The United States of America faces serious problem

January 31,  2023

The United States has many problems with which to deal. Problems with the government. Problems with other countries. Problems within society. 

The federal government itself is a serious problem. Yes, we have managed to keep going with things as off the rails as they are. But if these problems continue to grow, our lives will become progressively less pleasant.

We need the federal government to be returned to its proper size and scope. Over the years and decades, the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances, so thoughtfully designed by the Founders, have been weakened, and the balance between the three branches of our government — Legislative, Executive, and Judicial — has been heavily altered. 

Actions by the Supreme Court, the Congress and the many US presidents have gradually shifted the government’s balance, and given the it much more power and a broader reach than intended.

The Executive Branch has become far more powerful than it should be, with unelected bureaucrats in administrative agencies implementing regulations with the force of law, rather than the Congress making those laws and the Judiciary ruling on their constitutionality and legality.

The National Debt continues to grow. Every year since the 1950s has seen an increase in the Debt, regardless of which political party the sitting President represented. As of December, 2022, the National Debt stood at approximately $31.42 trillion. According to Statista.com, the national Debt in 2021 worked out to $80,885 per person. It has increased since then.

Some of that growth resulted from additional funding for crisis situations, and some of it merely from the desire for additional spending without having the funds to pay for it.

As with every business and household, government spending should not exceed income. And borrowing when extra money is needed has to be paid back. Our government has not been doing this.

To raise required funds, we first need a realistic budget, based upon only the absolute necessities of the government, and then we need a sensible and fair system of taxation to raise those funds. 

Taxes should not be punishingly high and treat everyone equally. They should be high enough to fund the needed functions of a lean and efficient government.

The Libertarian Republic published an article in 2015 titled “Top 10 Government Agencies We Should Eliminate Immediately.” The article focused on the magazine’s opinion of elements of these agencies that exceed the boundaries of a limited government like that set forth in the U.S. Constitution, and which infringe on the personal liberties of Americans.

Perhaps this perspective does not match that of many or most Americans, but it paints a libertarian picture of just how much our government has expanded.

Those in denial of just how horrible a job the government is doing to stop illegal immigration on the southern border tell us the immigration system is to blame and needs to be revised. But if the government would merely follow the guidelines of that system, we would have far fewer deadly drugs, human trafficking, criminal immigrants and other things coming across the border each day.

And then we have issues involving both China and Russia. 

Some say that we are headed into a conflict with Russia over our support of Ukraine against the brutal and unprovoked Russian war. The more we support Ukraine, they say, the greater the chance that Russia will regard us as an enemy, leading to a nuclear conflict.

And, there is criticism both of the amount of money spent for Ukraine that some believe could and should be used for problems here at home, and for the idea that we really don’t know how Ukraine is using those funds. Further criticism comes from the idea that by sending Ukraine military weaponry that we are weakening our own level of military readiness.

China has made no secret of its desire to replace the U.S. as the world’s dominant economy. However, one Simon Baptist, global chief economist at the Economist Intelligence Unit, told CNBC’s “Street Signs Asia” that “I think it’s very unlikely that ... China will get to U.S. levels of GDP per capita — that’s our measure of wealth — for at least the next 50 years if ever.”

That may be true, or not, but it does not relieve the tensions between the two nations over Covid, the fentanyl crisis, and economic issues. So many things that the U.S. once produced, or could now produce, are strongholds of the Chinese economy, and could be used against us.

President Joe Biden weighed in on this topic. “I see stiff competition with China. China has an overall goal — and I don’t criticize them for the goal,” he said. “But they have an overall goal to become the leading country, the wealthiest country in the world and the most powerful country in the world.  That’s not gonna happen on my watch.” Time will tell.

There will always be problems and things not going as planned or hoped. But if we respond to all of them with the same degree of disinterest as the Biden administration has shown for the border, energy, and the other current problems, the country will pay a very heavy price.

The value of public education is under attack, and sinking

January 24, 2023

Between 2000 and 2019 the student population in America’s public schools increased by 7.6 percent. The number of teachers increased by 8.7 percent. However, the population of district administrators nearly doubled, increasing by 87.6 percent.

This is a fundamental change in the public education system, a foundational change. When the foundation changes, what sits on that foundation also changes. This is certainly happening in public education.

Among these changes is a challenge to the age-old idea that the responsibility for and the raising of children belongs to the parents. They are the ones that created the child; paid for her/his food, clothing, and living quarters for years; and began the long, slow process of helping them grow and mature.

But now, in this age of administrative growth, the idea is that those involved in the process of teaching subjects like language, science, history, math, the arts, and other things, are really the ones who should teach kids everything, including those things that for centuries had been the domain of parents. This attitude is the basis for many of the problems of public education today.

And this attitude exists in spite of the fact that the taxes of citizens — most of whom have been, now are, or someday will be parents of school children — pay for the bulk of public education.

As parents have become aware that the education bureaucracy — which includes state agencies, school boards, administrators and teachers — is slowly and secretly controlling what is being presented to their children in school, they are correctly concerned and justifiably upset.

In Virginia, where much controversy exists over public education, it was recently discovered that administrators in three counties and 17 high schools had failed to notify their students that they qualified as National Merit scholars. 

The National Merit Scholarship Program, administered by the National Merit Scholarship Corporation, “is an academic competition for recognition and scholarships that began in 1955. Approximately 1.5 million high school students enter the program each year,” according to the organization’s Website.

Those who receive this honor have applied for it, and worked hard to earn the award. They set this high goal, and they achieved it. Those who receive the Merit award stand at the top of the student learning pyramid. 

Yet, some Virginia education administrators, and likely some in other states, as well, decided not to notify these students in a timely manner. This in many cases denied the recipients the ability to include this information in their applications to the colleges where they hope to go to further their education, and cost them scholarship support. 

And what is the reason for this unacceptable decision? The education authorities did not want to hurt the feelings of those students who did not earn the award, whether or not they even tried for it.

This is one example of what the dubious goal of creating “equity” in outcomes requires. The new “rule” is that a student may have out-performed all other students in the senior class, but it is not fair to the others for him or her to be recognized for that.

There are other unacceptable activities taking place in some American schools. There is strong evidence that some schools and school systems, such as in Chicago, Illinois, and Virginia are teaching Critical Race Theory (CRT). A simplified definition of CRT is that it classifies one race as oppressors and other races as oppressed, increasing division among races rather than continuing to bring all races together.

Gender fluidity is being taught in some schools in New York state. This encourages youngsters to question their gender and perhaps attempt to change it. Other topics regarding sexual activity are also being presented which, out of regard for using appropriate language, will not be named or described here. 

The latter two topics are being presented to very young students, in elementary and middle school. These children are not old enough or mature enough to be presented these topics, or to make decisions about changing their gender. Furthermore, none of these topics are officially part of the approved curricula; they are being added under the table.

Writing in Hillsdale College’s publication, Imprimis, Hillsdale President Larry Arnn explains what he sees as the origin and purpose of these changes. “The process is dominated by ‘stakeholders’ — mostly people who have a financial or political interest in what is taught. They are mostly not teachers or scholars, but advocates. And so we adopt our textbooks, our lesson plans, and our state standardized tests with a view to future political outcomes once the kids grow up.”

Arnn blames these changes on the administrative state. Nationwide, he said, the administrative state has more than 20 million employees, most of whom are at the state level. They are in many areas of government, education among them. They make direct and indirect decisions on the economy, and those decisions affect everything, including educational direction.

The growth of administrative positions in public education was noted earlier. While teachers sometimes are active participants in these under-handed activities, the primary culprits are in administrative positions.

This has to be stopped.

More IRS agents, or smaller, less intrusive, less expensive government?

January 17, 2023

Wealthy Americans are a favorite target of the political left. They suspect they do not pay their fair share, and indeed, actually work to evade paying what they should. The many features of the tax code provide opportunities for people, especially the wealthy, to pay less than what their critics think they should pay.

Congressional Democrats last August passed the so-called "Inflation Reduction Act." Among other things, this bill would add 87,000 new Internal Revenue Service agents to search for taxpayer mistakes and evasions.

This $72 billion of taxpayer money would, according to Sen. John Kennedy, R-LA, expand the IRS to the extent that it will have "more agents, or soldiers, than the entire Israeli army." It will definitely more than double the size of the IRS, which currently has 78,661 employees. 

And Elon Musk, said to be the world’s richest man, tweeted a picture of a British Redcoat, expressing the irony of it all:  "When the country that revolted over taxes hires 87,000 new agents."

CBN News commented: “The Internal Revenue Service dropped the ball on auditing millionaires, according to a new report published by Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC). Despite calls by Democrats to ramp up scrutiny of high-net-worth individuals’ tax returns, and a legislative push for increased funding for the agency, the likelihood of a millionaire being audited in 2022 was just 1.1 percent.

“Instead, data shows that low-income earners were more than five times more likely to be targeted by the IRS in 2022,” the CBN story continued. “TRAC, a nonpartisan data gathering and distribution organization, was able to obtain the information under a court order through a Freedom of Information Act request.”

“Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Joe Biden himself claim these agents will target only the wealthy,” CBN wrote. “And congressional Democrats say the money will just be used to restore the IRS to its previous size.”

The Heritage Foundation’s John Cooper showed a chart reflecting the concerns of average Americans. "From 2010-2021, those making less than $200K accounted for the most in additional paid taxes. Those making less than $25K were audited at a higher rate than those making $200K to $500K," he commented.

The House of Representatives new Republican majority passed a bill rescinding the $72 billion for the 87,000 new IRS agents. House Resolution 23, the Family and Small Business Taxpayer Protection Act, passed the House on a 221-210 vote along party lines. “This was our very first act of the new Congress, because government should work for you, not against you,” said new House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-CA.

America’s government should be small, efficient, and not intrude into the lives of its citizens. The Libertarian Republic published an article in 2015 focused on the “Top 10 Government Agencies We Should Eliminate Immediately.” Citing the size of President George Washington’s cabinet, with only three departments, the article lists the 10 we could close, and why:

* National Security Agency - Perhaps the US governments’ most Orwellian agency, it has many times found itself embroiled in controversy, whether for spying on leaders opposed to the Vietnam war, or collecting the phone records of billions of people.

* Food and Drug Administration - The FDA is given the surreal power of regulating what Americans may eat, drink and medicate themselves with. This creates an environment where citizens are told that they are in fact not the sole deciders of what goes into their own bodies.

* Environmental Protection Agency - The EPA has gone from a small and seemingly necessary regulatory agency to a behemoth which tramples small businesses without regard for economic realities. The EPA has taken the power to arbitrate land disputes and environmental concerns from courts and private citizens, replaced with actions by bureaucrats with no accountability.

* Amtrak - Trains are the transportation choice of the past, yet government keeps investing in them. Higher subsidies are necessary to keep Amtrak running. 

* Internal Revenue Service - The IRS has a long history of abusing its power. If taxation is indeed necessary, must there really be an agency which so clearly intrudes into every aspect of our lives when tax filing season approaches?

* Federal Emergency Management Agency - Emergency relief should be left to private organizations like the American Red Cross, which has proven itself time and time again.

* Transportation Security Administration - Americans have been taught that Constitutional rights are suspended if one decides to travel through an airport. There are certainly better and more efficient ways for safety to be ensured.

* Drug Enforcement Administration - The War on Drugs has taken millions of lives and prisoners, and billions of taxpayer dollars. We as free people have a duty to bring an end to the tyranny of the DEA. 

* Federal Communications Commission - Freedom of speech is among the most important rights in our Constitution. However, the FCC places barriers upon our rights to engage in and listen to speech of our choice. 

* Federal Reserve - Not many Americans truly understand it, yet it silently steals value from Americans’ dollars every day. Since its creation, the dollar has lost 95 percent of its value. 

Agree or disagree with this libertarian view, our government is too big.

A Republican Speaker of the House was chosen, after a long process

January 10, 2023

Republican Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the Minority Leader for several years who had the support of 90 percent of the House Republicans, was elected Speaker of the House in the early minutes of last Saturday. But it was a long, tedious battle that lasted four days, as a group of 20 Republicans opposed his election in order to gain concessions. 

After the 14th vote failed late Friday night, Patrick McHenry, R-NC, moved to adjourn the House until Monday. Other Republicans, however, changed their minds during the vote, and managed to defeat the adjournment motion. That meant that the voting for Speaker must continue, and the 15th vote was then taken. Enough of the 20 Republicans that had opposed McCarthy did what was needed for him to finally win.

Then, the gavel was passed, and the new Speaker swore in the newly elected House members.

What was it about McCarthy with which those 20 Republicans so strongly disagreed? He was called a “RINO,” and said to have not stood up for Republican principles. He went along with the Democrat majority, and other similar things, they charged.

And the group was determined to oppose his election unless and until he agreed to certain concessions, which he finally did.

After the election McCarthy addressed the House. "As Speaker of the House, my ultimate responsibility is not to my party, my conference, or even our Congress. My responsibility — our responsibility — is to our country."

McCarthy revealed some of his priorities for the 118th session of Congress, promising to "address America’s long-term challenges: the debt and the Chinese Communist Party. Congress must speak with one voice on both of these issues," he said.

McCarthy said he is set on building a "nation that is safe," a "future that is built on freedom," and to construct a "government that is accountable where Americans get the answers they want, need, and deserve."

"Our system is built on checks and balances. It’s time for us to be the check and provide some balance to the President’s policies," he added. "There is nothing more important than making it possible for American families to live and enjoy the lives they deserve."

He believes it is necessary to "stop wasteful Washington spending to lower the price of groceries, gas, cars, and housing and stop the rising national debt."

"We pledge to cut the regulatory burden, lower energy costs for families, and create good-paying jobs for workers by unleashing reliable, abundant American-made energy," McCarthy said. "Our first bill will repeal funding for 87,000 new IRS agents. Because the government should be here to help you, not go after you."

In closing, McCarthy said: "Our nation is worth fighting for. Our rights are worth fighting for. Our dreams are worth fighting for. Our future is worth fighting for."

Republicans also have said they will return the operation of the House to its previous fashion that existed before former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, began her iron-fisted rule that removed much of the ability for members to participate that the House had been known and celebrated for, and replaced by Pelosi’s heavy hand.

Among the topics the Republican-led House will explore are a couple that are just common sense in a body that is supposed to work for the people it serves: Single Subject Bills, and 72 hours to read a bill.

A good example of what these measures will prevent is the $1.7 trillion omnibus spending bill, or more appropriately, the “ominous” spending bill. This bill contained several separate subjects, was 4,155 pages long, spent a ridiculous amount of taxpayer’s money, and was put to a vote before it could be adequately studied by those voting on it. As former Speaker Pelosi famously said, you have to pass it to find out what is in it. That is not what America is about.

One of these many subjects provides about $3 million for the Pollinator-Friendly Practices on Roadsides and Highway Rights-of-Way Program, for "activities to benefit pollinators on roadsides and highway rights-of-ways" like planting certain types of flora or implementing certain mowing strategies.

Another one provides that "not less than" $575 million "should be made available for family planning/reproductive health, including in areas where population growth threatens biodiversity or endangered species."

And, the “ominous” bill allocates $1.56 billion to Customs and Border Protection for "border management requirements" and $339.6 million to Immigration and Customs Enforcement for "non-detention border management requirements." But these funds are prohibited from being used to "acquire, maintain, or extend border security technology and capabilities" unless they’re for improving processing, not securing the border. 

Some other beneficial topics are a “Church” style committee that allows the House to look into the weaponization of organizations like the FBI against the American people, a Texas border plan, ending COVID mandates and funding, a budget that stops an increase in the debt ceiling and holds the Senate accountable, and a vote on term limits.

The Republicans have identified quite a few areas needing repair or attention that have been ignored, or subverted, by the Biden administration.

Now they have to appropriately address and fix them, and Democrats will hopefully understand their importance, and support them.

More changes are being offered to satisfy the “cancel culture”

January 3, 2023

Here we go again! Along with all the efforts to “cancel” things that upset someone, a few people, or lots of people — like the names of buildings, streets and schools; and statues of people, and actual people living and dead — there is a new movement. This one seeks to eliminate words and phrases used for years, decades or centuries.

In an act of “we gotta get woke,” Stanford University has published an index of "harmful language." The school plans to eliminate this language from its websites and computer code, and will offer replacement terms to be used in the future. And likely these rules will apply to those on campus and otherwise associated with the school.

Stanford calls this project the Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative, and it is described as a "multi-phase, multi-year project to address harmful language in IT at Stanford," according to the project guide.

The guide goes on to say that its goal is to eliminate "many forms of harmful language," including "racist, violent, and biased language, including disability bias, ethnic bias, ethnic slurs, gender bias, implicit bias, and sexual bias. "It also states that it wants to educate people on the impact of words.

It should be fairly obvious that the language Stanford finds “harmful” consists of words and phrases that have been around in popular usage for years or decades. But in this new hypersensitive world, they are no longer useful because of some relatively under-lying meaning that someone might find offensive.

Here’s one example. Under a section titled “Imprecise Language,” the guide advised readers to replace the term “American” with “U.S. citizen.” The reason for this is that calling people who live in the United States of America (USA) “Americans” insinuates that the USA is the most important country in the Americas.

There are four groups of countries in the Americas: North America, Central America, South America and The Caribbean. And in those four groups, there are more than 40 individual countries. However, only one of them, the United States of America, has the word “America” in its name. The USA has also been known as “America,” for a long time. Therefore, the citizens of the USA can properly be called “Americans.”

This example is plain evidence of how foolish this and many other such efforts are. Perhaps the powers that be at Stanford realized this, had it explained to them, or gave in to the outrage over this cancellation, because it has back-tracked on this word, and now claims to absolutely welcome the term “American.” 

Progress? Perhaps.

Some of the terms Stanford deems harmful and has not back-tracked on include "abort," which the school wants to replace with "cancel" or "end," due to moral concerns about abortion; "child prostitute" to be replaced with a "child who has been trafficked," so the person is not defined by just one characteristic; and "Karen" is to be replaced with "demanding or entitled White woman."

The index suggests using "accessible parking" instead of "handicap parking," "died by suicide" instead of "committed suicide" and "anonymous review" instead of "blind review." We also should use "unenlightened" as a replacement for "tone deaf," and a "person with a substance abuse disorder" as a replacement for "addict."

The institutionalized racism section says to avoid using phrases like "black hat," "black mark" and "black sheep" because of "negative connotations to the color black." It also says to avoid using "grandfathered" and use "legacy status" instead, because of "roots in the ‘grandfather clause’ adopted by Southern states to deny voting rights to Blacks."

“Immigrant” is out, and the preferred substitute is “person who has immigrated.” The Wall Street Journal noted about this cancellation that, “It’s the iron law of academic writing: Why use one word when four will do?”

“You can’t ‘master’ your subject at Stanford any longer,” the Journal added, saying “in case you hadn’t heard, the school instructs that ‘historically, masters enslaved people.’” 

Does Stanford still award “masters” degrees? Or, will they simply be renamed “post-bachelor,” “bachelor-plus,” or “pre-doctorate,” “not-yet-doctorate,” or something else?

Given that these words and phrases “trigger” the sensitivities of some folks, and that the multitude of other things that people want to cancel are things that have been around or in common use for a long time, and their meanings have been understood and accepted as useful and normal.

Why is it now suddenly necessary to get rid of them?

These days there is virtually nothing that doesn’t bother someone. So, the question that arises is, are we going to give in to this new mania and change everything when some people become uncomfortable with them? Or, are we just going to learn to deal with the discomforts, as we have been doing since humans have existed?

The things that are now considered as unacceptable are part of American society and history. They are “us.” If they are removed, we lose the valuable lessons they can teach us. If we reword things, we are giving in to what in many cases are hyper-sensitive feelings about things that we historically have simply accepted. 

We aren’t perfect, and will never be. We need to learn to live with these imperfections.

The United States military is being weakened from the top

December 20, 2022

One of the things that has earned the respect of most Americans through the decades is our military. Our armed forces have done wonderful things, like helping to save much of the world in World War II. It was able to do this because of the proper training of competent individuals.

Our military has been regarded as the best, most proficient and capable in the world. On the land and sea, and in the air, there were none better.

Recent developments now place those highly regarded forces in danger of being less ready and able to do their job of protecting America from its adversaries.

The men and women in the ranks are not the problem. They are well-trained and very competent, at least at the present time. The problem lies with much of the civilian and military leadership in the Pentagon and some officers in the services.

Non-military topics like diversity, equity and inclusion, and using the proper pronouns have crept into the thinking of some of the top brass.

The Department of Defense (DoD) has something called the Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan. The DoD explains that “diversity is a strategic imperative — critical to mission readiness and accomplishment.” 

And, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has said that it must be a priority for our military “to look like America and not only in the ranks, but our leadership should look like America.” 

“The new priority turns the Army into a social experiment at the cost of mission readiness,” said Robert M. Berg in National Review. “The new push within the DoD for diversity, equity, and inclusion goes well beyond measures to ensure equal opportunity and instead looks to create preferences that have nothing to do with merit. Our military will suffer if it does not change course.”

Imagine how the performance of sports teams would be affected if the main concerns were having the right mix of ethnicities and such, instead of having the most talented players. That is the direction our military is headed.

Also, the military released thousands of service people who refused to get a Covid vaccine, and the services are now having trouble attracting enough new recruits to meet their targets. Some of that is because those of the right age and physical condition are turned off by the misdirection of the military recently.

The largest military service, the U.S. Army, is revisiting some of the fitness standards and academic standards right now to try to meet its recruitment goals. Lowering standards does not bode well for keeping military readiness at the highest level.

The late Rush Limbaugh, in highlighting the military’s critical areas, said that its job is “to kill people and break things.” The military must have as its primary goals to be as skillful, efficient and well equipped as possible. The services must not emphasize things like race, religion, gender, or other non-merit-based traits. Instead, it must focus on combat readiness. Anything that stands in the way of that mission is dangerous and unacceptable. We must always be prepared to fight and win the nation’s wars.

And now this new twist comes to light, courtesy of the Wall Street Journal. “A little-noticed rule-making proposed by the Department of Defense, NASA and the General Services Administration would require federal contractors to disclose and reduce their CO2 emissions as well as climate financial risks. The rule would cover 5,766 contractors that have received at least $7.5 million from the feds in the prior year,” the Journal reported.

“Smaller contractors would have to publicly report their so-called Scope 1 and 2 emissions — i.e., those they generate at their facilities and from the electricity and heating they use. Firms with larger contracts would also have to tabulate their upstream and downstream Scope 3 emissions, including those from customers, suppliers and products used in the field.”

“In other words, this is a back door for the Administration to force businesses across the economy to report and reduce their CO2 emissions,” the Journal article continues. “As the U.S. military faces strained budgets and growing threats, climate will be a costly new priority in national defense.”

“But the very point of the rule, National Review said, “is to force CO2 emissions reductions across the private economy by leveraging $650 billion in annual federal contracts. By covering Scope 3 emissions, the rule would sweep in tens of thousands of non-federal contractors, including many small businesses.”

Thus, it is not only costly in terms of national defense, but it will affect the ability of these contractors to produce needed military goods as inexpensively and as quickly as possible.

The United States has already done pretty well in reducing CO2 emissions, compared to other nations. China, for example, continues to build new coal-fired electric generation facilities. And China is not focused on foolish “woke” concepts for its military, the largest in the world.

The civilian and military leaders who favor these new off-center ideas need to be replaced immediately with people who know and understand the critical purpose of our military, and who will focus on that.

How is Biden’s “Build Back Better” plan working out for the country?

December 27, 2022

President Joe Biden campaigned on the phrase “Build Back Better,” and as president has frequently used the phrase. The point he was trying to make was that things were really not so good under then-President Donald Trump, and if the country just had the good sense to elect Joe Biden and Kamala Harris to the White House, things would improve.

Nearly half-way through his term, how is he doing?

A column by Beth Whitehead on The Federalist website is titled “11 Of The Biden Administration’s Greatest Failures So Far.” Let’s take a look at a few of these failures.

** Facilitating a Deadly Border - The effects of Biden’s refusal to enforce U.S. border and immigration laws are devastating. Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security, has said before a Congressional committee that the border is not open. He also said that the problems were inherited. And, he later denied having said the border is not open.

Putting some detail on that claim, Newsweek reported in September that “Data from the U.S. Border Patrol and Office of Field Operations compiled by Newsweek show that the average number of encounters under Biden reached totals of roughly 189,000 per month, compared to an average of just under 51,000 per month during the Trump presidency.” Sounds like an open border, doesn’t it?

Our southern border is controlled by cartels, which make millions of dollars smuggling men, women, and children across the border, which can be, and has been deadly for many of them. 

They also smuggle drugs, like fentanyl, which is deadly, along with other dangerous drugs. The number of Americans and others killed by fentanyl is in the thousands, and other drugs have taken thousands more lives. 

Roughly 3 million persons will have walked or waded across the border in Biden’s first two years, and we know little if anything about most of them. Some of them are criminals. Some of them probably were ill. Some of them were likely kidnapped.

** Shipping Illegals to a Community Near You - The president secretly shipped illegal aliens across state borders and into suburban cities and neighborhoods, without taking measures to deal with them, or even notifying these cities that the illegals would be coming.

** Holding Kids Hostage to Trans Radicalism - “In May, the Biden administration attempted to strong-arm public schools into letting males who identify as transgender use girls’ bathrooms by threatening to pull federal funding for school lunches if they didn’t,” Whitehead reported. “That’s 30 million lunch-program students Biden took hostage to push his party’s trans radicalism.”

** Tapping into Emergency Petroleum Reserves - So dedicated to the idea of killing the American fossil fuel industry, Biden decided that he would kill thousands of energy jobs, cancel fossil fuel projects, and gives up our energy independence, which we gained in the Trump presidency, and make up for that loss of oil by releasing oil from the national reserve, which exists for emergency use. 

He tries to cover his tracks by blaming our shortage on Russian leader Vladimir Putin and the Ukraine war. But it doesn’t work. And Americans really enjoyed paying double for gasoline that now is only $1 or so per gallon higher than when he took office. He hasn’t told us how he plans to replenish the petroleum reserve’s oil, or if he knows he must. Perhaps he’ll buy the oil from Putin.

** Driving up Inflation - Biden’s brilliance has produced an economy that has chalked up 40-year high inflation of 7.9 percent. Trying again unsuccessfully to shift the blame to Putin, it is clearly Biden’s policies that have driven up the prices of everything Americans need and want, like gas, food, clothing, building materials and household items. 

He appointed Jerome Powell to be Federal Reserve chairman, and Powell printed money well after the “need” for it was over. That, along with the American Rescue Plan, set the stage for the current inflation cycle. So far there is nothing indicating an end to this misery.

“Under the Biden administration, consumer prices rose so much faster than wages that the average family lost $5,800 in real annual income,” reports the Heritage Foundation. “Skyrocketing interest rates account for another $1,300 in lost annual income,” for a total of $7,100.  

** Botching the Afghanistan Withdrawal - Moving American military out of Afghanistan was always something we knew we would do. But it was never intended to be the disaster that Biden created. We left too quickly, without giving the Afghan troops time to prepare, and abandoned Bagram Air Base. We left behind Americans and Afghan allies to fend for themselves. We also left billions of dollars in weapons and equipment, which are now in the hands of the Taliban.

No president is perfect, although some have done wonderful things. Biden, on the other hand, has set a new standard for imperfection. There is an ongoing debate as to whether these horrible ideas are his, or whether he is just doing as someone or some group is telling him. Regardless, the buck stops with him.

Summarizing Biden’s performance, his three Bs are actually four Ds: Dereliction, Dangerous, Disastrous, and Disgraceful.

Elon Musk’s releasing of Twitter files proves what so many thought

December 13, 2022

It is possible that there is a new person atop the left’s “Most Disliked Person” list. And that person, replacing former President Donald Trump, is the new owner of Twitter, Tesla owner Elon Musk. Or maybe Musk will merely be added to the list below Trump’s name.

Twitter and Facebook have long been criticized for censoring certain kinds of tweets and posts, including those of conservatives and those whose opinions run counter to liberal thinking. Now that Twitter is not owned and operated by someone who believes in censorship, things are changing. And evidence to support the long-held beliefs that social media sites were infringing on free speech is coming to light.

Not only is the censorship of certain topics now shown to be fact, but some, perhaps many, of the items censored were valid and important.

One conservative user, “Stanford University's Dr. Jay Bhattacharya — a longstanding opponent of a COVID groupthink during the pandemic who expressed opposition to lockdowns" was placed on the site’s secret blacklists, as reported by Fox News, which is as bad to the left was Twitter was good.

This man is no average guy expressing an uneducated opinion. Yet, in its efforts to protect a faulty narrative, Twitter blacklisted him.

Bari Weiss, founder and editor of The Free Press, posted on Twitter earlier this month that, “A new #TwitterFiles investigation reveals that teams of Twitter employees build blacklists, prevent disfavored tweets from trending, and actively limit the visibility of entire accounts or even trending topics — all in secret, without informing users.”

Her revelations are all based upon information provided by Musk from Twitter files he has released.

"Twitter denied that it does such things," Weiss noted. "In 2018, Twitter's Vijaya Gadde (then Head of Legal Policy and Trust) and Kayvon Beykpour (Head of Product) said, ‘We do not shadow ban.’ They added, ‘And we certainly don’t shadow ban based on political viewpoints or ideology.’" Former Twitter owner Jack Dorsey said as much in a Congressional hearing.

One technique used is visibility filtering, a senior Twitter employee told Weiss: “Think about visibility filtering as being a way for us to suppress what people see to different levels. It’s a very powerful tool.”

 A post on msn.com offered the following: “Liberals on Twitter panned the latest ‘Twitter Files’ revelations from Elon Musk and journalist Matt Taibbi Friday which showed the internal communications of Twitter leading up to the decision to ban former President Donald Trump from the social media platform in early 2021.

“The third ‘Twitter Files’ installment – this time dubbed, ‘THE REMOVAL OF DONALD TRUMP,’ presented documents showing that Twitter staff banned Trump not solely based on tweets he made during January 6th, but on the ‘context surrounding’ Trump and his supporters’ actions ‘over the course of the election and frankly last 4+ years.’”

And more inside information: A member of Facebook’s Oversight Board and former Prime Minister of Denmark Helle Thorning Schmidt, said, “Free speech is not an absolute human right,” at a Politico Europe event. “It has to be balanced with other human rights.” Schmidt may have said what’s what in Denmark, but that’s not the way things are in America, where free speech is guaranteed in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. And that includes unpopular speech.

What we know and are learning shows that the mindset of Twitter’s boss and employees was one of cheating, censoring speech by deplatforming, suspending users, and other techniques to achieve its liberal/progressive goals, including winning the election of 2020.

“Deplatforming is certainly an effective tool when it comes to countering terrorist and like-minded extremist groups online. But the fact that this tactic is being used against individuals and organizations that do not fit these categories is a terrifying abuse of power,” reported The Washington Times.

“Such a tactic has proven to be just as effective in manipulating mainstream electoral campaigns. One of the most egregious examples of this was when Facebook and Twitter censored the New York Post over the paper’s exposés about Hunter Biden’s emails and corruption. In other words, social media platforms baselessly characterized the Post’s investigative journalism as ‘misinformation’ and blocked it.”

The Times story goes on to say that a news report from the Media Research Center shows that some voters “would not have voted for the Biden-Harris presidential ticket if they knew at least one of the eight news stories that were suppressed by big tech and mainstream media outlets.”

Twitter was and is a platform owned by a private company. According to webopedia.com, “Social media platforms are interactive digital channels that focus on the creation and sharing of thoughts, ideas, and information through virtual networks. These platforms enable users to take part in social networking by creating content, sharing their thoughts, commenting on other user content, and reposting it.”

Twitter and Facebook can control what is on their platform. They can prohibit truly dangerous language. But to take a political side, without a public statement to that effect, and then secretly censor the other political side is dishonest, and un-American.

Elon Musk has a good start to cleaning up Twitter, and hopefully will keep it politically neutral. Maybe Facebook will clean up, too.

Taking a step to restoring common sense to the legislative process

December 6, 2022

There are problems with the Congressional process of writing legislation. This process should be simple and straight-forward: if a representative or senator has a proposal he or she believes would benefit the country, it should be written up in the appropriate manner and submitted for consideration.

Usually, this would take several pages, but not hundreds of pages, as some bills do. It also would not involve some number of items added to a bill that are not related to the stated purpose of the bill.

These days we find proposed legislation of hundreds and hundreds of pages and many additional items, some or most of which do not relate to the bill’s purpose.

Unrelated items that are included are designed to serve other purposes. They frequently are used to benefit some particular special interest group or a political purpose that the proponent seeks to help by adding items to the bill that have nothing to do with its stated purpose. 

The authors believe these little goodies will slide through because the main purpose of the bill is a good one, and anyone who doesn’t vote for it will suffer bad press and political negatives for opposing it. If each of these items were required to be in a bill of their own, this tactic would be rendered useless, and legislation that achieves approval would be much cleaner, more appropriate, and less harmful.

Sometimes a bill is so long that in the busy atmosphere of legislative work some representatives and senators simply cannot read every word and effectively study the bill in the amount of time allotted before a vote is scheduled. They then are only partially prepared to cast a knowledgeable vote.

Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat Representative from California whose tenure as Speaker of the House blessedly ends with the 117th Congress on December 31, once said something to the effect of, “we have to pass the bill to find out what is in it.”

No, that isn’t the way a democratic republic passes legislation.

Republican Representative Morgan Griffith represents Virginia’s Ninth Congressional District, which covers 19 counties completely, and parts of three others, and is the Congressman for our region of the Commonwealth.

In one of his regular emails to his constituents, titled “Return to the Basics,” Griffith cites the need for changes, and says with the control of the House of Representatives moving to the Republican Party in the 118th Congress, it is time to make needed changes to the Rules of the House.

Of his suggestions, he wrote, “Most of these amendments restore old rules or clarify existing rules. It would mean a return to the basics of parliamentary procedure.” And, he recently testified before the House Rules Committee to offer those amendments to the rules.

He suggested restoring the Holman Rule, which was created in 1876. It was a tool that could cut government spending.

“One of my proposed rules changes is to restore the Holman Rule, which existed for more than 100 years,” he wrote. “[T]he Holman Rule was created by Congressman William Holman … [who] thought spending was out of control.”

“The Holman Rule allows representatives to offer retrenchment amendments on the floor of the House of Representatives to appropriations bills,” Griffith wrote. “Retrenchment means these amendments could rearrange an agency or department of the Federal Government to cut specific programs, positions, or salaries. In 2017, I revived this rule for the 115th Congress, but in 2019 Speaker Pelosi dismantled this tool,” he wrote.

He also suggested a change to the germaneness rule, that would only allow amendments to a bill that pertained to the bill’s purpose, and suggested that a bill could only have one purpose. He also suggested that those limitations could not be waived without a two-thirds vote of the House.

“Shouldn’t a bill address one issue and be straight forward,” he asked? “My single purpose rule would make it so. This rule would still allow for complex bills like an infrastructure bill. However, two bills or concepts could not be combined into a single bill unless their purposes were the same. For example, a bill to set doctors’ reimbursement rates under Medicare could not be amended into a rewrite of Medicare. To rewrite Medicare would require a separate bill.”

“Additionally, I proposed an amendment to set time limits for bill introduction. This would focus individual members on bills that the members are most passionate about,” Griffith wrote. “It would also reduce the practice of introducing a bill on the cause celebre of the day for publicity purposes,” and “allows a remedy for bills that are ‘truly’ important by giving members the ability to ask the House for permission to introduce their ‘vital’ bill late.”

These common-sense ideas, and others included in Griffith’s email, would go a long way to restoring the legislative process to a form that is straight forward, efficient, and offers more protection from political manipulation than the current process. As he wrote, “a return to the basics of parliamentary procedure.”

Is it too much to hope that a majority of House members will agree with these good ideas, and vote to adopt them?

America’s current pandemic is bad, and shows no signs of abating

November 29, 2022

The latest “virus” in our society has been around a good while, but has gotten more active in recent months. It’s not a biological thing, it’s a cultural thing, commonly referred to as the “cancel culture.” It is born of dissatisfaction with something or someone, based upon what is believed, but absent much or most of the relevant facts about the subject at hand. 

Such things as painting or removing statues of well-known people, changing the names of buildings and other things honoring someone, or demeaning traditions are some of the work of the “cancel culture.”

As the Thanksgiving observance approached, the idea that Thanksgiving should be cancelled arose.

But what is there about Thanksgiving that it should be done away with? Thanksgiving is a time for all Americans to “cease from their daily work” and give thanks for their “many and great blessings,” as then-President Theodore Roosevelt noted in his 1908 Thanksgiving Day proclamation.

Taking a different approach to Thanksgiving, Joy Reid, the host of “The ReidOut” MSNBC, said on Wednesday night, "Tonight, we begin with Thanksgiving, the day we gather with friends and family to enjoy turkey, stuffing, mashed potatoes and pumpkin pie. We throw on the game, catch up on with lives and discuss or quite possibly argue about religion and politics. For millions of Americans, it’s been a cherished tradition, and as Americans, we value those traditions. But it is also important to unpack the myth of Thanksgiving."

Enlightening the ignorant people who only think of Thanksgiving as a wonderful day of celebration and thanks, Reid then said: "It is a holiday riddled with historical inaccuracies, built on this myth that the indigenous welcomed their colonizers with open arms and ears of corn. A simplistic fairytale interpretation of a 1621 encounter between indigenous tribes and English settlers that erases the genocide that followed. It is the truth that Republicans want banned from our textbooks because here is the secret they want so desperately to keep: We are a country founded on violence. Our birth was violent."

Fortunately, there are millions of Americans who were not afflicted with this “unpacking,” as they prepared to enjoy the day with their families.

But now that the wonderful day has ended, looking into the substance of Reid’s diatribe can be done.

“We are a country founded on violence,” she proclaimed. Well, yes. Those British citizens who over the years ventured across miles of ocean in weeks-long trips on sailing ships, and through the many decades built themselves colonies which they cherished, were forced to employ violence to escape being under the thumb of their British masters who would not peacefully free them. 

This is not a secret. The Revolutionary War of 1775 to 1783 was an escape to freedom using violence, because that was what colonists were forced to do. Are we today supposed to apologize for that violent beginning? Or, does it make more sense to acknowledge what was needed and what was done, and move forward from there?

She makes fun of the first Thanksgiving in 1621, calling what most of us were taught a “fairytale interpretation.” She said “that the indigenous welcomed their colonizers with open arms and ears of corn,” was a myth.

Obviously, Reid was not there. But there actually is a first-hand account, written by Edward Winslow, who was one of the 102 people who sailed from England on the Mayflower in 1620.  After arriving in North America, they founded Plymouth Colony in what is now Massachusetts. His letter can be found online at mayflowerhistory.com.

According to the History of Massachusetts Blog, “What is known is that the pilgrims held the first Thanksgiving feast to celebrate the successful fall harvest. Celebrating a fall harvest was an English tradition at the time and the pilgrims had much to celebrate.

“The 53 pilgrims at the first Thanksgiving were the only colonists to survive the long journey on the Mayflower and the first winter in the New World. Disease and starvation struck down half of the original 102 colonists.

“These pilgrims made it through that first winter and, with the help of the local Wampanoag tribe, they had a hearty supply of food to sustain them through the next winter.” Later, the colonists had conflicts with indigenous tribes, but not before or during the first Thanksgiving.

Reid’s tunnel-vision view of history from inside her bubble seeks to erase the established history of our country that has been with us for nearly 250 years, and replace it with a story based upon selected facts that support her position that the American people have been horrible from before day-one until today.

She then endorses the fallacious 1619 Project, which attempts to re-date the beginning of America to that year, when a ship with more than 20 enslaved Africans landed in what is now Virginia. In 1619 there was no United States of America, nor even colonies from which America evolved. And no slavery on that first Thanksgiving.

These pathetic efforts to tear down America with intellectually-challenged stories of half-truths and outright lies are dangerous.

America is not perfect. But it is so much better than these self-gratifying falsehoods suggest.

Securing elections is a goal we must achieve before 2024

November 22, 2022

"Some of you probably remember the hotly contested and controversial 2000 presidential election that was highlighted by arguments about vote fraud; voter suppression; hanging, dimpled and pregnant chads; changes in who led in vote totals throughout election night; and legal challenges that delayed the decision for over a month. 

Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court intervened, called a halt to the craziness, leaving Republican George W. Bush, with his 537-vote margin, the winner of Florida’s 25 Electoral Votes, and the victory over Democrat Al Gore.

In 2002, Congress enacted the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) to address the wide range of issues brought to its attention by state and local officials and others throughout the country. 

Two years later, it was evident that HAVA had not resolved the arguments over state laws requiring voters to provide photo identification that were generating backlash amid claims of disenfranchisement, new concerns about new voting technology that led to fears of counting errors, and worries about growing numbers of absentee and mail ballots that raised concerns about the possibility of fraud.

"In response to these concerns, former President Jimmy Carter [a Democrat] and former Secretary of State James A. Baker, III, [a Republican] agreed to co-chair a bipartisan commission, housed at Washington D.C.’s American University, to examine these and other outstanding election reform issues. The final report, titled ‘Building Confidence in U.S. Elections,’ stressed the important role of elections in the nation’s democracy,” according to the Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University. 

The report made 87 recommendations, including:
o A national system to connect state and local voter registration lists
o Voter identification based on a universally available REAL ID card
o Policies to improve voter access for all communities, as well as innovations like vote centers and voter information lookup sites
o Stronger efforts to combat fraud, especially in absentee voting
o Auditable paper backups for all voting technology

Of the recommendations, the Daily Signal commented: “They called on states to increase voter ID requirements; to be leery of mail-in voting; to halt ballot harvesting; to maintain voter lists, in part to ensure dead people are promptly removed from them; to allow election observers to monitor ballot counting; and to make sure voting machines are working properly. They also wanted the media to refrain from calling elections too early and from touting exit polls.”

“Had Congress and state governments adopted many of the panel’s recommendations, the 2020 post-election mess between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden might have been avoided,” said Carter-Baker Commission member Kay C. James, now the president of The Heritage Foundation, in the Daily Signal report. 

“So many of the problems we’re now hearing about in the aftermath of the 2020 election could have been avoided had states heeded the advice of the Commission on Federal Election Reform,” James continued. “Simple protections against fraud, like voter ID and updated voter registration lists, make perfect sense if we truly believe that every vote must count. Election officials should take another look at the commission’s recommendations and make sure they’re doing everything possible to protect the integrity of our elections,” she said.

Organizations concerned with election security have suggested many ideas for secure voting, which include:
o Voter rolls must be updated and accurate prior to every election.
o Photo IDs will be required, and assistance must be provided to those with difficulties getting IDs made.

o Voting will be in person on Election Day, except when voters will be away on Election Day, or are physically unable to vote in person. In these cases, ballots will be requested and furnished to registered voters, will be signed and verified by signature matching and returned to the designated location. 
o Election Days should be named as holidays, or voting should be accommodated by employers.
o There will be no ballot harvesting.
o Votes are to be made on paper ballots; may be counted by machines that are not online; must be verified by hand-counting done with transparency.
o Post-election audits will be conducted that can verify that outcomes are correct.

The National Election Defense Coalition makes the case for using paper ballots: “Hand Counted Paper Ballots are considered the "Gold Standard" of democratic elections. Only paper ballots provide physical proof of the voter's intent. Paper ballots can be safely recounted in case of a contested result. Counting paper ballots in public provides 100% oversight and transparency. Unlike computer voting systems paper ballots can't break down or malfunction; are not programmed secretly by unaccountable private corporations; and cannot be hacked or rigged.”

We are reminded that every registered citizen has the right to vote, and therefore it should be made convenient and easy. Yes, voting is a right. But it is also extremely important in our country. 

And because of its tremendous importance, convenience in voting must yield to procedures that provide the highest level of security we can achieve. Some inconvenience is a small price to pay for being able to trust that the election process and procedures are as secure as possible, and that every legitimate vote is properly counted.

Our states must secure their elections.

Is now really the right time to buy an electric vehicle?

November 15, 2022

One of the things the green movement strongly encourages is moving away from gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles and replacing them with electric vehicles (EVs). Since EVs don’t burn gasoline or diesel fuel, they do not emit CO2 into the air, and this is one of the major advantages of EVs. There are also other positive things about EVs.

Some of those advantages, according to drivingelectric.com, are that they are simpler and more reliable. They are quiet and relaxing, but can also be fast and exciting. And since they have smaller engines and their very large batteries can be laid out underneath the vehicle, they have more luggage space and more legroom for passengers.

But there are other factors to the story.

Libertarian author, commentator, and consumer journalist John Stossel wrote an article published by the Daily Signal earlier this month addressing electric vehicles, explaining ways in which EVs are not the wonders their proponents would like for us to believe.

There is a rush to impose EVs on the public. For example, some states have banned gas-powered cars altogether. “California Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order banning them by 2035,” Stossel wrote. “Oregon, Massachusetts, and New York copied California. Washington state’s politicians said they’d make it happen even faster, by 2030,” just several years from now.

Stossel quotes physicist Mark Mills of the Manhattan Institute, who said, “Electric cars are amazing. But they won’t change the future in any significant way (as far as) oil use or carbon dioxide emissions.”

Stossel wrote: “Inconvenient fact 1: Selling more electric cars won’t reduce oil use very much. ‘The world has 15, 18 million electric vehicles now,’ says Mills. ‘If we [somehow] get to 500 million, that would reduce world oil consumption by about 10%. That’s not nothing, but it doesn’t end the use of oil.’

“Inconvenient fact 2: Although driving an electric car puts little additional carbon into the air, producing the electricity to charge its battery adds plenty. Most of America’s electricity is produced by burning natural gas and coal. Just 12% comes from wind or solar power.” “You have to mine, somewhere on Earth, 500,000 pounds of minerals and rock to make one battery,” Mills said.

“If you’re worried about carbon dioxide,” says Mills, “the electric vehicle has emitted 10 to 20 tons of carbon dioxide (from the mining, manufacturing, and shipping) before it even gets to your driveway.”

“Volkswagen published an honest study [in which they] point out that the first 60,000 miles or so you’re driving an electric vehicle, that electric vehicle will have emitted more carbon dioxide than if you just drove a conventional vehicle,” Mills added. You would have to drive an electric car “100,000 miles” to reduce emissions by just “20 or 30%, which is not nothing, but it’s not zero.”

Stossel then adds: “If you live in New Zealand, where there’s lots of hydro and geothermal power, electric cars pollute less. But in America, your ‘zero-emission vehicle’ adds lots of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere.”

There is also the possibility of batteries catching fire. Breitbart reported that “In July, a battery fire caused an electric bus to burst into flames in Hamden, Connecticut. Luckily, no one died in the inferno, although two transit workers and two firefighters were hospitalized as a result of the blaze, and a federal investigation was triggered.”

EVs will work pretty well close to home. They can be recharged overnight in your garage. But when you take a 200 mile or longer trip, finding a convenient charging station when you need one, and charging your EV may take a few hours. This depends upon the vehicle’s battery, the charging rate of the charger, and perhaps how long you must wait in line to access a charger.

“The average price for a brand new EV is about $55,000,” according to the National Motorists Association. “That’s considerably higher than the average four-door sedan, which runs about $35,000, according to Kelly Blue Book. Tax credits and gas savings can save you money, however, it’s going to take a few years to make up a potential $20,000 difference.”

“Totaling all factors [purchase price, maintenance and fuel costs] total costs over the average use of the vehicles are $71,770 for EV’s and $58,664 for gasoline powered cars.”

And then there’s the cost of replacing the battery, which lasts from 8 to 15 years. Consumer Affairs “reached out to five mechanics and technicians from different parts of the U.S. to see how much an EV battery replacement costs for different vehicles, and the average results ranged from $4,489 all the way to a staggering $17,658.”

So, the picture of electric vehicles to help save our environment from CO2 is a fuzzy one. And when costs and other factors are figured in, an EV is not yet a viable choice for millions of vehicle owners, especially those living in California, Oregon, Massachusetts, New York, and Washington.

As technology evolves, how we produce electricity, the capacity of our electric grid, and the prices involved will improve. But that is years in the future. We have to stop pushing new ideas so hard, and wait until they are ready for large scale use.

One political party is working very hard to change America

November 8, 2022

Candidate Joe Biden claimed all through the campaign that he would unite the country and that he would be president for all of America. Uniting the country at this time in its history, when it is so heavily divided, is a tall task. But that’s what he said he would do. And given his decades in political office, he surely knew that what he was promising was a very, very, very difficult task.

So how is he doing after nearly two years into his first, and hopefully last, term? Let us take a look at some of the Unifier-in-Chief’s comments.

“Equality and democracy are under assault,” Biden charged in one speech. Trump and his supporters are a menace to our system of government, its international standing, and our very way of life, because they “promote authoritarian leaders and they fan the flames of political violence.” They “are determined to take this country backwards,” he said.

Biden charged in a prime-time address that the “extreme ideology” of Donald Trump and his supporters “threatens the very foundation of our republic.”

“MAGA Republicans are semi-fascists,” he said. Interestingly, fascism is a product of the Left, the far Left, around the world, not the Right. 

Benito Mussolini was an Italian politician and journalist who founded and led the National Fascist Party. Mussolini defined fascism as: “Everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” Centralized state power. There are private entities in fascists states, but they are subordinate to the power of the centralized state. This does not sound like Republicans.

Biden also stressed the need to “stand up against” political violence, saying, “we don’t settle our differences in America with a riot … or a hammer,” alluding to the attack on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul.

Remember the violence following the killing of George Floyd in cities across the nation, with burning government buildings, and other things? That violence was not done by Republicans, and those in positions of authority, mayors and governors, who sat back and watched it happen were also not Republicans.

He condemned Republicans who deny the results of the 2020 election, saying “American democracy is under attack” because Trump believes the election was stolen. But, so did Hillary Clinton, of the 2016 election that she lost. And Stacey Abrams of the gubernatorial election in Georgia, which she lost, and never conceded. By the way, both women are Democrats.

Biden was pandering to a mostly black audience when he said they are going to “put y’all back in chains.” And, “you ain’t black” if you weren’t going to vote for him.

“We’re at a serious moment in our nation’s history. The MAGA Republicans don’t just threaten our personal rights and economic security. They are a threat to our very democracy,” Biden said. "They refuse to accept the will of the people. They embrace — embrace — political violence. They don’t believe in democracy. This is why, in this moment, those of you who love this country, Democrats, independents, main-stream Republicans — we must be stronger, more determined and more committed to saving America, than the MAGA Republicans are to destroying America.”

This is an especially interesting comment, as it is the Democrats who want to destroy America by stacking or eliminating the Supreme Court; eliminating the Electoral College, the Constitutional method of electing the President; eliminating the Senate filibuster that protects the rights of the minority party. It is the Democrats who are working to achieve a federal takeover of presidential elections, now controlled by the states.

And, by the way, America is not a democracy. It is a republic that operates under democratic principles. No doubt that Biden would prefer a pure democracy, so that once Democrats gained control, they could change the government to guarantee their continued control.

Furthermore, Republicans are, by their opposition to the Left’s radical plans, working to protect and save our country as designed, our “democracy,” not destroy it.

Biden’s administration ignored the response to a leaked Supreme Court draft opinion that corrected an error in the decades-old Roe v. Wade decision. He initially refused to condemn the leak of the draft opinion or protesters’ illegal targeting of constitutionally conservative justices’ homes. And, House Democrats stalled a recent bill to provide police protection to justices’ families.

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot — a Democrat — tweeted after the leak: “To my friends in the LGBTQ+ community — the Supreme Court is coming for us next. This moment has to be a call to arms.” Then, there’s Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s, also a Democrat, warning in March 2020 about high-court abortion rulings: “I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.” 

In the last two years under Democrat — “progressive” — control, America has lost its energy independence, is suffering under the highest inflation in 40 years, has seen historic increases in crime and the coddling of criminals, and dangerous and deadly levels of illegal immigration at the uncontrolled southern border.

If everyone votes for Republicans in this election, our country will not be harmed, because it is the Democrats whose agenda is to fundamentally change the United States of America.

Fossil fuels do much, much more than just produce harmful CO2

November 1, 2022

While President Joe Biden and those in the green movement are working hard to rid the world of fossil fuels because of the CO2 they produce, a broader understanding of all the things fossil fuels do might help our perspective.

Oil, natural gas, and coal, are fossil fuels that we use for heat, electricity and to power vehicles. However, they are also a source of raw materials that are used in the manufacturing of many products. Among these is plastic. “Most of the plastics we use are of synthetic origin from petroleum,” according to Global Recycle. “They are simple to manufacture, and the processes are low cost.”

Yes, it is true that too much plastic in many ways causes some problems. But in other ways plastic is a very useful material. Think of all the ways plastic is used today, and all of the products that we would not have without it. 

The most common use of fossil fuels is to power vehicles and planes with gasoline, diesel fuel and jet fuel. But of the 42.6 gallons of oil in a barrel, only about 35 gallons are used for these fuels. The rest of the crude oil is used to manufacture other useful products.

Some of the other materials are petroleum jelly, asphalt, synthetic rubber, paraffin wax, fertilizers, pesticides, detergents, paints, upholstery, carpets, floor wax, insecticides, tires, nail polish, dresses, basketballs, soap, anesthetics, body lotions, deodorants, toothpaste, and even our food is preserved with a little help from fossil fuels.

During the campaign in New Castle, New Hampshire back in 2019, Biden said: “I want you to look at my eyes. I guarantee you, I guarantee you we’re going to end fossil fuels.” But that wasn’t all. He added, “No more subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. No more drilling, including offshore. No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period,” he said of his energy policies if he won the election. “It ends.”

If he succeeds, there will be a hefty price to be paid by the people he was elected to serve, replacing thousands of jobs and the long list of products that we buy and use today that we get from fossil fuels. Biden has engaged in fulfilling his promise, cancelling the Keystone XL pipeline on January 20, 2021, and other actions that followed.

The idea that fossil fuels actually have beneficial qualities may shock some people. But it is the truth. Even some, or maybe many, of those who don’t buy into the catastrophic theme surrounding the use of oil, natural gas and coal may not realize the broad range of things that fossil fuels give us.

The negatives seem to be the controlling theme. Fossil fuels are bad because they produce CO2, which is dangerous to the environment, and to our existence. Nuclear energy and hydro energy produce no CO2, which is good. But many people also oppose these two alternatives.

Wind and solar power, on the other hand, are championed by the anti-fossil fuel group as the saviors of our planet. And if we don’t replace fossil fuels with them in a fairly short time, we are doomed, they tell us.

Yet, these same people oppose the processes involved in producing windmills and solar panels, like mining and great amounts of industrialization.

The author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, Alex Epstein, has a new book out. Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas — Not Less.

In chapter 10, he wrote that “Since 1980, the percentage of humanity living on less than $2 a day has gone from 42 percent to under 10 percent today.” This is attributed to “increasing productivity, which is driven by the increasing and expanding use of fossil fueled machine labor and the enormous amounts of mental labor it frees up.”

Making life easier and less expensive for millions of people across the globe, including the poorest of us, is certainly a positive development. And continuing improvement in pollution-control technology will make it possible for even more of the poorest on Earth to use fossil fuels “to lift themselves out of poverty with less and less pollution,” Epstein wrote.

“All of this means more first light bulbs, more first refrigerators, more first rewarding jobs, more first years with a consistently full stomach, more first years drinking consistently clean water, more first years being comfortable no matter what the weather,” he wrote.

He explains how much more there is to the story of fossil fuels than the CO2 they produce. And as technology advances, cleaner burning fossil fuels result. America produces the cleanest crude oil in the world. And we should also remember that CO2 is fertilizer for trees and other plant life that then produce and release oxygen into the air. 

Billions of people rely on inexpensive fossil fuels for energy, and that number continues to grow. But the more expensive “renewable” energy sources are beyond their financial means.

So, while technology works to clean up fossil fuels, and to make the cleaner renewable sources more functional and affordable, we need to utilize all the benefits that fossil fuels provide.