Democrats are working overtime to change our nation for the worse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another of Biden’s executive orders, this one on his first day in office, rescinded the prohibition of critical race theory (CRT) training for federal agencies and federal contractors that Trump put in place.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Democrats determined to make government work better. For them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is bad spending policy funded by bad tax policy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abolishing honest elections and re-imagining legislative procedures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

Guess what? In Spain there is Spanish supremacy.

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dems are frivolously spending money under guise of pandemic relief

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biden’s reversing of Trump immigration policies is very dangerous

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

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

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

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

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

* to expand refugee resettlement to 110,000 persons annually

* end the "Remain in Mexico" policy

* end travel bans on countries with terrorist concerns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heritage Action cites three major problems with the bill:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many praise Biden for his unifying tone in inaugural address

Published Feb. 2, 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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