Media blows it on Rittenhouse, and some Thanksgiving thoughts

Much of the news media is politically liberal and agenda-controlled. It is not accurate or balanced in its reporting.

These politically-driven persons and agencies have forsaken journalistic integrity, if they every had any, and misinform their audience.

The media coverage of the charges against Kyle Rittenhouse and the ensuing trial are an excellent example of media malfeasance.

Some of the “shoot first, don’t ask questions” modus operandi of the agenda media in the Rittenhouse matter was proudly on display before and after the trial. This gross misreporting could easily have been prevented by doing basic journalistic work, if good journalism was ever the intent.

Instead, the public was treated to incompetence, gross ignorance or deliberate lies, on several elements of the reporting.

Rittenhouse, the then-17-year-old, was reported to have been driven across the state line from his home nearby in Illinois by his mother, armed with an AR-15, as if he had no connection to Kenosha, WI. But while he lived in Illinois with his mother, relatives, including his father and grandmother, lived in Kenosha. And he had a job there. 

Other problems with that story: The gun was not in the car with him, but already in Wisconsin, at the home of a friend’s step-father. And his mother did not drive him there.

He had a gun with him because he had been asked to help protect a used car lot. Rioters were violent and some were armed. He used the rifle to defend himself against three attackers, all of whom had criminal charges in their past.

The agenda media reported that the gun was illegal. Wrong. Under Wisconsin law, he was entitled to possess the AR-15 as a 17-year-old. The trial judge dismissed the phony gun charge. The prosecution never should have charged that crime, or any of the others. They must have gotten their info from the fake news media, or reacted to public emotional outcry.

Rittenhouse’s attackers were not nice guys attending a polite protest. They were rioters with criminal records committing crimes.

Joseph Rosenbaum had a very serious criminal record, was on the Wisconsin sex offender registry for an Arizona child molestation case. He received 10 years in prison in 2002 for sexual contact with a minor, and then was sentenced to another 30 months for sexual contact with a minor related to the same 2002 incident. Charges included anal rape and oral sex with minors. He was seen swinging a chain prior to attacking Rittenhouse, who shot and killed him in self-defense.

Anthony Huber also had a criminal history. He was found guilty of a felony for strangulation and suffocation, domestic abuse. He was also convicted in that case of felony false imprisonment with a dangerous weapon, domestic abuse. He also threatened his brother with a butcher knife, according to The New York Post. Rittenhouse was able to defend himself against Huber’s attack with a skateboard. The assailant died as a result.

Gaige Grosskreutz, who survived Rittenhouse’s defense of his attack, also had a criminal history in Wisconsin. He had a prior misdemeanor conviction for intoxicated use of a firearm, according to court records. He had a concealed carry permit revoked, and was illegally carrying a concealed weapon, which he pointed at Rittenhouse before being shot in the arm.

Rittenhouse was not a white supremacist, he did not kill two Black BLM members, or murder two people because he went to Kenosha to kill people.

Perhaps these examples of gross incompetence and corruption will cause the perpetrators to learn and practice good journalism. Don’t hold your breath.

In two days, we will celebrate Thanksgiving, when Americans get together for a day of feasting and family. 

Virginia’s 9th District Congressman Morgan Griffith emails his constituents at least weekly. For the Thanksgiving holiday he sent a special email about the holiday.

“Four hundred years ago, the Pilgrims of Massachusetts held their first Thanksgiving.

“Four hundred and two years ago, the first American Thanksgiving was held.

What’s the distinction? Read on.

“Most Americans recall the story of the Pilgrims who crossed the Atlantic on the Mayflower in 1620 and arrived in what is now Massachusetts – although their original destination was Virginia. After a difficult year establishing Plymouth Colony, they held a Thanksgiving feast with the Native Americans who had been indispensable to the colony’s survival.

“Without doubt, the Thanksgiving in Plymouth was an important event in American history. It simply wasn’t the first Thanksgiving.”

His story went on to tell of a trip begun on September 16 a year earlier, when 35 settlers and their leader, Captain John Woodlief, set out for land in Virginia aboard the “Margaret.” And they landed there and established the settlement known as Berkeley Hundred. Upon landing on December 4, they disembarked, and prayed: “We ordaine that this day of our ships arrival, at the place assigned for plantacon, in the land of Virginia, shall be yearly and perpetually kept holy as a day of Thanksgiving to Almighty God.”

Thanksgiving has changed greatly since those first two observances, and we have much to be thankful for.

Best wishes to all for a great Thanksgiving with your family.

A decades-old prophecy is materializing, right before our eyes

A long time ago, decades ago — 1965, to be exact — one of the best commentators ever to grace the airwaves, Paul Harvey, delivered a commentary titled “If I Were the Devil.” It rocked his listeners then, as they saw elements of this prophetic vision around them already. Today, we see even more of it, although some things have yet to become completely or precisely fulfilled.

“If I were the devil …” he began, “If I were the Prince of Darkness, I’d want to engulf the whole world in darkness. And I’d have a third of its real estate, and four-fifths of its population, but I wouldn’t be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree — Thee.”  

“So I’d set about however necessary to take over the United States. I’d subvert the churches first — I’d begin with a campaign of whispers. With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whisper to you as I whispered to Eve: ‘Do as you please.’”

Much of this commentary does not yet exist in a word-for-word form, but the general ideas are there for all of us to see. The devil’s goals are much nearer.

Religion had to be attacked, because no more-powerful being could be allowed to exist in the devil’s new world.

“To the young, I would whisper that ‘The Bible is a myth.’ I would convince them that man created God instead of the other way around. I would confide that what’s bad is good, and what’s good is ‘square.’ And the old, I would teach to pray, after me, ‘Our Father, which art in Washington…’”

Then he took aim at the way we live, and the things we do. “And then I’d get organized. I’d educate authors in how to make lurid literature exciting, so that anything else would appear dull and uninteresting. I’d threaten TV with dirtier movies and vice versa. I’d pedal narcotics to whom I could. I’d sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction. I’d tranquilize the rest with pills.”

“If I were the devil I’d soon have families that war with themselves, churches at war with themselves, and nations at war with themselves; until each in its turn was consumed.”

Next came our major influences, such as education and the media, where the devil’s workshop exists, doing his work. “And with promises of higher ratings I’d have mesmerizing media fanning the flames. If I were the devil I would encourage schools to refine young intellects, but neglect to discipline emotions — just let those run wild, until before you knew it, you’d have to have drug sniffing dogs and metal detectors at every schoolhouse door.

And then the weakened culture would receive more attacks. “Within a decade I’d have prisons overflowing, I’d have judges promoting pornography — soon I could evict God from the courthouse, then from the schoolhouse, and then from the houses of Congress.”

“And in His own churches I would substitute psychology for religion, and deify science. I would lure priests and pastors into misusing boys and girls, and church money. If I were the devil I’d make the symbols of Easter an egg and the symbol of Christmas a bottle.”

“If I were the devil I’d take from those who have, and give to those who want until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious.”

“And what do you bet I could get whole states to promote gambling as the way to get rich? I would caution against extremes and hard work in Patriotism, in moral conduct. I would convince the young that marriage is old-fashioned, that swinging is more fun, that what you see on the TV is the way to be.” 

“And thus, I could undress you in public, and I could lure you into bed with diseases for which there is no cure. In other words, if I were the devil I’d just keep right on doing what he’s doing.”

And following all of that seeing into the future, he closed with his famous conclusion: “Paul Harvey, good day.”

Apparently, the devil heard Paul, and followed his prophetic vision. 

Today, the American spirit has been attacked and weakened. Millions somehow do not know how great — although not perfect — our country is. They don’t understand how much better it is than other places these misinformed masses wish to emulate.

When some of us find one thing someone did or said that they don’t like, they seek to cancel them, to remove every last vestige of that person, forever. A life of true excellence can be over-written by one thought or deed from years or decades before.

Factions work to destroy the nation’s true history, attempting to redefine each of us as either the oppressed, or the oppressor, depending upon the color of our skin. This fallacious point of view ignores the profound, sensible aspiration of Martin Luther King, Jr., who understood and preached that one’s skin color is far less important than one’s character.

Truth is under attack; political reality is more important. Not even our Constitution is held above being subverted.

If Paul were alive today, he might warn us, “Don’t be ‘woke,’ be awake!”

Virginia’s red wave fueled by parents fighting for their children

The Nov. 2 state elections were certainly noteworthy, with Republicans making inroads into Democrat strongholds in several states. A very tight race for governor in New Jersey was an unexpected too-close-to-call situation throughout Tuesday night’s election coverage. Incumbent Democrat Phil Murphy ultimately defeated Republican Jack Ciattarelli by a very narrow margin.

The Virginia election also stands out, since the controversy surrounding the Loudoun County school system and the actions by its school board that angered parents had gotten so much attention, along with similar situations elsewhere in the Commonwealth.

Former Democrat Governor Terry McAuliffe, the party’s candidate for a second term as governor, was defeated by a non-politician running his first race for political office. Republican Glenn Youngkin won the governor’s race, Republican candidate Winsome Sears defeated Democrat candidate Hala Ayala in the Lieutenant Governor’s race, and Republican candidate Jason Miyares defeated incumbent Democrat Mark R. Herring for Attorney General.

After post-election counting of mail-in and absentee ballots late Friday night, Republicans officially won control of the House of Delegates by a slim 51-49 margin. One more seat could go Republican when the winner is determined in a Virginia Beach district.

What in the world is going on? Both New Jersey and Virginia gleamed bright blue after the 2020 election. But Virginia turned a bright red last week, and New Jersey had a red election glow, until the next day.

The situation in Virginia is no mystery. Democrat candidates suffered losses due to unpopular positions taken by many candidates and particularly by McAuliffe, who further fired up voters by saying that parents have no role in the education of their children. This comment came after the Loudoun County school board treated parents as intruders in the school system’s operation. In another incident, a father whose daughter was sexually assaulted in a girl’s bathroom by a boy wearing a skirt challenged the school board that had hidden that fact.

Parents have also been upset by the mandate to wear masks in school. Children wearing masks for hours has been shown as harmful to them. And they object to the teaching of Critical Race Theory (CRT) in Virginia schools. Opposition to both of these issues drew harsh reactions from some school officials, and others.

McAuliffe denies that CRT is being taught, and claims that it has "never been taught in Virginia," and accused those concerned about CRT of promoting a divisive "dog-whistle." And liberal news sources CNN and MSNBC joined in the chorus of those denying that CRT is being taught.

MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace said during the network’s Election Night coverage that critical race theory "isn’t real," and criticized Republican candidate Youngkin for his positions.

Last week John King, CNN Inside Politics host, took the side of Democrat strategist Paul Begala, agreeing that Republican criticisms of CRT were just racist dog whistles for “suburbanites who don't like diversity.” 

But the lies and/or ignorance of these naysayers has been proven by other news sources, such as The Fairfax County Times, National Review, Fox News, The Federalist, and ABC 13 WSET-TV, Lynchburg, Va.

WSET reported, “As part of the program's ‘Culturally-Responsive Teaching and Learning Principles,’ public schools were encouraged to ‘embrace critical race theory,’ and ‘engage in race-conscious teaching and learning,’ according to [a] leaked presentation first reported by investigative journalist Christopher Rufo.”

The report continued, “In addition, Va. Superintendent of Public Instruction James F. Lane sent a memo to all school districts in 2019 encouraging school leaders to read a book that calls critical race theory ‘an important analytic tool’ for addressing ‘power and privilege.’”

What is Critical Race Theory? According to Britannica online, “Critical race theory is an intellectual movement and a framework of legal analysis according to which (1) race is a culturally invented category used to oppress people of colour and (2) the law and legal institutions in the United States are inherently racist insofar as they function to create and maintain social, political, and economic inequalities between white and nonwhite people.”

CRT represents a vastly different look at America’s past. And, more importantly, it is a perspective that is being sneaked into classrooms without having been publicly offered and properly approved as a modification of the traditional curriculum that has been taught for more than a century.

Why would school officials want to underhandedly implement such a drastic change to the history curriculum? And why would news agencies and “journalists” support this clandestine action by openly attacking those who oppose it?

The obvious answer is that they fear that the public would not accept CRT if it was handled honestly and openly.

CRT has its roots in “Critical Theory,” a doctrine of Karl Marx. Many or most people may not know that connection. What they do know is that they don’t like CRT, and other things that are being done to their children against their wishes. These parents are fighting for their children. 

Last week, enough people in Virginia expressed a different opinion at the polls than those in liberal northern Virginia and the other population centers that put the Democrats in power. This is also happening in other parts of the country, and it’s a good thing.

Biden’s ‘Build Back Better’ tax and spend dream is being whittled down

In the span of just eight months since January 20, President Joe Biden has given us the border crisis, the Afghanistan debacle, the issues with China and Russia and North Korea, a broken supply chain, ridiculously high gas prices, and staggering inflation throughout the economy. 

That works out to nearly one catastrophe for each month. Some are wondering if America will be able to survive another three-plus years of Biden rule.

If many of the desired elements in Biden’s “Build Back Better” agenda are approved, the answer to that is: America will be moving even farther from the country our Founders designed.

Some of the things in that agenda are not legitimate roles for the government of a democratic republic that was founded on the principal of individual, God-given freedoms. They are wrong for a nation which was created by its individual states, and that gave themselves a degree of independence from the federal government. They are wrong for a nation with a government of limited authority.

Our system of government purposefully gave us the ability to follow our desires for how to make a good life for ourselves, and not be dependent upon the government to take care of us from cradle to grave.

If you want to ply a particular trade, participate in a particular profession, start a business, or work in some other way to build your life so that you support yourself and perhaps a family, or just live independently, go for it. You may succeed, or you may not. If not, you are free to try something else.

Eventually you may make a decent living, a pretty good living, or become wealthy. What you choose to do is up to you. It is not the government’s place to tell you what you can or cannot do, beyond some common-sense laws, or to take care of you if you decide you don’t want to try anymore. And in the case of some who have bad luck and are unable to support themselves, the most generous people in the world — the American people — will most likely help you when you need it.

Yes, it is true that through the decades our government has grown well beyond its desired size, costs far too much, goes well beyond its designed restrictions, and interferes in our lives more than it was designed to do. That is not good. But it can be corrected.

Instead, the left in America is working overtime, not at trying to make their individual lives better, but to make our government even larger, more expensive and more controlling.

Some of the things President Biden and the Democrats, who still hold tenuous control of the government, want to do are simply improper. Such things as paying for child care, “free” community college, $450 billion for government-run preschools, are not the proper role of our government.

Some other things, such as amnesty for more than 8 million illegals, complete with payments of $450,000 for some; doubling the size of the IRS to monitor bank accounts of citizens; and spending $3.5 billion for a “Civilian Climate Corps” of Climate Change activists, are not good for the country, or our freedoms.

As Congress struggles to get support to pass Biden’s “Build Back Better” agenda, the monstrous $3.5 trillion, 2,465-page tax and spend leftist dream is being whittled down. Even though it now spends less money and uses less paper, it is still way too expensive and much too heavy. And Biden’s tax and spend agenda is still a disaster.

One really goofy idea for funding some of the multi-trillion-dollar spending plan is a tax on the “unrealized capital gains” of anyone who makes more than $100 million a year, or whose worth is at least $1 billion. This idea is likely unconstitutional. But if not, it most certainly is an oxymoron. 

A capital gain is the profit you make when you sell an investment asset for more than you paid for it. If you buy an asset for $1,000 and sell it for $5,000, you would pay tax on the additional $4,000. But this weird tax idea would be applied to the increased value of the asset before it has been sold.

If the asset later lost some or all of its gain, would the government return the taxed amount? Nope. This concept beautifully illustrates the twisted understanding many liberals/socialists have for economics.  

The left is determined to transform our nation of maximum individual freedom and world-leading prosperity into a government-run nation like Cuba and Venezuela, and all the others that have failed.

And some of our citizens, who have never seen worse times than these pretty good times of the 21st century, do not understand how things have improved through time in America, and how good of a country they have been blessed to live in. They don’t understand that America’s poor are so much better off than those that live in the poorest nations. 

They are eager to see the left succeed, believing that socialism — and ultimately communism — will make things better for us. It won’t. Let’s hope this effort fails.

U.S. military below acceptable standards, according to analysis

Among the numerous troublesome topics bedeviling our lives today is this: “The U.S. military is only ‘marginally’ prepared to defend America’s interests at a time when adversaries are ramping up military capabilities.” This dose of reality comes from the 2022 Index of U.S. Military Strength, an annual 600-page look at our armed forces, started in 2015 by The Heritage Foundation. This edition was released earlier this month.

Of late, the concern for national security has transitioned toward cultural, social and political issues. And “military unreadiness” is the direction our armed forces leadership has moved over the last decade or so.

The military has a very narrow, critical mission. Its overriding concern is national security, and when it comes down to it, effectively fighting and winning against armed enemies. The vision held by any and all nations that might dream of defeating the United States must be that such actions will be met with overwhelming force by what is known worldwide as the most powerful and adept military on Earth. 

That is the goal that must never be sacrificed for political correctness, or social justice distractions.

Throughout history presidents have removed military commanders they viewed as inadequate or insubordinate, based upon the philosophy of the individual president. But that action must never result in weakening our national security.

President Barack Obama, tenure 2009 to 2017, declared at a political rally prior to his election that “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” Among other things, Obama worked to transform the U.S. military, including imposing significant budget cuts.

An editorial in Investor’s Business Daily in October of 2013 noted that since his inauguration, Obama had purged at least 197 military officers. And that included nine senior commanding generals in 2013.

A senior retired general told The Blaze — on the condition of anonymity, because he provided services to the government and feared retribution — that "they're using the opportunity of the shrinkage of the military to get rid of people that don't agree with them or do not toe the party line.” 

“For President Obama, the military of a once-feared superpower is an anachronistic vestige of an America whose exceptionalism and world leadership require repeated apologies,” the editorial stated. “It must be gutted and fundamentally transformed into a force wearing gender-neutral headgear only useful for holding the presidential umbrella when it rains. It is to be ‘his’ military and used only for ‘his’ purposes.”

As a result, the highest levels of military leadership became dysfunctional.

“The Index of U.S. Military Strength assesses the ease or difficulty of operating in key regions based on existing alliances, regional political stability, the presence of U.S. military forces, and the condition of key infrastructure,” states the executive summary of the Index. “Threats are assessed based on the behavior and physical capabilities of actors that pose challenges to vital U.S. national interests. The condition of America’s military power is measured in terms of its capability or modernity, capacity for operations, and readiness to handle assigned missions.”

The Index’s aggregate rating for all military branches is “marginal.” The individual rankings are as follows: 

Army: Marginal. A force only about 62 percent the size it should be earns the service a “weak” rating for capacity. However, 58 percent (18) of its 31 regular brigade combat teams are at the highest state of readiness, thus earning the Army a score of “very strong” on readiness and conveying the sense that the service knows what it needs to do to prepare for the next major conflict.

Navy: Marginal. The Navy is rated “marginal” on a downward slope to “weak” in readiness. It desperately needs a larger fleet of 400 ships, but current and forecasted levels of funding will prevent this from occurring for the foreseeable future.

Marine Corps: Strong. The score rose from “marginal” for two reasons: 1) The 2021 Index changed the threshold for capacity, lowering it from 36 infantry battalions to 30 in acknowledgment of the Corps’ argument that it is a one-war force that also stands ready for a broad range of smaller crisis-response tasks, and 2) because of the Corps’ extraordinary efforts to modernize and enhance its readiness during the assessed year.

Air Force: Weak, down from “marginal.” Though the Air Force possesses 86 percent of the recommended combat aircraft, public reporting of the mission readiness and physical location of these planes indicates difficulty to respond rapidly to a crisis. Its ability to recruit and retain pilots adds to its challenges.

Dismissal of senior officers that didn’t fit the president’s desires — admirals and generals, primarily — and budget cuts have reduced military readiness.

Retired Marine Lt. Col.Dakota Wood, senior research fellow with Heritage, said “This is not an indictment in any way of the men and women who serve in the military.”

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, national security adviser to former Vice President Mike Pence, touted former President Donald Trump’s foreign policy accomplishments, including the rebuilding of the U.S. military after nearly a decade of decline under the Obama administration.

This is yet one more area of governing that President Joe Biden would be well advised to continue. But that doesn’t fit into the Democrat’s play book.

Once upon a time, U.S. border security was an important concern!

The disgraceful chaos at the southern border is a topic of great concern to sensible Americans. It is a given that nations need secure and impenetrable borders, and levelheaded people understand that. And sometimes border policies and practices need reworking, such as after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

“Unbelievable as it may seem to us today, it was only 15 years ago — with the 9/11 terrorist attacks still fresh in our minds — when Congress came together in a bipartisan effort to pass the Secure Fence Act of 2006.” That comment came from Mark Morgan, in a speech delivered this past July at Hillsdale College. 

Morgan served as acting commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the Trump administration, and as chief of U.S. Border Patrol in the Obama administration, and provided details on this action. “The Secure Fence Act directed the Department of Homeland Security to take appropriate actions to achieve ‘operational control’ over U.S. land and maritime borders to ‘prevent unlawful entry.’” The measure had the support of 80 of the 100 U.S. Senators.

“It defined operational control as the prevention of all unlawful entries into the U.S., including terrorists, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband,” he continued. “And it specifically set the goal of providing ‘at least two layers of reinforced fencing, installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors.’ It added thousands of Border Patrol personnel, mandated the acquisition of new technologies, and resulted in the construction of more than 650 miles of physical barrier along the southern border of the U.S. between 2006 and 2011.”

With those actions, the southern border became even more secure than it had been, sparked by concerns of additional terrorist efforts to kill Americans. And Morgan noted that there was substantial support for this action in the Congress before and after those actions were taken. 

In 2005, then-Senator Barack Obama said: “We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants in this country.” 

And Senator Chuck Schumer said in 2009: “Illegal immigration is wrong, plain and simple … People who enter the United States without permission are illegal aliens and illegal aliens should not be treated the same as people who enter the U.S. legally.”

And then there was this comment: “Let me tell you something, folks, people are driving across that border with tons, tons — hear me, tons — of everything from byproducts from methamphetamine to cocaine to heroin, and it’s all coming up through corrupt Mexico.” That comment was voiced by then-Senator, and current President, Joe Biden, in 2006.

But since that time, something has happened. Congressional Democrats seemingly no longer care about security at the southern border. “Some attribute the breakdown of the bipartisan consensus on securing the border to the fact that Democrats came to look on illegal immigrants as much-needed Democrat voters,” Morgan said. “For whatever reason, a decade later these same Democratic leaders were lambasting President Trump’s border wall policy as ‘immoral and ineffective,’ even ‘racist,’ and fiercely opposing any and every serious proposal aimed at enforcing immigration law.”

“One of the most ridiculous criticisms I’ve heard.” Morgan noted, “is that the wall is ‘a fourteenth century solution for a twenty-first century problem.’ The same could be said of the wheel, which also still works pretty well.” 

In the minds of at least some of today’s Congressional Democrats, the tighter and more successful border security methods of the recent past are immoral and ineffective, and trying to prevent drug dealers, child traffickers, and terrorists from entering the country is racist. Brilliant!

One of the most effective and sensible programs dealing with illegal aliens crossing the border was called the Remain in Mexico Program. It required people illegally entering or being smuggled into the country with a minor to be returned to Mexico as opposed to being released into the U.S. with only a date for a hearing that most ignore.

Joe Biden, almost as soon as he drew a breath after being sworn in, canceled the Remain in Mexico Program, replacing it with the senseless “catch and release” method that existed prior to the Trump administration’s successful alternative.

Now, however, according to Morgan, “In response to a lawsuit brought by the Texas Attorney General, a federal judge has recently ruled that the Remain in Mexico Program must be reinstated, and the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to overturn that ruling.”

This may be the best thing to occur in the Biden administration’s brief but catastrophic tenure, and Biden had nothing to do with it, other than to have cancelled it early on, and opposed its reinstatement.

It is projected that 1.7 million illegal aliens will enter the U.S. in 2021. Border Patrol documents show that more than160,000 illegal aliens have been released into the U.S. since March, often with little to no supervision.

These illegal aliens have not been vaccinated, and they have not been vetted. What could possibly go wrong? 

Need we even ask that question?

Wildly exaggerating things is a cheap, repulsive political tactic

Lately, we have seen two occasions where certain parties have exaggerated descriptions of some events to make them seem more serious than they actually were. Two immediately come to mind: The January 6th “insurrection” at the U.S. Capitol; and the “domestic terrorism” at some local school board meetings.

Let’s take a look at these terms and allegations.

Insurrection: What it is: a violent armed uprising by a group or movement acting for the specific purpose of overthrowing the constituted government and seizing its powers.

What it isn’t: Insurrection is not a lot of people, nearly all of whom were unarmed, who illegally entered a government building, even if they were intent upon interrupting the work of those who occupy that building. The January 6th event at the U.S. Capitol Building was illegal and wrong — perhaps even an actual riot — but it was not an insurrection.

This common-sense evaluation was confirmed by the FBI, which Reuters reported “has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.”

When parents attend their children’s school board meeting and issue complaints against activities, and criticism of the school or the school system, even if they are angry and accusatory, they are not “domestic terrorists.” And if there were threats made against those associated with the school system, they may be minor crimes, but not “domestic terrorism.” This allegation and misuse of the term is irrational and disgraceful.

As reported by The Daily Signal, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland ordered the FBI and federal prosecutors to meet with federal, state, and local leaders to look into a “disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence” allegedly being made against “school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff.” 

Garland’s directive followed soon after the National School Boards Association (NSBA) requested President Joe Biden to assist in looking into behavior it absurdly classified as “domestic terrorism.”

And even if there is unlawful behavior at local school board meetings, it is the responsibility and clearly the purview of local law enforcement to deal with it. The federal government has no business or authority to involve itself in local and state affairs such as the goings-on at local meetings.

However, the actions favored by the NSBA, if granted, are likely to inhibit the ability of voters and parents to make their opinions known to the board. Even the foolish mischaracterization of these events is enough to inhibit some from exercising their constitutional rights and responsibilities in speaking out against what their children’s schools are doing.

This is yet one more episode where the federal government is improperly imposing its will over the guaranteed freedoms of the people.

This increasing misapplication of terrifying terms to make things seem far worse than they are is not the proper way to do things in America. It is a cheap political ploy designed to arouse false negative feelings, and to stifle opposition to unpopular policies. This is especially true when these preposterous over-reaches are done by public servants and/or elected representatives.

Most local school boards are elected by voters, and are therefore accountable to those voters and the parents of school children. They do not have the luxury of ignoring complaints and appeals for change. 

They also do not have the luxury of stifling the free speech of those voters and parents simply because they disagree with their complaints. They are elected servants of the people, not the rulers of the people.

This school board hoopla has spurred the idea of finding alternatives to government schools. This authoritarian behavior is the biggest boost to that idea that has come along lately.

An unresponsive school board runs the risk of parents saying they are finished with the arrogant attitude of the board, and will remove their child or children from the public school to one of the alternatives: charter schools, so long as they retain their independence; private or religious schools; or home schooling.

To what are these parents objecting? In what is likely the most reported of these conflicts, Loudoun County, Virginia, the Democrat-controlled board of supervisors and school board are trying to promote Critical Race Theory (CRT), and silence the opposition, as reported by Real Clear Politics (RCP).

“Supporters of [CRT] claim white racism is embedded in American institutions, and some go so far as to blame whites for poverty and crime in black communities,” RCP wrote. “Opponents claim [CRT] is inherently racist, teaching people to judge by skin color: all whites are oppressors, all blacks are victims.”

Much of the thousands of tax dollars related to CRT has gone to “the ‘Equity Collaborative,’ a group that seeks to expose and eliminate ‘the dominant (male, White, heterosexual) ideology’ and teaches tenets like ‘Whiteness as property’ and “Permanence of racism,’” RCP wrote.

Such a radical change in the history curriculum, without even notifying parents, let alone asking their opinion, does not sit well with true Americans, who expect — and deserve — transparency from their elected public servants.

We must not allow public education to become indoctrination.

The transformation of the United States of America is ongoing

Today, we are living in crazy and dangerous times. Tens of thousands of people from many countries travel many miles to get to Mexico so that they can enter the United States illegally.

There are different reasons why they want to be here, just as there are different types of people coming here. Some come with criminal intent, such as gang members and drug dealers. Some come because they know they can get a lot of stuff for free.

The most desirable ones, however, realize that America is so much better than where they came from. They can have a good life here. We have freedom, jobs and opportunities, due to the crystal-clear vision of the Founders.

The number of illegal entrants coming into the country is likely above any previous level, with more than 1.4 million people coming in illegally the first nine months of 2021, according to U.S. Border Patrol and the Office of Field Operations Encounters.

This high number is due to the failure of the Biden administration to do its job of providing border security, whether that is through ignorance of why borders are important, or is a deliberate effort to attract illegal aliens to our country.

Of course, the Biden administration insists that the borders are not open. Perhaps one of them can tell us how open borders, as they imagine them, would actually look, and be worse than what we see with our own eyes.

Even as those migrants from socialist, communist and otherwise poor countries come here to enjoy living in what is regarded by many as the best country on Earth, people in the government of this country continue to increase the control of the government over its people, gradually moving it toward the kind of places these illegal migrants could not wait to get away from.

The Democrats in Congress and the administration are busy transforming America into a government-controlled “paradise” where many things are free, except, of course, the individuals under the thumb of a government that seeks to control important things like healthcare, jobs and many current freedoms.

U.S. Senator Joe Manchin, D-WV, is a strong opponent of the Democrat’s multi-trillion-dollar efforts to increase dependence on government, calling these proposals that total some 5.5 trillion dollars "fiscal insanity" paid for with "vindictive" tax hikes, that will basically change “our whole society to an entitlement mentality." 

In a shocking display of abysmal ignorance about economics, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki responded to a question about raising taxes on businesses by saying, “In the past, companies have passed on these costs to consumers… We feel that that’s absurd and unfair, and the American people won’t stand for that,” she said.

She apparently perceives economic matters like most “progressives,” which does not include understanding economics, specifically that every cent a business spends — for materials, wages, advertising, loans for new equipment or expansion, taxes, etc. — is paid for with income from consumers that buy its product or service. And when taxes and other costs go up, prices have to go up to pay for them.

Perhaps this is why they see no problem with humongous spending bills that will add trillions more to the already-gigantic national debt of $28.8 trillion.

A New York Post opinion column by Betsy McCaughey had this to say about the spending bill: “The colossal bill Democrats in Washington, DC, are assembling this week is a slap in the face to Americans who work, pay taxes and support their families. It demeans the work ethic and glorifies government handouts, sending the message that work and self-sufficiency are for suckers: better to climb on Uncle Sam’s gravy train, which will now provide cradle-to-grave benefits.”

McCaughey mentions “Biden bucks,” which are monthly payments to almost all parents, based on how many children they have. Unsurprisingly, it doesn’t even matter whether the parents work or not. She notes that Democrats also promise “virtually free child care until the children turn 5, free community college and, for seniors, new Medicare and elder-care benefits,” and “12 weeks a year paid leave for anyone who claims a family member — even a distant relative like a spouse’s grandmother — needs care.”

“This bill pours money down a rathole,” McCaughey wrote. “It allocates a whopping $45 billion to make community college free. Students won’t have to spend a single dollar on tuition or fees — or pursue studies that prepare them for work. Only about one in five students now finishes community college within two years. A big reason is lack of academic skills when they enter. Nothing in this program will change that.”

Manchin urges “needs testing” to see who really needs these freebies and financial bonuses. That’s moving in the right direction, but the real question that needs an answer is, “are these measures, which will dramatically increase the peoples’ dependence on government, really a proper role for our government?”

The answer to that is a definite “No!” Our government is supposed to be as small, inexpensive and unobtrusive as possible. That’s how it started; that’s what built the country to which so many want to come;  and that’s how the country works best.

Biden and the Democrats want to increase the size and cost of government

President Joe Biden’s rushed and ill-conceived exit from Afghanistan was a true disaster, with 13 American military personnel and other innocent lives lost, and many Americans and allies still trying to get out of there, without any American assets left in the country to help make that happen.

This colossal mess has damaged our relations with some allies, caused others to question our strength and direction, and has strengthened our adversaries.

Our southern border, which the Biden administration insists is “closed,” still allows and encourages thousands of illegal aliens to enter the country every day. These people — whose identity and character are unknown, and few if any of whom have been vaccinated against the Covid virus — are mostly left in the country, while some are deported.

In the chaos at the border our Border Patrol (BP) officers are now under fire for doing their job: trying to prevent people from illegally entering the country. 

People who see what they want to see, or who never fact-check their perceptions, falsely accused the mounted BP officers of carrying whips and beating the illegal migrants, when in fact the only migrants who received any sort of physical action were those who refused to obey the officers, or were trying to interfere with them by grabbing the reins of their horses as the officers tried to keep them out of the country.

Why aren’t these critics more concerned with the safety of our BP officers than that of the trespassers?

After launching an attack on Border Patrol officers, now Biden has launched an attack on wealthy Americans and large corporations, saying, "I'm sick and tired of the super-wealthy and giant corporations not paying their fair share in taxes. It's time for it to change."

First, let’s look at who pays what in taxes. The bottom 50% who make less than $43,600 per year pay only 3% of total income taxes; those making $43,600 to $87,000 pay 10%; those making $87,000 to $152,000 pay 16%; those making $152,000 to $218,000 pay 11%; those making $218,000 to $540,000 (the top 2% to 5%) pay 20%; and the hated top 1% making more than $540,000 pay 40% of total income taxes, according to data from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

If 1% of taxpayers pay 40% of income taxes and the top 5% pay 60%, while those in the lowest tax bracket pay only 3%, what would the fair share of total taxes paid be?

Just like there is some fraud in elections, there is some fraud among tax payers. But you likely would find that most wealthy people and large corporations follow the tax code pretty strictly.

If corporations are not paying enough in taxes, or maybe nothing in taxes, don’t suggest they are “un-American,” change the tax code.

Biden wants to change the reporting requirements for financial institutions, and for the IRS to be able to view transactions of all bank accounts with $600 or more in them. This is aimed at anyone who doesn’t report their income accurately, the tax dodgers. But it puts most people under the IRS microscope.

Biden’s “American Families Plan calls for banks and other financial institutions to report more than just a taxpayer’s interest earned, capital gains and losses,” Forbes magazine reported. “Banks and other financial institutions would also be required to report ‘aggregate account outflows and inflows.’

“In other words, the IRS will know about all of your bank accounts, whether you earned income on that account or not, how much is in the account in a given year, and how much was transferred in and out of the account,” the Forbes report continued. “It is unclear how this would work, but what is clear is that this new reporting obligation will create a massive compliance effort on the part of financial institutions, and eliminate a massive blind spot that the IRS is currently enduring.” Some good things, but also some bad things.

This new big government plan prompted Sen. Chuck Grassley, R–IA, to say, "Instead of promising a chicken in every pot, Biden's plan promises an auditor at every kitchen table."

And to make sure all bank accounts properly report everyone’s financial activities, the IRS will hire 87,000 new employees, and everyone can expect more scrutiny of the flow of money to and from their accounts.

Assuming that these employees make minimum wage, each one will receive gross pay of $15,080 for a year of 40-hour weeks. Figured for all 87,000 new IRS workers, that comes to an additional $1,311,960,000 per year. Most likely, they will make a bit more than the minimum wage, and probably at least double that figure. And that is only the wage cost of the new employees, not including office space and the needed equipment, etc.

Supposedly, this process will find additional income to be reported and taxed. But what it also does is increase the size and cost of government, and increase the weight of government on the shoulders of those who pay the salaries of Joe Biden, and everyone else who is employed by the federal government.

None of this represents the government that our Founders designed.

China’s aggression against America is currently our greatest threat

In July of this year, Dan Blumenthal wrote in National Review that “The Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) long-term strategic objective is to displace the United States as the world’s most powerful country and create a new world order favorable to China’s authoritarian brand of politics, or its ‘socialist market economy,’”  

Today the Chinese economy is one of the strongest in the world, and its military is one of the largest and best equipped. China has stolen our technology, and uses it to get a leg up economically and militarily. Virtually every aspect of our lives has been infiltrated by CCP operatives, including in academia, the news media and politics.

We know that Communist China has tried to recruit American politicians, overtly or covertly. Congressional Democrats like California’s Senator Diane Feinstein and Representative Eric Swalwell are two who have been targeted. Swalwell’s Chinese friend Fang Fang had suspicious ties to the Chinese government, and Feinstein had a potential Chinese intelligence official working in her San Francisco office. 

Who knows how many others there might be? And who knows how much sensitive information they accessed, or how much influence they may have had on elected officials?

In academia, Chinese infiltrators can be found on college campuses involved in academic affairs and also creating dissent among impressionable young minds. Yet, the Chinese have successfully gained access to government research work at some of our colleges and universities.

None of that means, by the way, that all Chinese in the country are working against us.

Furthermore, CNBC reported that China has purchased 10 large American businesses. Among them are Smithfield Foods, AMC, GE Appliances, the Waldorf Astoria, Strategic Hotels and Resorts, and Motorola Mobility, and attempted to buy Forbes magazine.

Interestingly, Forbes magazine reported that “Since 2016, a company owned by Xinjiang-based real estate tycoon Sun Guangxin had spent an estimated $110 million buying up land in Texas’ Val Verde County,” which is on the Mexican border. Sun planned to use 15,000 acres for a proposed 46-turbine wind power project, called Blue Hills Wind Development.

The Forbes story said that critics of the project “alleged that a wind farm controlled by a Chinese company would seek to tamper with, or even shut down, the embattled Texas energy grid; some speculated the turbines would be used to gather military intelligence on the activities of nearby Laughlin Air Force Base.” 

Forbes also reported that in response to this the Texas legislature passed a bill aimed at preventing “business entities associated with ‘hostile nations’ from accessing the Texas electricity grid and other pieces of ‘critical infrastructure,’ including computer networks and waste treatment systems.”

A Chinese conglomerate has bought up more than 146,000 acres of farmland across the United States, worth about a half-billion dollars, according to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. And now there is news that Rawlings will move a company it owns that produces products for Major League Baseball from Minnesota to China.

FBI Director Christopher Wray addressed the Hudson Institute last year. In his opening remarks, he said: “The greatest long-term threat to our nation’s information and intellectual property, and to our economic vitality, is the counterintelligence and economic espionage threat from China. It’s a threat to our economic security — and by extension, to our national security.”

“It’s the people of the United States who are the victims of what amounts to Chinese theft on a scale so massive that it represents one of the largest transfers of wealth in human history,” he said. “In 2017, the Chinese military conspired to hack Equifax and made off with the sensitive personal information of 150 million Americans” — nearly half of our population — and he noted that this wasn’t a standalone incident.

He also said that the FBI “is opening a new China-related counterintelligence case about every 10 hours,” and that “at this very moment, China is working to compromise American health care organizations, pharmaceutical companies, and academic institutions conducting essential COVID-19 research.”

“When considering the threat Communist China poses to our nation all one has to do is look on the streets of America in recent years,” wrote D.W. Wilbur on Townhall.com. “Much of the civil strife and unrest that we have been [experiencing] and continue to experience has the fingerprints of Communist China all over it.”

And then, “ANTIFA, BLM, and any other leftist organizations are most certainly quietly influenced — if not outright infiltrated and getting their marching orders from Communist China.”

The Biden administration — with the porous southern border; its colossal early blunders in Afghanistan, and the recent drone strike on a supposed enemy that turned out to kill civilians; and the foolish behavior that alienates allies like France and strengthens our challengers — is weakening the U.S. and our military.

And then there is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, who visited Great Britain. After listing some of the problems China is causing globally, but not America’s China aggression problems, she said what is the most critical thing involving China. “But we have to work together on Climate. Climate is an over-riding issue.” 

Are climate worries more important than national security? Congressional Democrats and the Biden administration seemingly don’t notice those.  

Two examples of how higher education is failing the country

Today, higher education has serious problems. Between political correctness, wokeness, equity and diversity issues, there are now many problems in classrooms and administrative offices.

Professors, who are the source of many of the classroom problems, are sometimes on the receiving end of political correctness and wokeness mania. 

One such example involves veteran University of Illinois Chicago (UIC) law professor Jason Kilborn.

Just before the first class on the first day of the spring semester this year, UIC’s administration abruptly suspended Kilborn from teaching. He said the administration would not explain what the basis for the indefinite suspension was when he asked.

“This hits you like a ton of bricks,” he said. “It was totally unexpected. You’re totally isolated.”

When he finally learned the reason behind this extreme administrative action, Kilborn learned that UIC had violated his rights to academic freedom. 

On an exam the preceding semester he had posed a hypothetical matter to which the law students were to respond. That issue set off alarms among some hypersensitive members of a student organization. Without discussing their concerns with their teacher, they complained to the law school dean, the University administration, and the media, calling his use of certain language “inexcusable.”

Just what momentous transgression had Kilborn committed? He had employed a long-used hypothetical issue in the law school exam that contained two redacted slurs. The question about employment discrimination included a female plaintiff being called “a ‘n____’ and ‘b____’” as explosive evidence of the discrimination. But even redacting the terms didn’t save Kilborn from being targeted by his university.

“Undergrad teaches students to think, but law schools, medical schools — they have to teach students how to do,” Kilborn said. As someone who has taught law for 21 years, he understands that concept, and had structured his curriculum to accomplish that goal.

Explaining his technique, he said, “In virtually every one of my law classes, I try to put that scalpel in my students’ hands and ask them: What do you do?”  “These hypotheticals,” he explained, “really force students, future lawyers, to be confronted with the messy reality they’ll be faced with in the outside world.”

Kilborn was eventually reinstated through action by FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education), but this occurrence paints a very clear picture of some of what has driven higher education at many institutions in our country from being a valuable asset, to being a politically-driven wasteland.

This is not the only case where a professor has been targeted for controversial expression. FIRE research into the rise in collegiate scholars punished for their constitutionally protected speech reveals that fully 74 percent of targeting incidents are successful. What that means is that the target professor ends up with some type of punishment, such as investigations or suspension. And FIRE noted that one in four targeted scholars lose their job.

Working hard to not upset students while trying to help them learn how to deal with the real world they are preparing to enter has become, in far too many cases, more important than the actual process of preparing them to survive and prosper after college.

Another professor trying to cope with this new upside-down campus environment was not suspended. Instead, he decided he had had enough.

Professor Peter Boghossian had taught philosophy at Portland State University for the last decade. He quit his teaching post, submitting his letter of resignation to the school’s provost, and also publishing that letter.

His problems began, he explained, because he started asking critical questions. “Unlike my colleagues, I asked these questions out loud and in public.” The more he spoke out, the more push-back he got. So, he began publishing articles with two other people demonstrating how critical thinking had gradually faded from importance at Portland.

These articles resulted in him being attacked and verbally harassed by both students and faculty. This harassment included being spit on, and being threatened as he walked to and from classes.

When he went to Portland, he believed he was joining a group of professional people that were committed to growing critical thinkers, not machines. He believed his job was not to tell students what to think, but to teach them how to think, he said. But Portland no longer pursues its original mission.

In his letter to the university’s provost, Boghossian, explained, “But brick by brick, the university has made this kind of intellectual exploration impossible. It has transformed a bastion of free inquiry into a Social Justice factory whose only inputs were race, gender, and victimhood and whose only outputs were grievance and division.”

He continued, “Rather, I sought to create the conditions for rigorous thought; to help them gain the tools to hunt and furrow for their own conclusions” based on rigorous research, critical thinking and listening to diverse voices.

The education and degrees so many have sought and benefitted from for so long have, in many institutions, become little more than a certification of successful adopting of a political attitude that challenges America’s fundamental principles.

Helping young adults grow intellectually and gain needed skills isn’t their goal. Turning America into another socialist failure is their goal. And the movement is expanding.

Shakespeare was right: The past is prologue. We must pay attention.

Many of you will remember Richard (Dick) Lamm as a former Governor of Colorado. He ran for, but did not win, the Reform Party’s presidential nomination in 1996. Back in 2003, Lamm attended and spoke to an overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of America's finest minds and leaders.

Among the other speakers was scholar and historian Victor Davis Hanson, who talked about a book he had written titled Mexifornia, addressing immigration, both legal and illegal.

Following Hanson’s address, Lamm gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He said, "If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that 'An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.'"

First, to destroy America, he said, "Turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual.”

Second, to destroy America, "Invent 'multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences.”

Third, "We could make the United States a 'Hispanic Quebec' without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity.”

"I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America reinforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities."

"Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50 percent dropout rate from high school."

"My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and businesses to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of 'Victimology.'”

"My sixth plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other — that is, when they are not killing each other.” He said. 

“A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity! Unity is what it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshiped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic Games.”

"Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits — make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' I would find a word similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century — that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'x! xenophobes' halt discussion and debate."

"Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis's book Mexifornia. His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book."

There was no applause. The audience sat in stunned silence. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm had said was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States right then.

As stunned as the audience was in 2003, should we not be more stunned today?

FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform) reported that in 2019 there were 14.3 million illegal aliens — the politically correct term for which is “undocumented immigrants” — in the U.S. That is the number of “known” illegals, and it is rising daily. Are these millions all assimilating by learning to speak English and adopting American values?

Has not the focus on diversity taken a big jump, even in the military, where such distractions are a true threat to our national security? Is America not more divided than it has been for many decades?

Are there not far more “racists” in the country day-by-day, as we are told? And victimhood is at an all-time high, as small sub-groups now spurn long-accepted standards and clamor for attention and acceptance?

Have we not noticed our educational standing among nations having dropped over the last several years? The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development rated the U.S. the sixth best education system behind Canada, Japan, Israel, Korea and the United Kingdom.

Do we not see the danger of the anti-testing movement and lowering or eliminating some standards for high school graduation? Oregon has eliminated reading, writing and math requirements to “help” certain student groups?

In a recent poll by Politico’s “Morning Consult,” 61 percent of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track. Like George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, Lamm’s speech was prescient.

Democrats want to control how the states manage their own elections

 

Hurricane Ida’s destruction and the colossal Biden Afghanistan blunder dominate the news. And given the enormous impact of these two catastrophes, that is entirely appropriate. Yet, there are other things of importance that continue to move forward, that are covered up by the “big news” of the day.

One of those other things is alive and well in Congress. H.R. 4, the illegitimate offspring of H.R.1 and S.1 — known inappropriately as the “For the People Act of 2021” — moves in the same direction: aiding the federal government in taking control of election procedures that belong to the states, and weakening the election system.

The Heritage Foundation, hated by many on the left for its accurate perspective, had this to say about the “For the People Act of 2021”: “H.R. 1 would federalize and micromanage the election process administered by the states, imposing unnecessary, unwise, and unconstitutional mandates on the states and reversing the decentralization of the American election process —which is essential to the protection of our liberty and freedom,” the summary began. 

“It would (among other things) implement nationwide the worst changes in election rules that occurred during the 2020 election; go even further in eroding and eliminating basic security protocols that states have in place; and interfere with the ability of states and their citizens to determine the qualifications and eligibility of voters, ensure the accuracy of voter registration rolls, secure the fairness and integrity of elections, and participate and speak freely in the political process.”

Since H.R. 1 and S. 1 were not passed by Congress, this new effort to destroy our election security — H.R. 4 — is now alive and well. It has been named the “John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021.” Naming it after a deceased and respected gentleman is a good thing to do, and has the added advantage of helping to disguise its true purpose.

“H.R. 4’s goal is to eviscerate the right of states to manage their own elections with appropriate transparency and ballot-security safeguards. It will attempt to misuse the 1965 Voting Rights Act to achieve this goal,” the Real Clear Politics (RCP) evaluation begins. 

“’Preclearance’ is central to H.R. 4 — this plank of the law would require every state election official to submit any election law changes to the Department of Justice for approval. In short, Democrats want states to ask Washington, D.C., for permission to pass local laws that would, for example, require voter ID — a policy that polls consistently find roughly 80% of Americans in support,” RCP continues. 

“Joe Biden and Democrats want their politicized Department of Justice to control how states manage their own elections,” RCP wrote, adding that the “Department of Justice is currently trying to strong-arm states into making their elections less secure and transparent, and Joe Biden wants to expand its mandate to control every aspect of state-level elections.”  

The U.S. Constitution, which controls how our government operates, very deliberately, and wisely, leaves much authority to the states. A country where everything is controlled by the federal government is not what America is or was ever supposed to be. In fact, without the necessary support from the individual states, there would be no federal government for the likes of Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and the rest to try to commandeer, by hook or by crook. 

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of U.S. Constitution states: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing [sic] Senators.”

While the Elections Clause does give the Congress the authority to “make or alter such Regulations,” that does not mean that Congress actually has the authority to replace all state legislatures’ decisions on how their state will hold elections. If the Clause was actually intended to empower Congress to change all election laws nationwide to suit its desires, the Founders would not have written the first half of the Clause that gives that authority to state legislatures.

We have been taught — through outright lessons of failure, or by our elders, if we had sense enough to listen to them — that we must protect the things that are most valuable to us. One of those things is the right and duty to vote. Through voting, American citizens steer their country forward.

Yet, despite that voting is one of the most sacred, most valuable of our rights, there are those who would subvert that process for their own selfish, political purposes.

Mailing out thousands or millions of unrequested election ballots, and not absolutely verifying voter’s identification are just stupid, and put election security at risk. And there are other actions that Congressional Democrats favor that weaken ballot security and invite fraud.

Common sense, which unfortunately is a tool too often not used, dictates making sure that every vote is cast by an eligible voter in that voter’s proper precinct. Yes, that sometimes causes inconvenience. But that is a small price to pay for a secure election system that our nation depends upon.