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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biden’s reversing of Trump immigration policies is very dangerous

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

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

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

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

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

* to expand refugee resettlement to 110,000 persons annually

* end the "Remain in Mexico" policy

* end travel bans on countries with terrorist concerns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heritage Action cites three major problems with the bill:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many praise Biden for his unifying tone in inaugural address

Published Feb. 2, 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Big tech silences conservative voices as House concerned with pronouns

Published Jan. 19, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This election is certainly one for the books.

Rioting in federal buildings is not what peaceable assembly means

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About Congressional term limits, and this week’s activities

Published January 5, 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

Biden and Kamala Harris, but it possibly could.

Government excess; correcting a wrong; and foolish leadership

Published December 29, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three topics illustrating the troubled times in which we now live

** Lincoln under attack. Again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

** Governors and mayors doing crazy stuff

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

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

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

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

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

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

** Virtual education issues

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best wishes for a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!

Biden and Harris win election in the wild and crazy year of 2020

 

Prior to this year only nine incumbent presidents had lost re-election bids. Given that record, a win against an incumbent isn’t really unusual. Donald Trump, President 45, may be the tenth one, and if so, this one is unusual.

Highlighting the list of oddities of the November 3rd election is pollster Patrick Basham. He is the founding director of the Democracy Institute, a think tank based in Washington, DC and London, UK.

“First, consider some facts. President Trump received more votes than any previous incumbent seeking reelection,” Basham wrote in the American edition of The Spectator. “He got 11 million more votes than in 2016, the third largest rise in support ever for an incumbent. By way of comparison, President Obama was comfortably reelected in 2012 with 3.5 million fewer votes than he received in 2008.”

“Trump’s vote increased so much because, according to exit polls, he performed far better with many key demographic groups. Ninety-five percent of Republicans voted for him,” he continued. 

“We are told that Biden won more votes nationally than any presidential candidate in history. But he won a record low of 17 percent of counties; he only won 524 counties, as opposed to the 873 counties Obama won in 2008. Yet, Biden somehow outdid Obama in total votes.”

Basham goes on to note that winners in presidential races, particularly if they are challengers, usually have candidates riding their coattails down ballot.

But Biden did not. “The Republicans held the Senate and enjoyed a ‘red wave’ in the House, where they gained a large number of seats while winning all 27 toss-up contests. Trump’s party did not lose a single state legislature and actually made gains at the state level,” he explained.

“Another anomaly is found in the comparison between the polls and non-polling metrics,” Basham wrote. “The latter include: party registrations trends; the candidates’ respective primary votes; candidate enthusiasm; social media followings; broadcast and digital media ratings; online searches; the number of (especially small) donors; and the number of individuals betting on each candidate.”

“Despite poor recent performances, media and academic polls have an impressive 80 percent record predicting the winner during the modern era,” he wrote. “But, when the polls err, non-polling metrics do not; the latter have a 100 percent record.” 

So, in terms of predicting the winner of the presidential election, the non-polling metrics have never been wrong.

“Every non-polling metric forecast Trump’s reelection. For Trump to lose this election, the mainstream polls needed to be correct, which they were not,” he said. “Furthermore, for Trump to lose, not only did one or more of these metrics have to be wrong for the first time ever, but every single one had to be wrong, and at the very same time.”

Basham told Mark Levin on Fox News’ “Life, Liberty and Levin” that such an outcome is "not statistically impossible, but it's statistically implausible."

Quoting from the Spectator article, Basham lists nine peculiarities that lack compelling explanations:

1. Late on election night, with Trump comfortably ahead, many swing states stopped counting ballots. In most cases, observers were removed from the counting facilities. Counting generally continued without the observers.

2. Statistically abnormal vote counts were the new normal when counting resumed. They were unusually large in size (hundreds of thousands) and had an unusually high (90 percent and above) Biden-to-Trump ratio.

3. Late arriving ballots were counted. In Pennsylvania, 23,000 absentee ballots have impossible postal return dates and another 86,000 have such extraordinary return dates they raise serious questions.

4. The failure to match signatures on mail-in ballots. The destruction of mail-in ballot envelopes, which must contain signatures.

5. Historically low absentee ballot rejection rates despite the massive expansion of mail voting. Such is Biden’s narrow margin that, as political analyst Robert Barnes observes, ‘If the states simply imposed the same absentee ballot rejection rate as recent cycles, then Trump wins the election.’

6. Missing votes. In Delaware County, Pennsylvania, 50,000 votes held on 47 USB cards are missing.

7. Non-resident voters. Matt Braynard’s Voter Integrity Project estimates that 20,312 people who no longer met residency requirements cast ballots in Georgia. Biden’s margin is 12,670 votes.

8. Serious ‘chain of custody’ breakdowns. Invalid residential addresses. Record numbers of dead people voting. Ballots in pristine condition without creases, that is, they had not been mailed in envelopes as required by law.

9. Statistical anomalies. In Georgia, Biden overtook Trump with 89 percent of the votes counted. For the next 53 batches of votes counted, Biden led Trump by the same exact 50.05 to 49.95 percent margin in every single batch. It is particularly perplexing that all statistical anomalies and tabulation abnormalities were in Biden’s favor. Whether the cause was simple human error or nefarious activity, or a combination, clearly something peculiar happened.

It is stunning that these many irregularities — some that are crimes — do not bother so many people. The breaches of federal and state constitutional mandates in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin — where state officials, not legislatures, changed voting processes — don’t seem to matter.

Will votes cast illegally be allowed to stand? We may never know how many illegal votes there actually were, or what the totals really were.

The 2020 election demonstrates the strong need for election reform

Whether you voted for Joe Biden or Donald Trump for President of the United States, or whether you believe that Trump was defeated by a more popular candidate or by election errors and dishonesty, you should want sensible and secure election systems in place to assure the results reflect the decision of the American people.

Few things are more deserving of absolute security than elections, especially when we are electing the president. And elections are a prime area for problems, as we have seen this year.

The pandemic of 2020 threw everything into chaos, including the election. Efforts to protect people led to a movement to send unrequested ballots — universal ballots — to every voter in several states, some of which had never done this before. That led to more chaos.

As a result of the craziness of the 2000 Bush v Gore controversy, the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform — known informally as the Carter-Baker Commission, named after former Democratic President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker — was formed.

The Daily Signal explained that the commission “was created to address voting and election integrity issues raised by the tumultuous 36-day postelection battle of 2000, which was settled by the U.S. Supreme Court decision that resulted in awarding Florida’s 25 electoral votes and the presidency to Republican George W. Bush over Democrat Al Gore.” 

The commission studied the election processes, and in 2005 released a report with 87 recommendations. The Daily Signal reported on this study and noted that “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.”

James said that “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.”

While several state legislatures did respond to the commission’s recommendations, Congress was reportedly unenthusiastic about them.

The Commission offered seven recommendations that are relevant to the 2020 election. They include:

* Voter ID - “To ensure that persons presenting themselves at the polling place are the ones on the registration list, the Commission recommends that states require voters to use the REAL ID card, which was mandated in a law signed by the President in May 2005. The card includes a person’s full legal name, date of birth, a signature (captured as a digital image), a photograph, and the person’s Social Security number. 

“This card should be modestly adapted for voting purposes to indicate on the front or back whether the individual is a U.S. citizen. States should provide an [Election Assistance Commission]-template ID with a photo to non-drivers free of charge.”

* Mail-in and Absentee Voting Risks - “Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud. State and local jurisdictions should prohibit a person from handling absentee ballots other than the voter, an acknowledged family member, the U.S. Postal Service, or other legitimate shipper, or election officials. The practice in some states of allowing candidates or party workers to pick up and deliver absentee ballots should be eliminated.”

* Election Observers for Integrity - In Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Nevada, Republicans have complained that qualified election observers have been prohibited from watching the counting. The Carter-Baker Commission report stressed the need for election observers to maintain the integrity of the ballots. 

“All legitimate domestic and international election observers should be granted unrestricted access to the election process, provided that they accept election rules, do not interfere with the electoral process, and respect the secrecy of the ballot,” the 2005 report said. 

* Reliable Voting Machines - Voting machines have also been a significant issue in 2020, particularly in Michigan, as one county there flipped from Biden to Trump after a hand recount showed the machine count to be inaccurate. 

The Carter-Baker Commission suggested that machines print out paper receipts for voters to verify their vote was accurately counted. “States should adopt unambiguous procedures to reconcile any disparity between the electronic ballot tally and the paper ballot tally,” the 2005 report says. “The Commission strongly recommends that states determine well in advance of elections which will be the ballot of record.”

* Media Calling Elections - “News organizations should voluntarily refrain from projecting any presidential election results in any state until all of the polls have closed in the 48 contiguous states,” the report states. “News organizations should voluntarily agree to delay the release of any exit-poll data until the election has been decided.”

The other two recommendations were to avoid duplicate registration across state lines, and to prosecute voter fraud. Both, particularly the latter, should be required.

The Carter-Baker recommendations are sensible ones. It’s too bad that Congress and more states did not have the good judgement to implement some or all of them.

Today, the country is paying a high price for their failure to do so.