed collusion with Russia.

Desperately trying to get Flynn, in early 2017 FBI agents went to the White House to interview him. According to an article at Townhall.com, their handwritten notes said, "What's our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?" 

Ultimately, the FBI successfully blackmailed Flynn into pleading guilty to lying. This they accomplished by causing him to run up legal costs that broke him, forcing him to sell his home, and then they threatened to go after his son.

How many of Flynn’s critics would have done the same as he did to escape being persecuted by the FBI?

* * *

We have seen some pretty out-there things occur recently, but please, don’t make the mistake of thinking that things cannot get any crazier. 

A major American city plans to allow perpetrators of many crimes to have their charges dismissed if poverty, mental illness or substance-abuse disorder is the reason they committed the crimes. This will be classified as a poverty defense, according to the elected officials who champion this idea.

If you are poor and living on the street, and break into a business or a home and steal something, your criminal charge will be dismissed, and you are free to sell the stolen items in order to help you survive.

And, in order to acquire adequate shelter, trespassers will be allowed to set up camp on private property. 

Other wrongdoings on this list of allowable crimes, when committed for the reasons listed, are assault and harassment. 

Want to guess in which U.S. city this is happening? Seattle, Washington. An organization called Decriminalize Seattle is behind this movement. It has also called for defunding police by at least 50 percent, and using those funds for “community led health and safety systems.” 

This is the sort of “leadership” we find today in Democrat-run cities and states. Will a Democrat administration allow this twisted reasoning to be applied nationwide?

Three topics illustrating the troubled times in which we now live

** Lincoln under attack. Again.

In the string of events of erasing history, Abraham Lincoln’s name will be removed from a high school in San Francisco, California, after a committee recommended the action. 

And just what did Lincoln do, or not do, to earn this slap in the face? He did not demonstrate that black lives mattered to him.

“Lincoln, like the presidents before him and most after, did not show through policy or rhetoric that black lives ever mattered to them outside of human capital and as casualties of wealth building,” said Jeremiah Jeffries, chairman of the renaming committee, and also teaches 1st grade in the school district.

This seems a little weird, even for California, where very little that happens surprises us these days. Lincoln, America’s 16th president who abolished slavery, became known as the Great Emancipator, and was an inspiration to his successors. Those included President Barack Obama, who used the Lincoln Bible for his inauguration in 2009.

“Lincoln conducted a war, signed the Emancipation Proclamation, and got shot in the head for black lives, but this wasn’t enough to keep him from being unceremoniously ditched by modern social justice warriors,” wrote Jarrett Stepman in The Daily Signal.

Another area of discontent followed a Sioux uprising in Minnesota, where 303 tribesmen were sentenced to death. Lincoln reviewed their cases and removed the death sentence for 265 of them. The other 38 were hanged.

But some saw that saving only the great majority of the Sioux warriors as a Lincoln failure.

This criticism of Lincoln earned a comment from Sherry Black, who worked for more than 40 years in Native American economic and community development: “Considering the time period, it’s so difficult to understand how things were at the time. How do you make these decisions?”

That is a question that the cancel folk apparently cannot answer, and is likely a subject that has never entered into their narrow minds.

So, what are they going to name the school? Perhaps “Saul Alinsky High School.”

** Governors and mayors doing crazy stuff

As the lockdowns and other heavy restrictions continue, millions are out of a job, thousands of employers have had to permanently close their businesses, and many more may meet that same fate, if things don’t soon change.

While the intentions may be good, the results often are not. The virus can be horrible, even deadly. But, people being out of work and out of money, and other lockdown problems, have also led to much suffering, including suicides. 

And kids need to be in school. Safely, of course. But they need a productive learning environment, and virtual learning falls well short. 

Restrictions often are not sensible. People can protest in large groups, shop in large stores with lots of other people, but may only attend religious services in ridiculously small numbers. Some other restrictions on activities are just as foolish.

And then there are those that make rules, but do not themselves follow those rules. Arrogant “leaders” only compound the problems. 

People are growing tired of these authoritarian actions, that deny their constitutional rights, and render us a bunch of hostages.

** Virtual education issues

 

Like many kids across the country, a 9-year-old 4th grader in the Jefferson Parish Public Schools System in Louisiana has been doing school online from his bedroom. During an online test, his computer showed some of the things in his bedroom. His teacher saw him moving a BB gun out of the floor.

That evening, the police came and searched his house, based on the teacher’s report, and the 9-year-old was facing expulsion by the school system. 

He ended up being suspended for 3 days, as he would have been if he had actually brought a gun to school, and the school board is refusing to remove the suspension from his record.

During a hearing, the school board asked the young boy how his teacher must have felt after seeing the gun on the computer screen. “I know what a BB gun looks like,” said a former teacher and school board member. “And you know what it resembles? A real gun. OK? It resembles a real gun.” 

Perhaps this former teacher and board member does not know that owing BB guns, and other guns, is legal in our country.

An attorney representing the boy’s family, called the imposition of school-ground rules enforced in someone’s actual home as an “injustice”: “This is an injustice. It’s a systemic failure. They’re applying on-campus rules to these children, even though they’re learning virtually in their own homes.”

The state legislature passed a law named after the boy that charged that the school behaved improperly, but the school board still refused to remove the suspension from his permanent record.

The teacher, the school, and the school board have no authority to tell people what they may or may not have in their homes. The reporting of this family to the police is outrageous, and the entire affair should cost the school system a pile of money.

Best wishes for a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!