July 4th, and the reason true Americans celebrate that historic day

Two days ago, as most everyone knows, the United States celebrated Independence Day, the day in 1776 that the Continental Congress declared that the thirteen American colonies were united, free, and independent states, and no longer under the thumb and subordinate to the British monarch, King George III.

For most of my many years the Fourth of July has been something nearly all Americans understood and observed with respect and gratitude. Sure, there were some who didn’t share that respect, and there were periods where some even protested what the country was doing.

Times like the 1960s and 70s when those who proudly served their country in the military were roundly scorned and subjected to disrespect and hate from the anti-war crowd. But those people were not a majority, and their negative feelings ran their course, and normality was eventually restored.

Today, the number of people who do not really know America and think it is a systemically racist country is staggering. This failure of families and schools to teach young people about America has resulted in millions of misinformed younger people who do not understand or appreciate their country.

That negative storyline is getting far more play than the traditional one that sees America as “a shining city on a hill,” to quote former President Ronald Reagan.

But to provide a picture of how and why America has been so highly respected for so long, we have the testimony of some who came to America the right way, and became true Americans. 

Quang Nguyen came here as a 13-year-old boy who left South Viet Nam seeking political asylum 46 years ago. He spoke to a Freedom Rally in Prescott Valley, AZ in 2010. Here are seven excerpts from his address. His views are far more representative of reality than what is getting so much attention today.

“Man, every morning I wake up thanking God for putting me and my family in the greatest country on Earth. I just want you all to know that the American dream does exist and I am living the American dream. I was asked to speak to you about my experience as a first-generation Vietnamese-American, but I’d rather speak to you as an American.”

“I am a proud US citizen and here is my proof. It took me 8 years to get it, waiting in endless lines, but I got it, and I am very proud of it.”

“Thirty-five years ago, I left South Vietnam for political asylum. The war had ended. At the age of 13, I left with the understanding that I may or may not ever get to see my siblings or parents again. I was one of the first lucky 100,000 Vietnamese allowed to come to the U.S. Somehow, my family and I were reunited 5 months later, amazingly, in California. It was a miracle from God.”

“If you haven’t heard lately that this is the greatest country on Earth, I am telling you that right now. It was the freedom and the opportunities presented to me that put me here with all of you tonight.”

“I also remember the barriers that I had to overcome every step of the way. My high school counselor told me that I cannot make it to college due to my poor communication skills. I proved him wrong. I finished college. You see, all you have to do is to give this little boy an opportunity and encourage him to take and run with it. Well, I took the opportunity and here I am.”

“In 1982, I stood with a thousand new immigrants, reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and listening to the National Anthem for the first time as an American. To this day, I can’t remember anything sweeter and more patriotic than that moment in my life.”

“You see, America is not just a place on the map, it isn’t just a physical location. It is an ideal, a concept. And if you are an American, you must understand the concept, you must accept this concept, and most importantly, you have to fight and defend this concept. This is about Freedom and not free stuff. And that is why I am standing up here.”

What a contrast to U.S. hammer thrower Gwen Berry, who recently placed third at the Olympic trials. She turned away from the American flag and displayed an “Activist Athlete” tee shirt as the National Anthem played while she and the two other female U.S. athletes stood on the podium. The other two appropriately honored the Anthem. Berry later said, “The Anthem doesn’t speak for me. It never has.”

Being born here, perhaps Berry didn’t notice the good things about America as she grew up, as opposed to Nguyen. Having grown up in and fled from a poor, war-torn nation to America, he saw the difference between America and South Viet Nam and so many other countries. He worked hard to become a citizen, and proudly tells the story to others of how much America means to him.

Berry, on the other hand, worked hard to earn the privilege of representing America, and then publicly disrespected it.

Thoughts on cancel culture, and the freedom of religion and speech

There seems to be no letting up in the manic drive to change everything in the country. From vestiges of the country’s founding, to the War Between the States, to being dissatisfied with one’s gender, to millions of relatively tiny things that trigger somebody’s feelings, such as calling a toy potato “Mr. Potato Head.” A stunning amount of emotional energy is spent on trying to satisfy the myriad of hyper-sensitive displeasures that some Americans agonize over.

One recent change involves the Randolph Township Board of Education in Morris County, New Jersey, where the Board unanimously voted to remove the names of all holidays from the school calendar.

“If we don’t have anything on the calendar, we don’t have to have anyone [with] hurt feelings or anything like that,” board member Dorene Roche told Fox 5 NY.

The board unanimously voted to remove the names of all holidays from the school calendar earlier this month. This decision was prompted by protests of an earlier decision to change the name of Columbus Day to Indigenous People’s Day.

Some of the people who object to these changes, that are being made to protect the feelings of a few that are upset, are pursuing some cancellations of their own.

“Now they’ve cancelled our holidays,” wrote Laura Assante of Randolph Township, “how will students learn about the significance of these days if our board doesn’t even deem them important enough to keep on the calendar? Enough! It’s time now to cancel the BOE and get a new, honest administration in place who values our children and community.”

And now that “Juneteenth” has been officially declared a national holiday, it will just be a “Day Off” on the school calendar.

The School Board has decided to review the decision.

***

Baker Jack Phillips is being punished by a Colorado court for refusing to design a cake that celebrates a person’s gender transition. His reason is that doing so violates his Christian beliefs.

So, if a person born a male believes he is a she, or a person born a female believes she is a he, the rest of us are expected to accept that, and in Phillips’ case, he must recognize it through his work. But a person’s religious preferences that do not recognize gender fluidity opens that person to legal action. Somehow, that doesn’t compute.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution begins: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” If Phillips is prohibited by a court order from acting according to his religious beliefs, isn’t that actually “prohibiting the free exercise” of his religion?

***

Things get cancelled because some group — however large or small — dislikes them. Realistically, few things, perhaps nothing, can escape being disliked by someone. Thus, if we keep allowing this foolish cancelling of things, since nothing will be acceptable to everyone, therefore everything will be cancelled, and we will all just become dust in the wind.

***

The concept of free speech is one of the hallmarks of the United States of America. It separates us from the tyrannically ruled countries across the globe. Humanity benefits from the free exchange of ideas, as demonstrated by the very existence of the United States.

When an idea is brought forth, it will be accepted by some and opposed by others. It just makes sense that in a free country the opposition’s ideas are available to be considered by anyone and everyone. That is how a free people become informed and able to make decisions that are based on a variety of opinions on important topics.

How ironic that huge and popular organizations such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, et al, operate under the protection of the First Amendment’s free speech protections, and then use that protection to arbitrarily deny free speech to expressing other ideas.

Yes, some ideas expressed may not be truthful, or might be harmful. That can occur in a new idea, or in the responses to it. Who gets to decide: the issuer of the new idea, which may be flawed, or a respondent, whose point of view may be flawed? That is why speech must remain free, in all but the most undeniably dangerous cases.

What we have today is a political faction that doesn’t want the concepts it supports to be measured against differing opinions that might lead many people to oppose its concepts. When you fear that your ideas will not win the day, what more effective way to ensure that those ideas will win than to make them the only ideas people can know about?

Such anti-American behavior is the gold standard of Marxism and Communism, among other venomous, malicious and oppressive ideologies. The difference between those regimes and the USA is that here it is not the government that is cheating to get its ideas accepted by controlling what people have access to, it is private companies.

Interestingly, it was the freedoms of America — the very ones they are working so desperately to subvert — that enabled them to become the successful entities that they are.

News media hates Trump more than they love honest journalism

Last year as the pandemic swept the nation, and the presidential campaign heated up, the criticisms of then-President Donald Trump grew beyond fever pitch. Virtually everything the man said was met with denunciations and put-downs from the political left, stoked by the liberal news media that didn’t always probe the issue.

When Trump tested positive for COVID-19 in March 2020, he took a two-week regimen of the drug hydroxychloroquine, and praised it as being useful for treating the virus. The media criticism was immediate and vicious, with physicians and scientists, such as Dr. Anthony Fauci and the World Health Organization, saying that it wasn’t effective for the virus.

Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden joined in, saying at a Yahoo News town hall on COVID-19 and food insecurity, “C’mon, man! What is he doing? What in God’s name is he doing?”

And guess what? “A new study published by medRxiv shows hydroxychloroquine, combined with zinc, increased the survival rate of severely ill Wuhan coronavirus patients by 200 percent,” reported Townhall.com. 

Early on, Trump suggested that the virus came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology lab in China, rather than from a nearby wet market. Again, the media had a field day ridiculing that suggestion. 

It is a known fact that these kinds of labs, wherever they may be, have leaks, so the possibility that Wuhan’s lab could have had one is not crazy. Furthermore, we now know that three researchers at the Wuhan lab suffered from symptoms consistent with COVID-19 in November 2019, before the virus was heard of.

On an episode of CBS "Face the Nation" last month, former head of the Food and Drug Administration, Scott Gottlieb, said that the case for COVID-19 originating in a lab has become increasingly likely, and the likelihood that it came from an animal is dwindling. 

Trump was also ridiculed and chastised for urging against lockdowns. However, generally, the states with the strictest COVID lockdowns caused huge losses of jobs, but those with less severe restrictions have experienced low levels of unemployment

And the New York Post reported: “The five states with the strictest lockdowns over the last year — Hawaii, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York — have an average unemployment rate of 8.06 percent. In the five states with the lightest restrictions, unemployment sits at just 3.48 percent — lower than the 3.5 percent national rate before the pandemic hit the US.”

“At the same time,” the Post report continued, “ample scientific evidence points to the fact that lockdowns did not save lives, regardless of the media force-feeding its preferred narrative to the public.”

Trump early on initiated Project Warp Speed to quickly create a vaccine. The Washington Post reported Trump’s statement on the vaccine’s early completion at a coronavirus roundtable meeting on March 2, 2020: “We’re moving aggressively to accelerate the process of developing a vaccine. … A lot of good things are happening and they’re happening very fast,” he said. 

“Trump is not wrong in saying that scientists are rapidly developing a vaccine to combat the novel coronavirus,” The Post article said. “However, he seems to be overstating when a vaccine will be available to the public. Experts have emphasized that actual deployment of the vaccine is more than a year away, not a few months, as Trump has suggested.”

And a headline on NBC News’ Website read: “Trump says, without evidence, vaccine could be ready by Election Day.”

While the vaccines were not ready by Election Day, they were ready five weeks later, and far ahead of the one-to-ten-year timeline that skeptics expected.

And then there is the situation at Lafayette Square where “peaceful” protesters were attacked with “flash-bang explosions and doused with tear gas,” according to The New York Times. This was supposedly done to clear the way for Trump to walk over to the St. John’s Church for a photo op. That is the same church that the “peaceful” protesters had set afire earlier.

The problem is that none of the country’s finest reporters did their jobs as professionals should. Had they done it right, they would have learned that the clearing of the crowd was decided before Trump even planned on going to the church.

“But an investigation released this week by Interior Department IG Mark Lee Greenblatt says U.S. Park Police and the U.S. Secret Service deemed it necessary to remove protestors from the park on June 1, 2020, in order to install anti-scale fencing,” as reported by Fox News. “The decision was reached after at least 49 U.S. Park Police were injured while policing protests days earlier.”

Other “journalists” also got it wrong. MSNBC’s Joy Reid and CNN's Anderson Cooper also parroted that it happened so Trump could have a photo op. 

Though you don’t have to be a big city newspaper or network TV reporter to actually think about what you are doing and seek out accurate information, you might expect those folks would be the ones that would. But, no.

Much or most of the major media outlets relinquished their professional ethics and replaced them with political interests. Feelings trumped integrity.

Honest, objective news journalism is not something we can rely on.

Being soft on crime is a recipe for more crime, as we have seen

America has been known as a nation of laws. It has a system that catches criminals and those suspected of crimes, tries them, and when found guilty, metes out prescribed punishments. It is not a perfect system, as it has occasionally convicted innocent people, and sometimes meted out punishments more severe, or less severe than appropriate. But, it has worked pretty well.

For more than 20 years, the violent crime rate has been dropping. However, today, we find the justice system being undermined, crimes becoming more and more frequent, while proper consequences are applied less frequently. 

A commentary from Real Clear Politics (RCP), written by Bernard Kerik, a former police commissioner and Department of Correction commissioner in New York City, commented on this. “Effective Jan. 1, Democratic legislators in New York eliminated pre-trial detention with cash bail for about 90 percent of arrestees, including those charged with serious offenses such as burglary.”

Kerik continued, saying that “this law means more potentially violent criminals will be back on the street shortly after their arrests, without even a bail bond over their heads to keep them honest.”

The danger in this foolish plan was pointed out by New York public safety and law enforcement officials, who advised that this idea should be reversed, or things would quickly get worse. They were right.

“On the very first day that ‘bail reform’ was in place, a judge was forced to release a drunk driver with three prior DWI convictions, six total felonies, six misdemeanor convictions, and five charges of failing to appear on his own recognizance,” Kerik wrote. The man was then charged with another drunk driving offense less than two weeks later, this one killing a college student. And guess what? When in front of the judge for this charge, the judge was again forced to release him on his own recognizance.

Some more data on this topic comes from Yolo County, California:  “Individuals released in the county on $0 bail committed over 300 new crimes,” according to a statement from the Yolo County District Attorney, reported last October in the Woodland, CA Daily Democrat. “The DA’s data also shows that there is a 33 percent rearrest rate among inmates who were released on zero bail.”

California is not alone in this ridiculous process. The New York Daily News reported in March of 2020 that “Mayor de Blasio and the city’s top cop unveiled stats Thursday they say show many suspects freed under new bail reforms are going on to commit major crimes. During the first two months of the year, 482 people charged with a felony were released without bail only to [be] rearrested for new crimes 846 times, according to officials.”

If that wasn’t bad enough, there is the totally irrational “defund the police” movement. As budgets were cut, and restrictions put in place, many officers retired or merely left their job. Finding new recruits has become difficult, as there is much public sentiment against police officers, and violence against them has increased substantially.

While most other countries experienced a decrease in both violent crime and overall crime during the coronavirus pandemic, many U.S. cities saw the opposite occur. Large cities like New York, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles, and smaller cities such as Portland, Milwaukee, Louisville, and Minneapolis, have suffered large increases in crime.

Fortunately, officials are beginning to understand just how goofy this idea is, and refunding police — quietly, in some cases — has begun.

In addition to go-easy laws, and the defund the police movement, there are also prosecutors who have soft on crime attitudes. An article on the Heritage Foundation’s Website addresses this, saying, “One of the most disturbing features of rogue prosecutors is their utter disregard for real victims of crime and for victims’ rights under state law.” 

Authors Zack Smith and Charles "Cully" Stimson say this “new breed of prosecutors” usurps the constitutional power of the legislative branch by refusing to prosecute entire categories of crimes; abuse their offices; enable crime to explode under their watch; and harm the very people they pretend to care about the most, including low-income and minority individuals.

Smith and Stimson, as well as the National Police Association (NPA), reference billionaire George Soros’ efforts to support so-called “social justice” prosecutor candidates.

The NPA article stated, “Today, Soros supports candidates for public prosecutor’s offices who are anti-police. He funds them through massive donations to a collection of charities paradoxically called Open Society Foundations,” and it further said that Soros has reportedly spent more than $13.4 million supporting these candidates.

America suffers from significant weaknesses in several areas. They include, in addition to the damaged criminal justice system, an education system that is fast becoming a political indoctrination system; fair, balanced, and objective news journalism that is in many instances promoting leftist politics; continued devolution of strong, positive traditions, like the family and marriage; and large corporations that have gained far more control over our lives than they deserve or are supposed to have. 

The radical left is tearing America apart, and resistance to it is not nearly strong enough.

What’s happening to our country? The United States of Anti-America

Those Americans who have been around for a while may be wondering what is happening to their country. While there have been periods of disruption before, such as the anti-war/peace movement of the 60s, the magnitude of what is going on today surpasses previous challenges. America is under attack from within.

Merely being a member of the largest subgroup of people in the country — the primary group which founded and developed the country: white people — has each of them being regarded as a “supremacist,” a “racist,” and “privileged.” These people had no say in who their parents were or where they were born and grew up, yet they are now persona non-grata in the country their ancestors created.

This comes from a concept known as Critical Race Theory (CRT). It has the support of the woke among us, and seeks to persuade everyone that in America there are only two classes of people: oppressors and their victims. And white people are the oppressors.

CRT evolved from the Critical Theory attributed to socialist Karl Marx, author of “The Communist Manifesto.” CRT differs in that it includes racism as a fundamental factor. It focuses on cancelling the traditional American values such as family, democracy, honesty and truth. And traditional practices like hard work, learning, rational thinking and obeying time schedules are not sound practices leading to success, but racist values imposed by white supremacists.

Through the years, CRT has been sneaking into classrooms, and is now being touted by President Joe Biden’s administration to be part of the K-12 curriculum to replace what’s left of traditional civics instruction and history that taught hundreds of millions of Americans through the decades the truth about their country, its founding and how it operates. 

Instead, CRT will teach young students to focus on skin color and power, revising history to tell the story of a nation founded on white oppression. The goal of CRT is teaching white kids to hate themselves and their families, and teaching other kids to hate their country.

A tool used in this “progressive” destruction of America is “The 1619 Project.”

“The 1619 Project is an ongoing initiative from The New York Times Magazine that began in August 2019, the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.”

That is the opening of the New York Times Magazine’s (NYTM) description of “The 1619 Project.” A different organization, calling itself Project 1619, has the following statement about the NYTM’s mission: “Project 1619 Inc. was not consulted or involved in their production … [and] does not support or endorse their opinions.”

The NYTM’s 1619 Project suffers from both conceptual and data errors. First, it attempts to shift the beginning of America from its actual formal beginning in 1776 to a time when only one of the 13 colonies that formed the United States of America existed: Virginia, the English settlement established in 1607. At that time, and extending to 1619 and for many more years there was no drive to form a new nation.

Second, the first slaves were brought to the North American continent roughly 50 years before 1619 and many years before the Virginia Colony was established.

Surely, the story of the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans can be effectively told without revising history to increase the negative impact of the story, and unjustifiably dishonor the nation. 

The 1776 Commission was started by former President Donald Trump on November 2, 2020, by Executive Order 13958. Trump took this step to counter attacks on America’s founding. The EO cites “our country's valiant and successful effort to shake off the curse of slavery and to use the lessons of that struggle to guide our work toward equal rights for all citizens in the present.”

It continues: “Viewing America as an irredeemably and systemically racist country cannot account for the extraordinary role of the great heroes of the American movement against slavery and for civil rights — a great moral endeavor that, from Abraham Lincoln to Martin Luther King, Jr., was marked by religious fellowship, good will, generosity of heart, an emphasis on our shared principles, and an inclusive vision for the future.

Section 2. (a) of the EO states: “Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Education shall establish in the Department of Education the President's Advisory 1776 Commission ("the 1776 Commission") to better enable a rising generation to understand the history and 4 principles of the founding of the United States in 1776 and to strive to form a more perfect Union.”

This effort to counter the vile, anti-American aims of CRT was cancelled by President Biden on his first day in office.

America was not perfect on its first day of existence 240-plus years ago, and it is not perfect today. No nation is or ever was perfect. Our country will not be made more perfect by indoctrinating generations of young people with misinformation such as this. In fact, indoctrination goes against the founding principles of America.

Israel’s right to defense and the rise of a woke culture

It is hard to understand why so many people dislike Israel, and believe that Israel is responsible for the recent fighting. Many of those Americans who dislike Israel are Democrats, which is especially odd, since Jewish voters in America lean heavily Democrat.

Are they cowering in the face of strong opposition from the Left’s anti-Semitic faction, which includes Black Lives Matter, Antifa, the notorious Squad of Congresswomen, and others?  

Israel gets the blame for the deaths of innocent Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip. However, that narrative ignores important facts. 

First, Israel did not start the fighting. Israel was attacked by Hamas terrorists, firing rockets from Gaza, and is merely defending itself. Hamas, along with other Arab terrorist groups, believes Israel has no right to exist, and is working to bring about that reality. The terrorist organization has fired what now totals more than 4,000 rockets into Israel.

When you are attacked, you must respond. And Hamas, that wonderful organization that boldly and purposefully puts the safety of the Palestinians living in Gaza at risk, set up its offensive weaponry in populated areas, knowing that Israel would, out of necessity, respond with retaliatory attacks. And it knew that when the Israeli response happened to kill civilians, used as shields by the terrorists, Israel would be blamed by the gigantic anti-Semitic faction around the world.

Prior to the recent cease-fire, more than 200 Palestinians reportedly had died in the war, and roughly two dozen Israelis have been killed. Why the large difference?

Because Israel has a defense mechanism called the Iron Dome that intercepts and destroys many or most of the terrorists’ rockets before they can do any damage, although some do get through. Some 16 percent of Hamas’ rockets reportedly fell short of their target, and landed in Gaza, and may have killed Palestinians. 

And the Palestinian death toll is a fraction of what it could be because of Israel’s efforts to keep civilians as safe as possible, even warning occupants of certain targeted buildings that an attack is imminent so that they could escape, and by carefully picking its targets.

All the while Israelis get the blame for Palestinian civilian casualties who were put at risk by Hamas terrorists firing rockets at Israel from Palestinian neighborhoods.

* * *

In today’s upside-down America, math is now both racist and something which no longer requires accuracy and correct answers.

An opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal describes the situation: “If California education officials have their way, generations of students may not know how to calculate an apartment’s square footage or the area of a farm field, but the ‘mathematics’ of political agitation and organizing will be second nature to them. Encouraging those gifted in math to shine will be a distant memory.”

A proposed new curriculum framework for math is now being considered by the state’s Instructional Quality Commission. The new framework recommends that teachers use a manual titled “A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction: Dismantling Racism in Mathematics Instruction,” which The Journal commentary called “a troubling document.”

“This manual claims that teachers addressing students’ mistakes forthrightly is a form of white supremacy,” the article states. “It sets forth indicators of ‘white supremacy culture in the mathematics classroom,’ including a focus on ‘getting the right answer,’ teaching math in a ‘linear fashion,’ requiring students to ‘show their work’ and grading them on demonstrated knowledge of the subject matter. ‘The concept of mathematics being purely objective is unequivocally false,’ the manual explains. ‘Upholding the idea that there are always right and wrong answers perpetuates objectivity.’ Apparently, that’s also racist,” the article continues.

While 2+2 still equals 4, and the multiplication tables are still accurate, that is not as important as being sure that those who aren’t good math students don’t feel bad about it. 

This is just one more component of the new woke attack on a merit-based selection process. The anti-merit faction would prefer to have a fair distribution of genders and ethnicities providing medical care, piloting airliners, manning classrooms at all levels, leading and serving in the military, holding management positions, etc. Yet a student who was behind his/her classmates in math or science, or any subject, will likely not do as good a job as a teacher as someone who had a high ability and a love for the subject.

As woke-ism progresses, no doubt this foolish concept will creep into other subject areas, as well.

Does this really make any sense in a country where having a thriving society, and the country’s very survival, depend upon having very capable people in all important positions?

Woke-ism is a truly bizarre development. The number of people who favor it is shocking. But the scariest thing is how foolish and non-sensical these concepts are. If America does not get its feet back on the ground very soon, our future is very uncertain. We need to pay much more attention to what China and Russia are doing, and be less concerned with trying to guarantee equitable outcomes among unequal people.

Is woke-ism a new pandemic? Is it a greater threat to our future than COVID-19? It could very well be.

Does the minimum wage really benefit all people wanting a job?

Today, any non-exempt person working in a business covered by the minimum wage law gets paid at least $7.25 per hour. And there is a move today by the political Left to more than double that rate to $15.00 per hour.

A mandated minimum wage requires businesses to pay everyone they hire $7.25 or more for every hour they work starting with their very first hour on the job, whether they know how to do the job or not. Minimum wage jobs have minimal skill requirements. Persons holding these jobs often are young people who have little or no skills or experience. 

Most minimum wage supporters view wages exclusively in terms of what is good for the worker, and these days that frequently means they expect employers to pay all workers a “living wage,” whatever that is. And it has no regard for whether they do their job well, or how much their job contributes to the company’s success. It also doesn’t matter whether workers need a living wage. Teenagers and other young workers who still live at home, and many college students don’t need a living wage. 

What is good for the employer, who provides jobs for tens of millions of Americans to earn money to live on, is less important, and sometimes not important at all. And many of these supporters do not understand how businesses operate and how difficult running a business can be. 

Why not base wages on an agreement between the employee and the employer? Some people might need or want a lower wage if they can just get a job. Someone with skills the employer seeks for a critical or important job will be offered higher wages at a level determined by the employer’s financial situation. If the applicant isn’t satisfied with that, she or he can ask for more money, or look elsewhere for a job.

Competition among businesses for sales of products and services is a good thing. It helps keep prices down, and it also helps to keep businesses on their toes to do the best they can to produce quality goods and services and run a respectable business.  

Employers are interested in employing people with the skill levels they need, and will offer those job applicants a wage reflecting the applicant’s skills and experience that also fits the company’s financial requirements. 

After having a paper route for a few years, I got a real job working weekends at the age of fifteen. In those days the minimum wage was fairly new, and was set at $1.00 per hour. I learned my job fairly quickly and did it pretty well. I got a raise when the minimum wage was increased to $1.10 an hour. 

Why did I not get a raise based on my job performance after I learned the job? Because the job I had was a basic job that didn’t require a high level of skill — meaning that there were lots of people who could learn to do the job satisfactorily — and I had been on the job a relatively short time. 

Furthermore, the wage was based on the skill requirement, which was at the lowest level. Those who had jobs that required higher skill levels made more money than I did. That’s life.

The $7.25 minimum wage makes it more difficult for businesses to remain profitable than a system where employees are paid based on the financial circumstances of the business they work for, and the job they perform. Employers and employees should agree on wages, and, again, if they can’t agree, employees may look elsewhere for a better-paying job.

And, a minimum wage requirement at any level is a much easier pill to swallow for large corporations than for small businesses.

Addressing the increase in the minimum wage the Mises Institute’s Dakota Hensley wrote: “This is under the assumption that having a minimum wage helps workers and makes corporations pay their fair share.”

However, he points out the downsides of a minimum wage, and the greater downsides of a $15 per hour minimum. “It keeps low-skilled (often black or other ethnic minority) workers from finding employment, forcing them to depend on government, and leads to closures of small businesses (especially black-owned businesses) which benefits corporations.” The fewer small business competitors large businesses have, the better it is for them.

Hensley cites information from the Congressional Budget Office saying a minimum wage hike would lift 900,000 out of poverty but put 1.4 million — 55 percent more than it would help — out of work. The latter group includes less educated people with low or no skills. “It's not plumbing or automotive mechanics or carpentry. Those jobs pay tens of thousands,” Hensley noted. “Those jobs require trade school, not just a high school diploma. A minimum wage punishes those who were born poor and weren't given the opportunities to go to trade school or college and get those skills.”

He concludes by saying, “Minimum wage laws hurt low-skilled, often black, workers. Implementing these laws leads to the growth of big business at small business' expense. To be truly pro-labor and anti-corporate, we need to abolish the minimum wage.”

While millions are unemployed, millions of jobs go unfilled

A Dow Jones survey of economists earlier this year showed that one million new jobs would be added to the economy in April. Instead, only about a quarter of that number were produced, as just 266,000 new jobs were recorded. And, instead of the unemployment rate dropping from 6.0 percent in March to 5.8 percent in April, it rose to 6.1 percent.

That is sharply higher that the 50-year low of 3.5 percent in February of 2020, before the COVID pandemic hit.

This result received not-pleasant headlines. “Hiring was a huge letdown in April,” CNBC reported. Bloomberg said, “The numbers are out, and on the top line they are way worse than expected.” And Axios called it “the biggest miss, relative to expectations, in the history of the payrolls report.”

Digging into the specifics of this disappointing result, DailyWire.com noted that “The black unemployment rate increased, 18,000 manufacturing jobs were lost, no construction jobs were added, unemployment for Americans without any college education increased, and women had a net loss in jobs.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics said that nearly 10 million Americans, 9.8 million to be exact, remained unemployed in Biden’s economy.”

The New York Post reported that prices have increased for some goods, described as “surging due to shortages connected to supply-chain issues and other factors.” The story went on to say that some economists believe the country will experience inflation for months.

CNN’s Christine Romans said that “if you haven’t felt [inflation] yet, it’s coming.” She predicted higher prices for many goods, such as toilet paper, diapers, soft drinks, plane tickets, and a full tank of gas, adding that, “Whirlpool is raising prices of some of its appliances by up to 12 percent.”

The Post noted that business owners, especially in the retail and travel industries, are struggling to recruit new workers. And it cited comments by economists and companies that blame government stimulus payments for making it more attractive for people to remain on unemployment than for going to work. They make more money on unemployment than on the job, and going back to work and making less money would actually make things harder on their families.

This idea has been advanced by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. As reported on Daily Wire: “The U.S. Chamber of Commerce directly blamed the Biden administration’s stimulus spending for the worsening economy, saying that he was paying people to not work.”

The Chamber said, “The disappointing jobs report makes it clear that paying people not to work is dampening what should be a stronger jobs market,” and suggested: “One step policymakers should take now is ending the $300 weekly supplemental unemployment benefit.” 

These $300 supplements result in approximately one in four recipients taking home more in unemployment than they earned working, according to the Chamber’s analysis. Others do just as well, or nearly as well, on unemployment as when working.

Officially, there were 9.8 million Americans unemployed last month. And, there are 6.9 million jobs needing workers to fill them. Normally, thousands of jobs would have been created each month without the pandemic, according to Elise Gould, senior economist with the progressive Economic Policy Institute. She estimates that due to this factor, the number of unfilled jobs would be between 9 and 11 million. 

Some are asking if this condition is accidental, or if government is deliberately disincentivizing people from working to make them more dependent on government. The socialists among us would surely celebrate such action.

Whether it is a deliberate action or not, the country is suffering from too many people sitting on the sidelines. Tens of thousands of businesses have found it difficult or impossible to reopen, or to expand to previous operation levels.

Last week, CNBC reported on a March survey by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), which “found that 42 percent of owners had job openings that could not be filled, a record high. Ninety-one percent of those hiring or trying to hire reported few or no qualified applicants for the positions they were trying to fill.”

Holly Wade, executive director of the NFIB Research Center, commented that business owners “have made it to this point and they’ve adjusted their business operations to get through the worst of the pandemic, and now they are saddled with not being able to increase business operations when they find the opportunities.”

Many businesses have raised wages to attract workers, but many others cannot raise wages. The restrictions on occupancy in restaurants, bars and similar businesses reduce business income. Increasing costs by raising wages when income is made lower by restrictions puts the business at further risk of closure.

And yes, some workers are worried about being exposed to the coronavirus if they return to work.

The government must stop these supplemental unemployment payments that make it more attractive for some formerly employed folks to stay on unemployment instead of getting back to work. The repercussions of not ending these payments is a very serious problem for small businesses, and for the economy.

Government’s job is to create an environment conducive to businesses, not to have policies that discourage people from working.

The math doesn’t add up with Virginia’s ‘woke’ education discussion

A story back in April reported that the Virginia Department of Education is considering eliminating all accelerated math options prior to the 11th grade. Students who perform well in math will no longer be allowed to advance to upper level math study when they are ready to move ahead. 

Loudoun County school board member Ian Serotkin explained that the Virginia Mathematics Pathway Initiative (VMPI), "as currently planned, … will eliminate ALL math acceleration prior to 11th grade.” 

He said that it “is not an exaggeration, nor does there appear to be any discretion in how local districts implement this. All 6th graders will take Foundational Concepts 6. All 7th graders will take Foundational Concepts 7. All 10th graders will take Essential Concepts 10. Only in 11th and 12th grade is there any opportunity for choice in higher math courses."

So, the best math students, the worst math students, and those in between will move through the math curriculum together, and at the same speed. Those blessed with exceptional math skills will be prevented from advancing to higher levels, moving along at the slower pace of the lesser skilled. 

On April 27, Norfolk’s The Virginian Pilot, however, published a story with comments from state Superintendent James Lane. “I’ve seen articles that say ‘Virginia is doing X, Y or Z,’” he said. “Virginia is not doing anything right now. … We are literally just having conversations with the community about what they want.”

Virginia’s math standards are reviewed every seven years, and there are two years remaining before the next revision. But this concept is being seriously discussed, and there is a significant degree of support for it.

This concept is a step toward “equity,” an element of the woke culture, and one of its goals. Merriam-Webster defines equity as “freedom from bias or favoritism.” But to the woke it means that no one is better at anything that everyone else.

Under equity, everyone should make the same grades in all subjects. Everyone should make the same money at work. Everyone must be at the same level in all things. It is unfair that some should be recognized as better than others, ever.

Most understand the reality that we are not all the same. Some of us are tall, some not so much. Some run faster or are stronger than others. Some can play an instrument or sing better than others, or are better in a dramatic part than others. Some are better at math than others, but the others may be better at history, science, English, geography or other things than the math scholar.

Each person has her or his stronger areas, and weaker areas. That is human nature. Some folks strongly resent this reality, and work to make everyone equal in all things.

However, in order to produce the most effective and strongest nation possible, our education system — public schools and private schools — must recognize those inherent strengths and weaknesses, and work to advance students to their peak in their strong areas and help them improve in their weaker areas.

If people cannot advance in subjects like math until their junior year in high school, they may never reach their full math potential. And this concept might be applied to other subjects, as well. The nation cannot afford to hold back it’s brightest in any area of study just to try to keep everybody even. First, that is an impossible task, and second, it is a foolish, dangerous goal.

Depending upon which evaluation system you read, the United States is either near the top, or as far down as 26th on the list for best education in the world.

However, the U.S. education system “is not as internationally competitive as it used to be; in fact, the United States has slipped ten spots in both high school and college graduation rates over the past three decades,” according to a report by the Council on Foreign Relations.

And, the World Top 20 Project does not list the United States in its top 20 nations in either 2020, or 2021.

The STEM areas — Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics — are critical to the future. If the VMPI takes hold and is applied to other educational areas and spreads inside the country, the United States will be focused on equity among the younger generations, rather than on enhancing their learning and advancement. 

This will lead to a national weakening, making us subject to the will of other nations. In fact, the U.S. has already weakened.

The National Interest magazine reports that the Pentagon released its annual report entitled “US Defense Industrial Base Industrial Capabilities Report January 2021,” on the state of the U.S. defense and manufacturing industrial base. There “are innumerable takeaways from the report but a consistent and glaring deficiency throughout reveals an erosion and degradation of the U.S. STEM education system and a severe shortage of technical talent in the U.S. workplace,” the Pentagon report said.

Rather than try to create “equity” among people, the United States education system must focus on developing the talents of young people to their fullest, so that we can remain a strong presence in the world. The alternative is simply not acceptable.

Democrats are working overtime to change our nation for the worse

The rule of thumb of the Joe Biden presidency must be to undo what Donald Trump did. That is essentially what has been happening since January 20.

Is it simply the idea that Trump was so horrible a person and president that everything he did must be undone? Or, is it that Biden’s carefully hidden leftist philosophy demands moving us away from the successful capitalist nation that we are?

The “it’s not a crisis” catastrophe on the southern border that has allowed tens of thousands of migrants to enter the country, heads the list. Many thousands of them are overwhelming the facilities for housing them, and thousands more of uncertain origin and motive just walked across the border and disappeared into the country. What else is on the list of equally poor decisions from this president?

The Club for Growth recently highlighted several proposals and their predicted negative results. These include Biden’s proposed hiking of the corporate tax rate by one-third, from 21 percent to 28 percent, and predicting that as many as one million jobs could be killed, that GDP would fall by 0.8 percent, and worker’s wages will fall by 0.7 percent or, on average, $2,500 per year.

Biden’s executive order ending construction of the Keystone XL pipeline has already put about a thousand people out of work and is expected to kill another 10,000 jobs, which represent $1.6 billion in gross wages lost to the workforce. Another executive order halted drilling on federal lands, and that is said to eliminate as many as 60,000 jobs.

The proposed hike in the capital gains tax may go as high as 43.4 percent. And the planned minimum wage hike to $15 per hour is predicted to put 1.3 million workers out of work by 2025. 

And last, but hardly least, two climate-related proposals are predicted to kill even more jobs. Ending the use of fossil fuels will take out more than a million jobs, and rejoining the catastrophic Paris Climate Accords could cost the U.S. $3 trillion and eliminate 6.5 million jobs by 2040.

Another of Biden’s executive orders, this one on his first day in office, rescinded the prohibition of critical race theory (CRT) training for federal agencies and federal contractors that Trump put in place.

Calling that “a sad reversal for Americans committed to colorblindness in public life,” the New York Post said of CRT: “Critical race theory understands the world by viewing everything — society, economics, education, family, science — through the lens of ‘whiteness’ and white racism. White people, according to CRT, drift in a kind of amniotic fluid of privilege and unearned gifts based on the brutal ideology of ‘white supremacy.’”

CRT considers long-standing American values like hard work, objectivity, deferred gratification, family and respect for the written word as intrinsically racist, and strongly suggests that these values relentlessly suppress “black achievement while boosting white mediocrity into advancement,” the Post article said.

Where will America end up if qualities that have been so important to the nation’s development and success — such as the family, learning, working hard to achieve success, and being the best you can be — somehow become viewed as racist?

We now are hearing cries to abandon the sensible concept that the most qualified, most talented people are the ones who should be selected to fill jobs, hold positions, or get access to some things — a merit-based system. Instead, the idea is to fill jobs or award things based on equity of race, ethnicity, gender/gender identity.

If the subject is the allotment of public housing or similar things, the result won’t be terrible if this new concept is put in force. However, this concept is not a prescription for the most efficient, highest performing companies, teams, organizations, or whatever, and it will weaken the United States in every area to which equity mania is applied. It is especially dangerous if applied to the military services.

Most people are far less concerned with the gender/gender identity, race or ethnicity of their doctor, lawyer, teacher, mechanic, home improvement worker, care taker, etc., than with that person’s knowledge and ability to do the job ably and professionally. That’s what really matters. If quality is assured and social quotas are also met, great. 

But equity among the different groups must not be the primary consideration when selecting the people who will do critical, important work. Quality is essential.

Why is the American Left so bent on changing everything that has served the nation so well for its entire history? Obviously, these folks do not like being part of the most successful, free, and unique nation ever. They seem compelled to change those important elements that made America great, and move it into the group of failed socialistic nations that limit freedom, and insist that everyone share equally in the misery.

Tens of thousands of people from other countries want to come here. And few if any want to leave here. Why? Because it is the bright light of the world.

And yet Congressional Democrats are working overtime to change it into something much less than it is now. Why?

Democrats determined to make government work better. For them.

This may be the first time in American history where so many long-standing elements of our government were targeted for change. Such important things as increasing the number of Supreme Court justices; imposing term limits on justices; getting rid of the Senate filibuster procedure; imposing more gun control constraints; and statehood for the District of Columbia and the territory of Puerto Rico are on the plate.

Critics of these changes cite political advantage as the motivation. Four more justices appointed by the current Democrat president and approved by a Democrat-controlled Senate certainly fits that idea. Two U.S. Senators each and some number of Representatives for DC and Puerto Rico also fit in. 

And doing away with the filibuster, so the Senate would make all decisions at 51 percent like the House of Representatives, would make appointment approvals easier for both parties, and would remove protection against the tyranny of the majority. Democrats, incidentally, made good use of the filibuster during the Trump presidency.

The bill to make D.C. a state was passed by the House Committee on Oversight and Reform last Wednesday, and will get a vote by the full House this week. 

One reason cited for this historic transformation of the nation’s capitol is to provide the taxpayers of the District of Columbia with voting representation in the Congress and full control over local affairs.

However, it is important to know just why the nation’s capitol was not a state to begin with, and that goes back to the establishment of the U.S. Constitution, which was ratified in June of 1788.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to "exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States."

Founding Father James Madison, the nation’s fourth president, was concerned that if the capital doubled as a state, it would have greater power than the other states, creating an unequal situation, and he correctly believed that the federal government should be neutral in matters of the sovereign states.

An additional and more recent opinion about the nation’s capitol remaining an independent entity that is not associated with any state comes from Robert F. Kennedy when he was Attorney General in the 1960s. “It was indispensably necessary to the independence and the very existence of the new Federal Government to have a seat of government which was not subject to the jurisdiction or control of any State,” Kennedy wrote.

And regarding the perceived systemic inequality that has denied the full voting rights, citizenship and representation in Congress for residents of Washington DC, which some cite as justification for statehood, no one forces people to live in the District instead of a nearby state, where they would have voting rights and be only a short distance from the District. 

Further, DC statehood will definitely benefit Democrats. According to bestplaces.net, which got the following voter data from federal agencies, related that in the last five presidential elections, DC voters were heavily Democrat. And in 2016, DC voters voted Democrat 90.86 percent, against the 4.09 percent who voted Republican.

Virginia’s 9th District Republican Congressman Morgan Griffith addressed this situation in a recent correspondence to constituents. “Any measure giving the District statehood would need to go through the process of amending the Constitution. H.R. 51, the statehood bill the House will consider, does not do so. Instead, it shrinks the seat of the U.S. government to an area around the Mall, the White House, the Capitol, the Supreme Court, and other federal buildings, and admits the rest of the District as a state.”

“This approach suffers from an additional flaw beyond its constitutionality,” he continues. “The 23rd Amendment grants electoral votes to the ‘seat of Government of the United States,’ not the District of Columbia specifically, meaning that the handful of residents in this area, presumably including the president and his family, would have as much weight in the Electoral College as some states.”

“Giving the residents of the District of Columbia a voice in the Federal Government is a worthy goal,” he wrote, “but it must be done constitutionally.”

Offering a fair and sensible measure to satisfy this issue, Griffith has introduced H.R. 2614, the Compact Federal District Act. The bill recognizes the right of D.C. residents to be represented in Congress, and be able to vote for a U.S. House Representative and two Senators by transferring most of the District and its residents to Maryland in a process known as retrocession, which means returning the land to Maryland that it ceded to the federal government to form the District of Columbia. 

The proposed actions listed at the beginning of this commentary share a political desire, with the possible exception of term limits for Supreme Court justices. That desire is giving a clear and great advantage to one political party: The Democrats.

Apparently, they like this method of gaining power. If you cannot achieve your goals under the existing system, change it to meet your needs.

Biden’s “Building Back Better” is really “Biden Boldly Blunders”

President Joe Biden’s early days in office do not bode well for the next three-plus years.

Changes to successful illegal immigration measures have created a true border catastrophe. This is readily demonstrated by record-breaking numbers of illegal aliens entering the country. 

Some of those seeking asylum surrender to the Border Patrol; other illegals avoid capture when Border Patrol officers are moved from the border to tend to illegal aliens that overwhelm housing facilities, allowing illegals to stream into the country unimpeded.

Why not keep the Trump administration’s “Remain in Mexico” policy for those seeking asylum? That would reduce the number of people overloading holding facilities by temporarily returning the asylum seekers to Mexico while their cases are adjudicated. 

Some of those avoiding Border Patrol are criminals, gang members, drug dealers, and some are on the terrorist watch list. And, there are significant numbers of all illegals that test positive for the coronavirus. 

And the administration is considering a conditional cash transfer program to help address economic problems that encourage Central Americans to head north. A New York Post story said the administration is “considering sending cash payments to Central Americans in order to dissuade them from making the journey to the United States,” actually paying people not to come to the United States. Like that is going to work.

Illegal immigration is Biden’s most visible and dangerous calamity. So far. 

And then there is the idea of “packing” the Supreme Court.

Biden has said in the past that he is not a fan of Court packing, and called it “a bonehead idea.” Packing would involve adding activist justices to the Court who would apply their personal political and ideological philosophies to their legal rulings.

However, despite his not being a fan, Biden has appointed a commission of mostly liberals to look into various aspects of the Court, including adding justices and placing term limits on justices.

However, in addition to Biden, many other people oppose the idea of packing the Court, including former Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who passed away last September, and current Associate Justice Steven Breyer.

During an interview on National Public Radio in 2019, liberal Justice Ginsburg made it clear that she opposed such proposals. "If anything would make the Court look partisan," she said, "it would be that — one side saying, 'When we're in power, we're going to enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to.'" She added that it "was a bad idea when President Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the court" in 1937.

In remarks prepared earlier this month for delivery at Harvard Law School, liberal Justice Stephen Breyer said, in what ABC News termed a stark public warning, that "It is wrong to think of the Court as another political institution," he continued, "And it is doubly wrong to think of its members as junior league politicians."

Prior to being elected, Biden campaigned on repealing the tax cuts made by then-President Donald Trump as one of his highest priorities, if elected.

In order to defend tax increases, Democrats play down the effects of the Trump reductions in tax rates. The Washington Examiner noted last October that “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has dismissed any benefit to the middle class as ‘crumbs,’ while presidential candidate Joe Biden has said that $1.3 trillion of these tax cuts went to the top one-tenth of 1 percent of wage earners.”

The Washington Post fact-checker gave Biden’s claim that the middle class did not see a tax cut its highest rating of four Pinocchios for being factually deficient.

The Trump economic policy changes resulted in the unemployment rate dropping to a 50-year low 3.5 percent in 2019. And, median household income rose by $4,440 or 6.8 percent, which is the largest one-year wage growth in history. 

Taxpayers in Pennsylvania and Colorado earning between $50,000 and $100,000 saw their tax liability drop by over 14 percent and 13 percent, respectively, while households with incomes over $1 million saw their tax liability drop by just 3.1 percent and 4.5 percent, respectively.

The Examiner also reported that the doubling of the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000 not only reduced taxes for families, “but the number of households claiming the credit increased from 22 million to 36 million.”

When Trump cut tax rates, it helped generate an economic upswing and benefitted millions of not-wealthy families and individuals. 

Biden, however, wants to raise more than $2 trillion over 15 years by increasing the corporate tax rate to 28 percent, the global minimum tax to 21 percent, and placing a 15 percent levy on book income for the largest corporations, and corporate inversion.

Will that money be used to pay down the enormous $28.1 trillion national debt? No, it will be used to support so-called infrastructure, most of which is not what is considered infrastructure, such as manufacturing, $300 billion; electric vehicles, $170 billion, et al. These are corporate subsidies, not infrastructure. 

Where will that additional tax money come from? Higher prices, lost jobs and other undesirable actions.

This is bad spending policy funded by bad tax policy.

Has the United States reacted appropriately to the COVID-19 virus?

As the COVID-19 pandemic drags on, the country is also besieged by pandemic fatigue. Everyone is tired of the restrictions on normal living, even as most abide by them, fearing getting or spreading the virus.

As with every crisis, there are the varying ideas of what is behind it all. Generally labeled “conspiracy theories,” these ideas affect people in three broad categories: true believers, non-believers, and those in the middle who aren’t sure what to believe. 

After all, who in America, a nation founded on principles of individual freedom, wants to believe that government at the national, state, and local levels would impose these heavy restrictions for any reason other than because they are believed to be necessary? 

Yet, many who are not conspiracy theorists do acknowledge the heaviness of these restrictions, and question their true value. 

“First, I have been shocked at the unprecedented exertion of power by the government since last March — issuing unilateral decrees, ordering the closure of businesses, churches, and schools, restricting personal movement, mandating behavior, and suspending indefinitely basic freedoms. Second, I was and remain stunned — almost frightened — at the acquiescence of the American people to such destructive, arbitrary, and wholly unscientific rules, restrictions, and mandates.”

Are those the words of QAnon, a leading voice of conspiracy theories? No. They are the words of Dr. Scott Atlas, a medical doctor and former professor at Stanford University Medical Center, a fellow at the Hoover Institution, a member of the Nominating Committee for the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology, a special advisor to former-President Donald Trump and member of the Coronavirus Task Force in 2020.

His comments at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar this past February were published in Hillsdale’s monthly speech digest Imprimis.

He readily acknowledges the bad things: “Over 500,000 American deaths have been attributed to the virus; more will follow. Even after almost a year, the pandemic still paralyzes our country. And despite all efforts, there has been an undeniable failure to stop cases from escalating and to prevent hospitalizations and deaths,” Atlas stated.

But he also recognizes the damage done by government-imposed lockdowns. Perhaps with the best of intentions, the lockdowns “have been extraordinarily harmful,” he said, to children by suspending in-person schooling, including poor learning, school dropouts, social isolation, and suicidal thoughts, most of which are far worse for lower income groups.

Further, people who are afraid to go to see doctors has resulted in up to 78 percent of cancers that were never detected due to missed screenings over a three-month period. Atlas noted that “if one extrapolates to the entire country, 750,000 to over a million new cancer cases over a nine-month period will have gone undetected.”

Add to that circumstance the missed critical surgeries, delayed presentations of pediatric illnesses, heart attack and stroke patients, and the number of injuries resulting from the lockdowns grows even greater. And he said that these problems are all well documented.

“Beyond hospital care,” he said, “the CDC reported four-fold increases in depression, three-fold increases in anxiety symptoms, and a doubling of suicidal ideation, particularly among young adults after the first few months of lockdowns, echoing American Medical Association reports of drug overdoses and suicides. Domestic and child abuse have been skyrocketing due to the isolation and loss of jobs.”

He states that hundreds of thousands of abuse cases went unreported, as abuse is commonly discovered when abused children are at school.

And a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research shows that the lockdowns will generate a three percent increase in the mortality rate and a 0.5 percent drop in life expectancy over the next 15 years. This will disproportionately affect African-Americans and women, the Bureau study showed. Those effects translate into what the study refers to as a “staggering” 890,000 additional U.S. deaths. 

To determine the best path forward, Atlas suggests that policymakers should objectively consider the impact both of the virus and the anti-virus policies to date. “This points to the importance of health policy, my own particular field, which requires a broader scope than that of epidemiologists and basic scientists. In the case of COVID, it requires taking into account the fact that lockdowns and other significant restrictions on individuals have been extraordinarily harmful — even deadly — especially for the working class and the poor,” he said.

We can see the benefit of not locking everything down by looking at how Florida has come through the virus to date. Florida remained largely open, and focused its vaccination program first on the oldest, most vulnerable population. 

A Wall Street Journal op-ed stated that “a year after the virus hit the U.S., Mr. Cuomo’s luster has faded, and Mr. DeSantis can claim vindication. The Sunshine State appears to have weathered the pandemic better than others like New York and California, which stayed locked down harder and longer.”

“Between Nov. 1 and Feb. 28, there were 5.8 new cases per 100 people in New York, 6.4 in California, and only 5 in Florida, where businesses could stay open at full capacity,” the op-ed continued.

Not giving into fear and thoughtfully addressing the pandemic has paid large dividends for Florida. We should learn from this.

Abolishing honest elections and re-imagining legislative procedures

Deceptively called the “For the People Act of 2021,” H.R. 1 and S. 1 should more accurately be named the “Act to Encourage Cheating and Vote Fraud.”

Critics of this legislative boondoggle charge that it federalizes and micromanages the election process now administered by the states. It also imposes unnecessary, foolish, and even unconstitutional mandates on the states, and puts the federal government in charge of elections, which is a reversal of the decentralization of the American election process as created by the Founders to protect our liberty and freedom. 

The Founders established a federalist system that deliberately did not cede all power to the federal government. 

Furthermore, it interferes with states and their citizens in determining qualifications for voters, ensuring the accuracy of voter registration rolls, securing the integrity of elections, participating in the political process, and determining district boundaries for electing their representatives.

States will be forced to implement perilous methods such as early voting, automatic voter registration, same-day registration, and no-fault absentee balloting. The latter is the tool of choice of vote thieves.

Early voting is convenient, but voting early can put those voters at risk of casting their ballot before late-breaking developments occur that might affect their decision.

Same-day registration prevents election officials from verifying the eligibility of registrants, and allows ineligible voters to register and vote. It also makes it difficult to predict how many voters will appear at polling places, and thus more difficult to adequately staff the polling places.

The bill would also force precincts to allow voting by persons registered to vote in other precincts, preventing adequate steps to prevent ineligible voters from casting ballots, or to prevent people from voting more than once.

The accuracy of registration lists will be degraded by automatically registering individuals from state databases, such as DMV and welfare offices. These registrants likely will include large numbers of ineligible voters, including aliens, and multiple or duplicate registrations of the same individuals.

Online voter registration allows for massive fraudulent registrants through actions of cyber criminals if registrations are not tied to existing state records, such as a driver’s license.

These election revisions are a strategy for increasing fraud and abuse and are plain stupid. We must have an honest election system that will reflect the actual choices of eligible voters. The election system already needs to be strengthened; this bill will essentially destroy its security.

Elections are too important to allow foolish mechanisms in the system for no better reason than for a bit of convenience, which is a prominent reason cited for making these changes. Voting is too important to be made too easy.

Those behind these absurd changes also cry out against “voter suppression,” which they term any sensible idea that helps to protect the integrity of the election system, such as photo IDs and signature verification for mail-in ballots. We need photo IDs for lots of normal things we do, but somehow requiring an ID to vote is suppressing voters.

In addition to a clean and honest election system, we need a sensible system for creating legislation. Every piece of legislation offered should focus on making things in America better for the American people. Not some of the people; not a political party, but things benefitting the nation at large.

Bills should be limited to one topic and be only long enough to describe that topic. Having more bills of such a limited nature is far simpler, therefore better, than having a few gargantuan bills of hundreds or thousands of pages with multiple issues addressed.

Legislative language should be as brief as possible to get the concept of the legislation across, not written so as to make the intent difficult to understand. Most bills should be no longer than about 50 pages, which still is a significant read for legislators, particularly if there are more shorter bills to study.

Passage of legislation that affects the nation should be passed by a 60 percent or 67 percent majority. A truly beneficial bill will be able to gain that level of support. If it doesn’t gain enough support, it wasn’t a good enough bill.

No cheating! A good piece of legislation that benefits the entire country, and has broad bipartisan support, should not be a mechanism that members can load with pork-barrel items or items to benefit partisan goals. 

Trying to get a pork feature passed by tagging it onto a very good piece of legislation, hoping it will slide through if people are afraid to vote the good legislation down to prevent the bad feature from getting through, is blackmail.

No riders or amendments should be allowed that are not directly related to the topic of the legislation.

And while we are improving things, we need to remember that whatever the job is, the best qualified people are who deserve that job. If they are all men or all women, or all black, or all Asian, or all Latina, or all white or any combination of those groups, those who have displayed the highest level of competence and actual ability for the job in question are who should get the job.