We must not yield to those seeking global governance

May 28, 2024

Some of the countries on Earth are independent. Some are voluntarily members of a group. Others are ruled and totally controlled by another country. America, blessedly, is an independent nation, and has been since 1776.

When our country was organizing after declaring and winning its independence from the British empire, the Founders worked hard and long to design a nation that would be sustainable, successful and somewhat unique.

Their design has proven to be a very good one. “Today, it parallels old empires like Rome and Britain in scope, aesthetics, and influence,” WorldAtlas online notes. “Rome's legal system, infrastructure, and language permeated the known world, much like the USA's cultural exports, English language, and democratic principles. Britain's former naval prowess and colonies echo the USA's global military bases and economic reach. However, the USA differs in its soft power emphasis, using cultural, economic, and political influence more than direct colonial control.”

The WorldAtlas description continues: “Fueled by immigration, innovation, and resources, it emerged as a global power post-WWII. Its strengths lie in its diversified, technologically-advanced economy, military supremacy, and cultural influence. Furthermore, as it occupies a fairly isolated continent, it is currently near-impossible to successfully invade.”

For nearly 250 years the US has been a nation of individual freedom that has made great contributions to life on Earth. Its government has held fairly strong on the ideals upon which it was built, including being an important nation in the interests of the world, using its influence and strength generally for its benefit as well as the common good, and at the same time maintaining and protecting its national independence.

The USA belongs to and participates in many international organizations, offering its knowledge and wisdom to help solve international problems. And it is the wisdom of our unique design that has allowed the US to provide such leadership to the rest of the world.

There are political and ideological factions within the country that actually want to abandon what made America the great, often world-leading nation it became. Their desires and actions have often been in plain sight for many years, and their actions have actually moved the country in small steps toward that goal.

Included in this movement is a path toward one-world government. Organizations like the United Nations, the World Economic Forum and the World Health Organization seek to control some of what many or all nations do, or perhaps to be part of a world government.

An attitude contrary to things the US currently and historically does is alive and well, and factions in the US seem all too eager to change them.

One example of shifting national control to an international agency is the plan supported by the Biden administration to give away American sovereignty by supporting two World Health Organization (WHO) treaties. This has received very little public discussion.

Signing onto these treaties would transfer to the WHO the rights of states to make decisions on public health. However, the federal government does not possess the right to do this under the U.S. Constitution, even if taking this action was a sensible thing to do. And, we must recognize that anything that subverts the nation’s ability to make its own decisions to another nation or international body is foolish in the extreme.

This action is opposed by the Republican Attorneys General in 22 states. In a letter put together by Montana’s Attorney General, Austin Knudsen, the AGs said, “We will resist any attempt to enable the WHO to directly or indirectly set public policy for our citizens.”

This significant threat to our independence and national sovereignty is discussed on ConservativeHQ.com, a site operated by Richard A. Viguerie. It says, “The WHO will discuss drafts of its proposed pandemic agreement and amendments to the International Health Regulations at the upcoming World Health Assembly, May 27 to June 1. The proposals aim to give the WHO more authority to prevent, prepare for and respond to pandemics.”

The 22 Attorneys General believe that these amendments would “transform the WHO from an advisory, charitable organization into the world’s governor of public health.”

And ConservativeHQ notes that “[a]t the end of May, President Biden intends to join other nations in supplanting our Constitution and the liberties it guarantees with something called ‘global governance.’”

“Their plan, which has been stealthily negotiated for several years at the World Health Organization, would permit no informed debate – let alone require the approval of the American people through their elected representatives in the United States Senate.”

This is wrong on many levels. It goes against our Constitution, and the idea of an independent constitutional republic that it created.

Because of its unique design the US has amassed great successes over its nearly 250 years of existence. It must not become just one of dozens or hundreds of nations following a path determined for it by others. Many of them hope to see the US lose its independence, and become a nation of sheep doing what they are told by the elite globalists. 

We the people must make the important determinations for our country, and protect the freedoms the Founders so judiciously provided for the people.

Basic education in America is falling short of what is needed

May 21, 2024

In the last few years there has been much criticism of both public education and higher education. Stories abound regarding the changing of education into indoctrination in many public schools and school systems, and colleges and universities.

It got so bad that when parents attended school board meetings to express their concern and displeasure, they were sometimes hassled by security and police personnel. And the U.S. Department of Justice even went so far as to label some of them as “domestic terrorists.”

While these unauthorized and often secret changes in the curriculum are dishonest, some of them are truly dangerous. Some schools or teachers not only keep parents from knowing that their children are interested in changing genders, for example, some of them are actively encouraging it.

Colleges and universities are suspected of teaching students not how to think, but they instead are pushing political points of view about what to think on important issues.

Another side of the education situation is what is happening to the actual level of education taking place. On this topic, The Daily Signal, a digital news platform of The Heritage Foundation, has recently published some statistics that truly ought to alarm every American, and especially those in the school systems dealt with in the story.

The Signal story discusses the spending on education in Connecticut, Idaho, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Utah, Vermont, and Washington, DC, along with their level of performance as measured by the Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

The state which spent the most in “current expenditures” in FY2022 was New York, laying out $29,284 per pupil.

The Signal noted that “[c]urrent expenditures comprise expenditures for the day-to-day operation of schools and school districts for public elementary and secondary education, including expenditures for staff salaries and benefits, supplies, and purchased services,” according to the NCES. “General administration expenditures and school administration expenditures are also included in current expenditures,” it added.

According to the NAEP, New York had only 28 percent of eighth grade students scoring proficient or better in mathematics, and just 32 percent were proficient or better in reading.

Spending a little less money than New York was Washington, D.C., at $28,128 in current expenditures per pupil. But proficiency did not measure up. For mathematics, only 16 percent were proficient or better, and only 22 percent made the grade in reading.

Showing better proficiency than New York or D.C. was New Jersey, where per-pupil spending was $25,550. Mathematics = 33 percent, reading = 42 percent.

Vermont and Connecticut followed, with spending of $25,073, and $23,868, respectively. Vermont: mathematics = 27 percent, reading = 34 percent. Connecticut: mathematics = 30 percent, reading = 35 percent.

In the per-pupil rankings, three other New England states followed. Massachusetts spent $22,778; Rhode Island spent $20,498; and New Hampshire spent $20,424. Massachusetts: mathematics = 35 percent, reading = 40 percent. Rhode Island: mathematics = 24 percent, and reading = 31 percent. And, New Hampshire: mathematics = 29 percent, reading = 33 percent.

Utah and Idaho spent significantly less per-pupil, but didn’t do worse in ratings and in some cases were better than the higher-spending systems.

Utah spent just $9,496 per-pupil: mathematics = 35 percent, reading = 36 percent. Idaho spent $9,662 per-pupil and scored 32 percent in both math and reading.

The Signal also published some data on Catholic schools, at which parents pay tuition for their children to attend, in addition to the taxes they pay that support public education. “The average tuition at Catholic elementary schools in 2023, according to U.S. News and World Report, was $4,840. The average tuition at Catholic high schools was $11,240,” the story said.

And, it added that “students at Catholic schools score better on these NAEP tests than students at public schools.”

It should be noted that the FY2022 data was affected to some degree by the COVID virus and its effects on school operations. However, the 2022 numbers were not very much lower than the previous survey data from FY2019.

The Signal story did not cover all states, and we may assume that some states did much better than those listed. However, any school system that produces proficiency for fewer than 50 percent of students, has a serious problem.

And these low scores are not limited to these particular states and D.C. The NAEP Report Card for 2022 in reading shows that “the average reading score for eighth-grade students was 3 points lower than 2019. Average scores are reported on the NAEP reading scale that ranges from 0 to 500.”  The score for 2019 was 263, and for 2022 was 260. And only two states had higher scores in reading in 2022 than they had in 2019.

NCES data shows rising scores in both math and reading starting in FY1990/1991 on a 500-point scale. Reading scores rose from 211 to 221 in FY2012 before dropping to 215 in FY2022. Math scores rose from about 235 to 241, then dropped to 234 in FY2022.

Our country’s future depends on younger generations that can function at a high level. The information provided indicates that we will not meet that need.

The basis of pro-Hamas, anti-Israel protests is faulty and wrong

May 14, 2024

The anti-Israel, pro-Hamas protests on college and university campuses continue, complete with law-breaking and violence. The protesters attempt to defend their illegal and violent behavior by claiming their actions are protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

But like so much else that these confused young people believe, while the First Amendment protects free speech, free speech does not include vandalism, trespassing, violence, and illegal harassment of individuals and groups. Actions such as blocking people from entering campus buildings, or taking control of school facilities, or interfering with school activities are not speech. 

They are crimes. And those crimes turn what could and should have been peaceful protests into riots.

Such activities are what finally moved the administrations of some institutions to say, “enough is enough,” and bring in police to break up the protests, and even to arrest some of the protesters. Whether those charged with improper behavior will actually suffer the consequences of their behavior remains to be seen.

Once the authorities became involved, moving people out of the encampments and arresting them, what so often was suspected was proven to be true: many of the protesters/rioters are not students or in any way connected with the school where they gathered.

They quite frequently were members of activist groups that sponsored the encampments, and even in some cases were being paid to condemn Israel.

While they may have earned monetary fines, suspension or expulsion from school, notations in their school records, or even jail time, with the soft-on -crime attitude of so many incompetent prosecutors, they may only get a slap on the wrist.

Much of the emotion behind this criminal behavior results from ignorance and misinformation about Israel’s history and the action it took following the October 7 terrorist attack by Hamas that took some 1,200 innocent lives.

An authoritative look into this situation by Victor Davis Hanson, who is an historian at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and was published by The Daily Signal, focuses on “10 Most Common Pro-Hamas Lies About Israel.”

One lie is the claim by the protesters that Israelis are “settlers” and “colonists.” Jewish students are even sometimes told to “go back to Poland.”

But it is no secret to anyone wanting to know the truth that the general region that is now the state of Israel has been occupied by the Jewish people for more than 3,000 years.

Of the charge that the Gaza Strip was occupied by Israel, Hanson wrote, “The Gaza Strip, adjacent Israel, was autonomous. The Israeli border is closed, but so is the Egyptian border. There have not been any Jews in Gaza for nearly two decades.

“So on Oct. 7, Gaza was not occupied by Israel. It was under the control of Hamas, designated by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization.

“After being elected to power in 2006, Hamas canceled all subsequent elections and ruled as a dictatorship. Gaza forbids Jews from entering Gaza and has driven out most Christians.”

Israel is also accused of targeting civilians. But Hanson points out that after the October 7 attack the Hamas terrorists ran back to Gaza and “hid in tunnels and bases beneath hospitals, schools, and mosques,” using Palestinians as screens against Israel’s counter-attacks, insuring that some of them would be killed.

“Outside assessors have concluded that Israel has not inadvertently killed a greater ratio of civilians to terrorists compared to most other urban fighting conflicts elsewhere,” Hanson wrote, “and perhaps even fewer than American engagements in Mosul and Fallujah.”

On the charge that Israel produced a response that was “disproportionate” to the Hamas slaughter, Hanson provides some numbers.

“Iran tried to send 320 missiles and rockets into Israel. Israel replied with three. Hamas launched 7,000 rockets into Israel and slaughtered 1,200 Israelis before the Israel Defense Forces responded in Gaza, often dropping leaflets and sending texts to forewarn [Palestinian] citizens.”

The only disproportionate aspect of this is the much higher effectiveness of Israel’s response to the Hamas terrorism.

The clearly incorrect suggestion that Israel is attempting genocide, to wipe out the Palestinian people, like the other lies Hanson lists, falls with a loud thump when faced with reality and the history of the Jewish people with Palestinians.

Hanson: “Before Oct. 7, some 20,000 Gazans a day requested to work in Israel — on the correct expectation of much higher wages and humane treatment.

“If Hamas had come out of its tunnels, separated from its impressed civilian shields, released its surviving Israeli hostages, and either openly fought the Israel Defense Forces or surrendered the organizers of the Oct. 7 massacre, no Gaza civilians would have died.

“According to Hamas’ questionable ‘genocide’ figures, roughly 4 percent of the Gazan population died during the Israeli military response to Oct. 7. At least a third to almost half of those deaths, according to various international observers, were Hamas terrorists.”

If the lies and distortions of Israel’s obligatory response to Hamas’ terrorism isn’t bad enough, President Joe Biden gross failure to fully support Israel in its time of need is unforgiveable. This decision is one more item added to Biden’s long list of sometimes deadly catastrophes and failures of leadership.

Our government spends too much, and taxes the people too much

April 7, 2024

Several weeks ago, as the April tax filing deadline neared, Facebook featured some comments about how Americans feel about taxes.

Among those comments were these: 

** The biggest scam in life: Paying taxes on money you make; taxes on money you spend; and taxes on things you own that you already paid taxes on with already taxed money.

** Paying taxes in the USA is like having a never-ending car payment on a car that won't run.

** If your country has enough money to give to illegals, your taxes are too high.

** If they can pay all these student loans, they can stop taxes on seniors!

Clearly, taxes are not popular with the American people, despite the need for the government to collect taxes to pay its bills.

Founder Benjamin Franklin in the very early days of the republic said the only two certainties in life are death and taxes. But he wasn't talking about income taxes, because they did not exist then.

In order to help pay for the Civil War, the United States government imposed its first personal income tax, on August 5, 1861, as part of the Revenue Act of 1861. Tax rates were 3 percent on income exceeding $600 and less than $10,000, and 5 percent on income exceeding $10,000. But this tax didn’t last very long. There were other income taxes of short duration.

The income tax we pay today came into existence in 1913 when the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. It was a tax on incomes of both individuals and corporations. 

As much as people dislike the taxes they must pay, they generally understand that taxes are necessary for governments at the federal, state, and local levels to operate. And here in America, with our commitment to personal freedom, those governments are expected to be lean, efficient, not overbearing, and not overly expensive.

On the federal level, those characteristics are not being followed as our Founders expected.

USA Facts tells us that the “federal government collected nearly $4.5 trillion in revenue in fiscal year 2023 (FY2023). About half was collected through individual income taxes, while 37 percent was through payroll taxes. Other revenue sources included corporate income taxes, customs duties, and sales taxes.”

However, the report continues, the “federal government spent almost $6.2 trillion in FY 2023, including funds distributed to states, Medicare, Social Security, defense and veterans, transfers to states, interest on the debt, and aid to individuals such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and refundable tax credits accounted for 90 percent of spending.”

Worldometer online said that “the current population of the United States of America is 341,531,428 as of Sunday, May 5, 2024.” That’s about $13,000 in federal income collected per person. Spending, however, ran up to more than $18,000 per person.

Today, the National Debt stands at roughly $34 trillion. In 2006 the National Debt was around $8 trillion. A steady increase put it at about $23 trillion in 2020. And then the government stepped on the gas and the National Debt soared by $11 trillion in just 4 years to today’s $34 trillion. As a result, the per person amount to clear the National Debt today is more than $99,500.

The federal government is not as designed: small and limited in function. Today, it is too big, too expensive, not very efficient, and often quite over-bearing.

There are 15 executive departments and hundreds of federal agencies and commissions, employing approximately 1,427,700 federal employees, not including the military. Given the limited government philosophy of the Founders, many/most of these are not appropriate.

Which ones are needed? Here are a few of those executive branch departments that are sensible and needed: Department of Justice, Department of Defense, Department of State, and Department of the Treasury. While others may function well and sometimes provide positive guidance, are they really appropriate under the founding principles?

Why do we need a federal Department of Education to tell states how to educate the young? Why do we need the Environmental Protection Agency to tell private land owners what they can and cannot do with their own property? Why do we need a Department of Labor to tell businesses how they must operate? Under our system of federalism, these and other functions should be under control of the states, not the federal government.

In many of these departments, agencies or commissions unelected bureaucrats set rules in place with the force of law, complete with penalties. However, they are not approved by Congress, the law-making body. These bureaucrats tell the people that they work for, and who pay their salaries, what they can and cannot do, and can render punishment for them if they do not comply.

Over the decades the limited government philosophy of the Founders has fattened up and grown far beyond what it was designed to be, and what is needed and appropriate.

With every such step, the freedom of Americans becomes a little bit more limited. And if this concept continues much longer, America will no longer be the Land of the Free.

Anti-Israel protests are out of control and badly misguided

April 30, 2024

What is going on in this country regarding Israel’s response to the terrorist attack last October is truly disgraceful. The fanatical protests on several American college and university campuses, which have been virtually ignored and allowed to continue by the administrations of those institutions, are fueled by misinformation and ignorance. 

The protesters chant “death to Israel” and threaten the safety of their fellow students who are Jewish, although they are not often Israelis. And in response to the pro-Israel sentiments expressed in the country, the protesters also now chant “death to America.”

In taking the anti-Israel position, the protesters claim to be pro-Palestine, but that increasingly has meant pro-Hamas, the terrorists who unleashed that horrible attack on innocent Israelis and others in October. Hamas is an Islamic terrorist organization that the Palestinians voted into power some years ago.

Israel has been and is the target of many of its Middle East neighbors where Islam is the religion. Islamic countries have tried over and over to eliminate Israel and its people, and have been soundly defeated each time.

Leaving behind for the moment the hatred of Israel held by these protesters and Muslims, not everyone is so blind to reality.

Israel is a special place for reasons other than just its role as a target of its neighbors. It is a beacon of democracy in an area where democracies are in short supply.

It is a country that despite its history of being targeted has demonstrated religious tolerance, and has made technological and other valuable innovations. It has made important contributions in mathematics, science, medicine, computing, defense, aviation and energy, to name just some areas to which it has contributed. 

And, it is home to those of other religions. The U.S. government estimates the total population of Israel in 2022 at 8.9 million. And according to the Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics, in 2021 approximately 73.8 percent of the population was Jewish, 18 percent Muslim, 1.9 percent Christian, and 1.6 percent Druze. So, if Israel is such a terrible nation, why do so many non-Jewish people willingly live and work there?

The anti-Israel protesters want people to believe, and perhaps themselves believe, that Israel started all of this. It did not. Hamas started it with a violent raid killing more than 1,200 Israelis and foreign nationals, including at least 35 U.S. citizens who were in Israel.

Among the slaughtered were elderly people. Children were killed in front of their parents, parents were killed in front of their children, babies were beheaded and burned to death in ovens, and other atrocities also committed. Hostages were taken. Some have been released, some have died or been killed, and more than 100 remain in captivity.

So, the military actions of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) are not unwarranted attacks on innocent Palestinians. They are appropriate and justified responses to yet another attempt by an Iranian terrorist proxy group to eliminate completely the nation of Israel and every Jewish citizen in Israel. And the innocent Palestinian people voluntarily chose Hamas to lead them. 

The IDF works very hard to avoid injuring or killing non-combatants. However, the Israeli military killed seven aid workers, including three British veterans, of World Central Kitchen when it bombed a clearly marked vehicle belonging to the food charity, as reported by the Daily Mail.

“Israel Defence Forces chief Herzi Halevi … called the killings a 'grave mistake,' which he blamed on night-time ‘misidentification,’ and launched an independent investigation into the attack,” the Daily Mail reported.

The story continued, saying, “Israel is expected to pay compensation to the families of the aid workers killed in the airstrike on a food convoy in Gaza, military sources have claimed.”

In war, things do not always go as intended, as exemplified by this incident. The Israeli forces made a serious mistake, and innocent people died. However, had Hamas not unleashed that appalling, vicious attack last October, this mistake would not have occurred, and other Palestinians would also not have died.

Reuters reported that “protests against Israel filled streets in Brooklyn and escalated at universities across the United States.” These protests have recently grown to encampments, or tent cities, filled with tents that look alike, leading to the idea that these protests are sponsored and coordinated.

“Jewish Left-leaning billionaire and philanthropist George Soros and associations funded by him are reportedly funding the anti-Israel protests at college campuses across the US,” Business Today reported. “The protests, which started at Columbia University last week, have spread to universities and colleges across over 8 states in the US, The New York Post reported.” 

“A large Brooklyn street protest reached a standoff on Tuesday when New York police began to arrest people over disorderly conduct, restraining those who refused to move with zip ties,” the Reuters story added.

Protesters and others are calling for a ceasefire and the release of the hostages. The innocent hostages must be released. But a ceasefire by Israel will only delay the effort to destroy Israel, and kill all the Jews.

These institutions and law enforcement need to get moving and apply appropriate punishment to these students who are over-stepping the free speech boundaries and threatening innocent Jewish students.

It is time to end the foolish liberal soft-on-crime methodology

April 23, 2024

We all remember the incident back in 2020 when George Floyd was wrongly killed by a Minneapolis police officer during an arrest. What followed was a manic anti-police movement resulting in “defund the police” efforts in many places in the country, and cases where funding for police operations were reduced.

We have also seen soft-on-crime prosecutors refuse to prosecute many people charged with crimes; no-bail policies that released those accused of crimes, many with multiple previous charges, back onto the street without having to post bail; and violent protests against police departments that resulted in much damage to public and private property, but relatively few people held to account for their criminal behavior.

How police should react to various situations involving crimes was then “re-imagined,” and new ideas about dealing with crime appeared. While some advocated doing away with police altogether, another idea was that of using “soft police,” where social workers, rather than trained uniformed officers, would deal with crimes and criminals.

Mariame Kaba is described as an American activist, grassroots organizer, and educator who advocates for the abolition of prisons, and all police.

At about the time the George Floyd riots and protests began, Kaba had published an article in The New York Times in which she wrote: “As a society, we have been so indoctrinated with the idea that we solve problems by policing and caging people that many cannot imagine anything other than prisons and the police as solutions to violence and harm. People like me who want to abolish prisons and police, however, have a vision of a different society, built on cooperation instead of individualism, on mutual aid instead of self-preservation.”

She suggests that the problems of safety and justice can be solved by spending more taxpayer money on housing, food, and education, rather than making people pay a price for breaking the well-known and sensible laws.

In the years since this soft-on-crime approach began, crime has increased substantially across the nation, particularly in blue cities and states where this foolish philosophy exists.

One example of this was reported by the FBI. From 2019, before the soft-on-crime mentality appeared, to 2020, following the Floyd death, the national murder rate jumped by 30 percent, the largest single-year increase in history.

Many of us, likely most of us, understand that the system that has been in effect since the origins of the United States of America actually is the more sensible and successful system.

A fellow at the Manhattan Institute, Rafael Mangual, showed the fallacy of not enforcing laws in the traditional way. Police presence, he said, often is all that is needed to deter crime. But removing criminals from the street is also a needed action.

“If a police officer makes an arrest and removes an active offender from the street, if that’s someone who was committing 10, 20, 30 felonies a year,” he said, “that individual being in custody spares the community the crimes that would have otherwise been committed.” Makes sense, doesn’t it?

“In the city of Chicago, the typical homicide suspect has 12 prior arrests,” he continued. “One in five [homicide suspects], 20 prior arrests, these are not just individuals who are being locked up for the first offense and having the key thrown away.”

And he added that crime will always be with us, but removing or reducing the successful practice of having a police presence is “irresponsible.”

As for the public perception of the crime problem, a Gallup poll from last November shows that among both Democrats and Republicans, the number who believe that crime is a serious problem is at the highest point since Gallup started reporting it in 2000.

Predictably, the left responded to the perception of crime being a serious problem, saying it is just a “moral panic.”

But this “moral panic” is the result of seeing what the soft on crime idea has produced: murders, robberies, rapes, assaults, and more.

The Manhattan Institute’s Heather MacDonald understands the fallacy of these current trends towards crime. She noted how criminals have become more brazen and the commission of many kinds of crimes exploded.

Focusing on the increase in retail crimes that the left-wing scholars ignore, she said, “Our criminal justice elites have decided that they would rather subject the property of honest businessmen to mass expropriation than to apprehend and punish looters, because doing so has a disparate impact on minority criminals.” And, she correctly said that these crimes are “not crimes of necessity, they are crimes of opportunity.”

In the criminal mind is the attitude, “if I won’t be punished, why not rob the store?”

“This is not a normal state,” she said. “It is due to a failure of will. The will to enforce the values of civilized society.”

“It is not a ‘moral panic’ to be concerned about the lawlessness that has broken out since 2020, it is realism,” MacDonald said.

After years of being horrified with what has happened, the public is finally supporting a return to sensibly dealing with crime. Perhaps things will soon begin to change. Cities like San Francisco and Washington, DC have begun to make changes. And not a moment too soon.

The dangers originating at the southern border are growing

April 16,2024

Not so long ago those in positions of authority and leadership understood the importance of controlling who may enter our country.

In 2012, after winning election to his second term, then-President Barack Obama commented, “America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don’t have a choice about that.” 

Another comment he made was: “Now I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own.” Responding to what he termed the temptation to do that, he said, “But that’s not how our system works … That’s not how our Constitution is written.”

Several years prior to Obama’s comments, then-Sen. Joe Biden took a similar position. “It makes sense that no great nation can be in a position where they can’t control their borders. It matters how you control your borders. Not just for immigration. But it matters for drugs, terror [and] a whole range of other things.”

However, not long after expressing his true and important position on enforcing the law, Obama did what he said he was not permitted to do: he issued an executive branch memorandum titled “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (DACA). This declaration provided amnesty for young illegal aliens, and also provided other benefits to them. All of that was un-Constitutional and illegal.

A couple of years later, Obama expanded this illegal declaration and added Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA).  These two actions provided provisional amnesty to more than 4.5 million illegal aliens, and encouraged cartels to traffic illegal aliens into the country.

Statistics reported in 2015 showed that while illegal aliens constituted only about 3 percent of the U.S. population, they represented nearly 14 percent of all offenders sentenced for crimes committed here. That included 12 percent of murder sentences, 20 percent of kidnappers, and 16 percent of drug offenders. Those statistics also showed percentages ranging from 40 percent to 75 percent of the most wanted criminals in border states to be illegal aliens.

A Government Accountability Office study found that between 2011 and 2016, more than 730,000 illegals were in federal, state and local prisons and jails, and accounted for 4.9 million arrests for 7.5 million offenses, including drug crimes, assaults, sex offenses, kidnappings, homicide-related offenses, and terrorism-related offenses.

Then came the election of Donald Trump to the presidency in 2016, and his ideas about the border and actions he took were very much the same as the prior rhetoric of Obama and Biden.

Trump’s policies were aimed at reducing the numbers of illegals trying to come in, and were successful. And despite the opposition of Democrats, who claimed Trump had no mandate for the actions he took, the number of those apprehended while attempting to cross the border decreased by 88 percent from the peak under Obama. And that wasn’t because border security was weakened, but because the numbers of those trying to get in dropped substantially, due to the new level border security that was in effect.

But then in the 2020 election voters decided that they wanted Joe Biden as President. And Biden wasted no time in reversing the successful policies Trump had implemented.

The number of apprehensions of illegal aliens at the border in October prior to the election of 2020 was right around 69,000. Interestingly, by February of 2021, just one month after Biden was sworn in, that number was 100,441. That trend continued to increase, reaching 212, 672 in July. And the invasion has continued unabated since.

During Biden’s catastrophic tenure, as of February 2024 more than 7 million illegals have entered the country. Worse than that, if you can imagine anything worse than this deliberate trashing of laws and common sense, Biden has reportedly flown nearly 400,000 illegals into the country, bringing them in without having to cross the Rio Grande and battle the razor wire in Texas, and interact with the border authorities.

After cancelling Trump’s border policies, which dramatically reduced the number of illegals coming in, by executive fiat, Biden has consistently said he does not have the power that Trump had, and cannot close the border. Actually, all he has to do is reinstate Trump’s policies, and things will improve almost immediately. 

As pressure has mounted, he has changed his tune just a little, now saying he is investigating whether or not he can close the border. This “investigation” has gone on for weeks without an answer. Biden and the Democrats apparently are the only ones who do not know the answer: Yes, you can close the border.

Meanwhile, the crimes against Americans continue to rise, and deaths to Americans by drugs illegally brought in, and by criminal illegals who have walked in undisturbed. None of this seems to bother Biden. Or, maybe no one has explained this to him.

But Biden knows exactly what is going on. It’s part of the Obama/Biden plan to fundamentally transform the United States of America into another Venezuela. And the plan is working.

America’s future is threatened by those who want to change everything

April 9, 2024

The future of the United States of America may be less secure than at any time since its inception. The country that has provided so much for so long, and has set a standard that no other country in the world has ever matched, is now seen by a large faction as no longer good enough.

What made America so great? Many things. A tripartite government with no single branch more powerful than the others. Each branch has the ability to respond to the actions of the other branches in our system of checks and balances. 

We don’t have a ruler; no king/queen, emperor or czar. Our leaders are our employees — they work for us! And the President, Vice President and members of Congress are selected at the ballot box by the eligible voters, who choose from candidates that they have participated in choosing. Judges and Supreme Court Justices are nominated by the President and approved by the Congress, and others are simply hired as employees.

Our system provides vast amounts of personal freedom, with a Bill of Rights that guarantees us the freedom for important things, like speech, the press, religion, peaceable assembly, redress of grievances, security in our homes, fairness in legal matters, national defense.

So long as what we do does not violate a constitutional principal or sensible laws, we may do as we please. We can buy whatever house, car, appliances, clothing, entertainment, or personal items we choose.

Our Constitution provided the greatest degree of personal freedom in the history of human beings, but it is being replaced by restrictions on virtually every conceivable area of life. This is not new, of course, but has taken a dose of amphetamines in recent years.

Personal freedom, once a hallmark of the nation, is seen by this dissatisfied faction as a threat to the future. And the secret to a positive future in the mind of these people is a life that is much more controlled, with the bureaucracy having much more authority over the people.

Many restrictions exist on what we can and cannot do with our property, what kinds of things we can and cannot purchase. We are told there are legitimate reasons for these limitations. that is true, up to a point. But the number of federal, state and local regulations is huge, and cumbersome.

And many of the regulations are made by unelected bureaucrats, and are not approved by Congress, but nonetheless have the force of law.

The Code of Federal Regulation has 50 subsections where the government has seen fit to issue regulations that control what we can do, and how it must be done. One example of this was discussed by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) on its website.

A NAM survey last summer found that “U.S. manufacturers’ concerns over federal regulations have reached a six-year high as nearly 100 new major regulations — from 30 federal agencies and offices — threaten jobs and investment.”

Ohio Manufacturers’ Association President Ryan Augsburger noted that “In the next year, the Biden administration plans to issue even more regulations — approximately 3,200, including about 280 ‘major rules’ and 1,326 ‘significant rules.’”

Augsburger wrote that “More than 63 percent of manufacturers are spending more than 2,000 hours per year complying with federal regulations, diverting resources that would otherwise go towards employee compensation, new hires and additional investment in U.S. facilities,” citing the NAM’s Q2 2023 Manufacturers’ Outlook Survey.

He then listed examples of the cost of these burdensome regulations:

** The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed particulate matter rule, which is expected to cost “up to $197.4 billion in U.S. economic activity and endanger as many as 973,900 current U.S. jobs”;

** The Securities and Exchange Commission’s proposed climate-disclosure requirement, which the NAM recently advocated against in testimony before the House; and

** The Federal Trade Commission’s proposal to ban noncompete agreements, which 70 percent of manufacturers use to safeguard their intellectual property.

Negative consequences such as these are not limited to manufacturing; they occur in virtually every area of work.

Our government is too big, too controlling and spends too much. Our national debt is $34.6 trillion. That comes to just under $103,000 for every person in the country.

Is it possible that this large faction of Americans desiring to impose restrictions on our freedoms actually has a plan for a better country in mind? Well, yes, they have a plan. But it is not a plan to make America better. 

Their plan is for a larger, more restrictive government, and much less personal freedom for the people. It is very much opposed to the concept that our Founders had in mind, and for which they created our governmental system. They and their plan are un-American and anti-American.

This continued degradation of the brilliant system we inherited must be reversed, or before much longer America as it was designed will no longer exist. Our freedoms must be restored and protected. And our government must be returned to its intended limited status.

America’s election system has serious security issues

April 2, 2024

One of the great things about being a citizen of the United States of America is being able to participate in determining who will serve us in important governmental positions.

The right to select our governments’ public servants from a list of candidates selected by the people through a voting process is a highly valued one, and governments at all levels have a solemn duty to protect that right, and assure us that the voting process is as safe and secure as possible.

That means using only those elements of voting that are the least likely to be misused.

We were assured that the 2020 election was very safe, and that may be true. But we also have seen evidence of irregularities and illegalities, some of which were implemented due to the COVID virus, and may have been done with the best of intentions. However, in some states, changes were made to the election process without the direction of the state legislature, which is required by the U.S. Constitution.

Plus, we know from history and human nature that there are people who will do anything to win elections, and there are problems and actual improprieties in many elections. 

The question is: To what extent do these problems and improprieties affect the outcome of local, state and national elections?

Where the 2020 election is concerned, there are two opposing storylines on that question.  The purpose here is not to argue for or against one or the other of those storylines. Election integrity is the focus.

The first step in securing elections is making sure that only eligible people can vote. The best way for doing that is a system in which voters prove their eligibility to election officials, and then have a photo ID that must be used when voting.

At one time many years ago, votes were cast on a paper ballot at a polling place by eligible voters who could prove their identity on election day. Ballots were hand counted and kept on file.

Since that time, that secure system has been weakened by the addition of elements that are more easily corrupted. One aspect of that is the idea of making voting easier or more convenient, which has increased the opportunities for problems. 

But voting is a critical element of our constitutional republic, so keeping the process secure is much more important than making it easier or more convenient.  

Voting by mail/absentee voting, and machine voting have entered the process with both positive and negative results.

The idea of absentee voting is beneficial for voters who have a very good reason for not being able to get to the polling place. Perhaps they serve in the military and are stationed away from their permanent address, or are attending school away from home. Perhaps they are elderly, ill, or disabled and unable to move about. 

But sending thousands or millions of ballots out in the mail to all voters to be returned by mail is begging for trouble. Likewise, having ballots returned by placing them in unsecured bins is dangerous, as is ballot harvesting.

Some voting machines do not use or produce paper ballots that can be checked. Machines used in ballot counting or voting can be hacked or programmed to affect vote totals. 

The Associated Press website warned that “Election officials face a long list of challenges this year, including potential cyberattacks waged by foreign governments [and] criminal ransomware gangs attacking computer systems.”

And a discussion on the National Public Radio website added this: “Basically, every election security expert agrees that we should not have lots of people voting over the internet. The DHS, FBI, the National Academies of Sciences - they've all agreed on this point. And there's really more agreement on this point than almost anything else in election security.”

According to the Brookings Institution, a paper trail is necessary. “Election security experts from Harvard, Stanford and the Brennan Center for Justice all recommend the phasing out of paperless voting, and twelve of the thirteen Democratic candidates who have declared a position on election security support mandating the use of paper ballots,” an article on the Brookings website states.

The idea of every eligible voter having to show a photo ID to vote garners complaints that this is discriminatory. But consider the long, long list of everyday things that require a photo ID. Things like buying alcohol, applying for a job, renting or buying a house, renting a car, applying for government assistance like welfare or unemployment, getting on an airplane. This is a precaution that must be taken.

Questioning election results is an American tradition, with many elections having seen challenges. The more election security is the focus, and the more limits we have on the election process to make it more secure, the fewer opportunities for irregularities and problems there will be, and hopefully fewer challenges to the results.

Any process that puts voted ballots at risk of being stolen or changed, or ballots falsely created, must not be allowed. We cannot make voting easier and more convenient if doing that weakens the security of the election process.

Laws are apolitical devices to protect the people of the country

March 26, 2024

A man bought a house several years ago for $150,000. Through the years, he had made $23,000 worth of improvements, and the market was good, so when he applied for a loan with the house as collateral, he valued it at $179,000.

The bank, however, valued it at just $171,500. So, he got his loan, and over the years paid it back on time with interest.

That’s the way it works. Lenders do their own evaluations of property offered as collateral. That’s the way it is for individuals, companies, and even billionaires like Donald Trump.

In Trump’s case, the document his business submitted for loans even has a disclaimer telling the lender to ignore his valuation and do their own, which, they would do anyway.

So, Trump got his loans with the lender’s valuation of his property, paid back the loans on time with interest, and even has the lenders saying they want him to continue as a customer.

Despite doing business this way for years, and that there was no victim that experienced losses from Trump, the New York Attorney General charged him under a statute that — believe it or not — does not require intent to commit fraud or anyone to be harmed by the fraud.

John Myers, the retired head of GE Asset Management, had this to say: “These high valuations may not be true but the banks and other sophisticated financial institutions do their own due diligence on valuations and basically could care less what Trump’s valuation was. Plus, the loans were all repaid, so who was the victim?” 

And when the case went to court, the judge did not use a jury, but decided the case by himself, and has fined Trump over $354 million in damages, and barred him “from serving as an officer or director of any New York corporation or other legal entity in New York for a period of three years.”

The Attorney General said that with pre-judgment interest, the judgment totals over $450 million, an amount “which will continue to increase every single day” until the judgment is paid.

Trump wants to appeal the ruling, so he must pay the judgement amount, plus interest, which totals more than $500 million. That deadline was yesterday.

A spokesperson for the Trump Organization called the ruling “a gross miscarriage of justice. The Trump Organization has never missed any loan payment or been in default on any loan.” This lawsuit is an election stunt to motivate base voters, the spokesperson said.

The Attorney General in this legal matter is Letitia James. She ran for office four years ago on a platform that included finding something, anything, to bring Trump down when he was the Republican president. 

Fox Business Network’s Charles Gasparino noted that what Trump did is commonplace, and it is so common that this case should be laughed out of court. 

“It won’t be, of course,” Gasparino wrote. “James may be the most partisan Democratic prosecutor in the country, but New York state courts are packed with like-minded judicial types who also think Trump needs to rot in jail. Even worse, objective evidence abounds of James pushing the boundaries in using her office to advance her political goals.”

The actions of Arthur Engoron, the judge in this case, are also under attack. Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-NY, the House GOP conference chair, has filed a judicial ethics complaint against Engoron. Stefanik accuses the judge of weaponizing the legal system against Trump, and called on the judge to recuse himself.

As reported by NBC News, “Engoron has exhibited ‘clear judicial bias’ against Trump, including telling Trump’s attorney that the former president is ‘just a bad guy’ whom New York Attorney General Letitia James ‘should go after,’ Stefanik sent a letter to the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct. She said the judge has failed to honor Trump’s due process rights, concerns that she said are exacerbated by the former president’s position as the front-runner for the presidential nomination.”

She wrote that “Engoron had illegally gagged Trump’s protected political speech, violated political giving rules with financial contributions to Democrats as recently as 2018, and ignored a decision on the appropriate statute of limitations in the case. At the start of the trial, Engoron ‘infamously smiled and posed for the cameras,’ she noted,” according to the NBC report.

A term that has come to the fore recently is one that applies to this situation. “Lawfare” is warfare using laws as weapons, and the legal systems and institutions against an opponent, and/or to interfere with an individual's usage of their legal rights.

The term may refer to the use of legal systems and principles against an enemy, such as by damaging or delegitimizing them, wasting their time and money, or winning a public relations victory.

Lawfare in this case was made easier by a stupid law that allows someone to be prosecuted for essentially doing nothing wrong, and harming no one, other than the other political party.

That’s not how things should work in the United States of America, and those that are behind this should be relieved of their positions and disbarred.

The fundamental transformation of the country just keeps coming

March 19, 2024

Being fed up with most everything that has made America the very special place that it is, those on the left want to change how our system of employment works. We have fairly recently seen efforts to replace people getting promotions and raises due to the level of their performance with a focus on DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion). With DEI, getting a particular job or a raise is based upon who they are, their race, gender, etc., not their level of skills and knowledge.

One aspect of this desire for change was posted in a meme on Facebook that said: “Every single job should pay a living wage. If the work matters enough to hire someone to do it, that worker should be able to afford a safe, comfy home; fresh, nutritious food; and fun vacation sometimes, and enough left to save. Yes, every single job, including yours.” 

First, there is the question what a living wage is, and who gets to decide that? A living wage in some cities and areas of the country is very different from a living wage in towns and cities in other places.

This idea ignores the different levels and requirements of jobs.  Some have high demands and greater needs, and higher pay. Others have low requirements, with lower pay. Then there is the background and level of performance of the worker. Under this theory, a high school or college student working a very basic job should earn a wage high enough to satisfy the details of the Facebook meme. Or someone in an apprenticeship learning the basics of a new job should earn a living wage from day one.

The job/pay situation is complicated.

Support for reducing the standard 40-hour, five-day workweek to a 32-hour, four-day workweek has recently gained momentum. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-VT, has introduced a bill to do just that. Under his bill, people will work a four-day week, but be paid for what they would earn working a five-day week.

The 40-hour workweek has been the standard for some 80 years, being brought into effect by the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1940. It has worked very well, for the most part. But, Sanders says that due to advances in automation and other aspects of production, companies can afford to give employees more time off, but keep their pay and benefits the same.

He told a Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions that the economic gains that have resulted from automation and other factors have benefitted CEOs, while workers have still made the same amount of money.

“The question that we are asking today is a pretty simple question,” Sanders said. “Do we continue the trend that technology only benefits the people on top, or do we demand that these transformational changes benefit working people? And, one of these benefits must be a lower workweek, 32-hour workweek. This is not a radical idea.”

However, if labor and machine operation are reduced by 20 hours a week, productivity will drop by 20 percent. Employers will have the same labor costs, but will have fewer goods and services to sell. Businesses will lose income and profit.

The employer will then have to raise prices to compensate for the lost productivity, or hire more workers to take up the slack. More workers may make up the loss of productivity, but that will cause an increase in labor costs. 

Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy argued that the proposal is essentially a pay increase forced upon businesses. And, he predicted that the 32-hour workweek would "destroy some employers" who would be unable to adjust to the new system.

Both of these concepts — first, that every worker should get a living wage, regardless of job demands, ability and experience; and, second, pay workers the same for working 32 hours per week as they got for 40 hours per week — are typical of liberal/socialist “reasoning.” They represent what the great economist and author Thomas Sowell so rightly termed “stage-one thinking.” 

Stage-one thinking is when an idea pops up that delights many, and they react with “Wow! What a great idea. Let’s do it!” They fail to look beyond the attractiveness of that “great idea” to see what might happen down the road. After it has been in effect for a while, the results are most often much worse than expected.

So often, liberal/socialist ideas target and negatively affect businesses, because the proponents of these ideas think businesses are just selfish entities that take advantage of their workers. But businesses provide jobs and make things we want and need. And, being able to work and earn money to live on is a good thing. Without businesses that can operate relatively freely, where would we get the things we need and want?

It is also a good thing that in America anyone can pursue any work area they choose, and so long as they can learn the trade or profession and perform it at a suitable level, they will be happy and can live a decent life.

Recklessly altering this proven system is a dangerous move that will likely produce negative effects on the country, its people and its businesses.

The left does not understand the purpose of our Supreme Court

March 12, 2024

In reviewing the decision by the Colorado Supreme Court to remove former President Donald Trump from the ballot for the 2024 election, the U.S. Supreme Court did precisely what it is supposed to do: review the case and determine if the court’s ruling will stand or not, based upon the Constitution and the laws.

The majority Democrat-appointed Colorado justices — four of the seven —ruled that Trump was an insurrectionist, and therefore should be disqualified from running for President. However, three of the Democrat-appointed justices disagreed with the four. Of course, Trump has not been convicted in court of insurrection, or even formally charged with the crime.

The Colorado court has no authority to decide whether or not Trump is an insurrectionist. And neither do officials of the states, media persons or Democrat/leftist opponents of Trump. That is a legal process that has not even begun, let alone been concluded.

Democrats and other leftists claimed to be protecting our “democracy” by preventing Trump from running. Curiously, in attempting to unilaterally block him, they were trying to save our “democracy” by anti-democratic methods. 

The citizens of the United States who are eligible to vote are who make the decision on who becomes president, not some individual or group with a political objection to someone.

Properly, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the Colorado court, with the three liberal judges joining the conservative majority in the decision. How much stronger a decision can be made?

Legal scholar and George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley assesses this decision: “The fact is that the Supreme Court justices have proved, again, that they are precisely the ‘real Supreme Court justices’ that the Founding Fathers envisioned. The court was created to be able to transcend our divisions and politics. On Monday, a court sharply divided along ideological grounds showed the nation that it could speak with one voice. In doing so, it spoke to the things that bind us to each other, including an article of faith in our Constitution that defines us all.”

Leftists in Congress, the news media, and elsewhere were stunned and infuriated by this decision. They apparently believe that the Supreme Court’s duty is to rule on issues in a manner that suits their narrow and highly political idealistic dreams.

But the U.S. Supreme Court and the nation’s court system is designed to apply the Constitution and the laws in an unbiased and politically neutral manner.

And just imagine what might have transpired had the U.S. Supreme Court ruled as the left believes it should have. Trump would have been blocked from several state ballots, and they would have been rapturous, euphoric, and thrilled. But then, other states would also be able to block candidates. Maybe President Joe Biden would be blocked. Or other Democrats. Or even all Democrats. Another sound reason in the Supreme Court’s decision.

Do those on the left not understand the structure of the United States of America? The tripartite government with executive, legislative and judicial branches that are independent of each other. And a system of checks and balances that prevents authoritarians from taking control is superior to other governmental systems. Without this system we would be as wonderful as China, Russia, Venezuela, Iran, and others.

Or, do those on the left actually understand our system, and completely despise it and want to replace it — by hook or by crook — with a system they can control forever?

Had the U.S. Supreme Court sustained the Colorado decision, the left would be somewhat closer to “fundamentally transforming” our constitutional republic into a one-party, leftist-controlled authoritarian democracy.

This is the end that the left and the Democrat party have in mind and are working tirelessly to achieve.

Even as the left progresses toward a socialist/communist nightmare, it also imposes politically correct rules on what can be said.

The man charged with killing 22-year-old college student Laken Riley was referred to, by “progressive” President Joe Biden, as an “illegal” in his State of the Union rant. The left went crazy, criticizing Biden for that comment, even as they celebrate his dangerous and illegal policy on the open border. Biden quickly apologized for his faux pas.

But the accused, Venezuelan Jose Ibarra, did not enter the country properly, and is therefore an actual “illegal.”

In their hyper-sensitive bubble, they refer to these illegal aliens as “undocumented immigrants,” or “migrants.”

What exactly is the definition of an immigrant? It is “a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence.” And what is a migrant? “A person who moves regularly in order to find work especially in harvesting crops.”

Both are very general terms. To immigrate to the U.S., or to be an immigrant, there is a process. And if you don’t follow the process, if you enter by crossing the Rio Grande and not coming through a port of entry, you are not an immigrant or a migrant; you are an illegal alien. 

That is the correct legal term. It may not make some people feel good, but that is reality. And dealing in reality is far more important than how that may make some people feel.

The United States’ war on CO2 is having no actual effect

March 4, 2024

The idea that our atmosphere is heating up to dangerous levels continues. We are told that the cure to this temperature increase is the reduction or elimination of carbon emissions (CO2).

Looking at how carbon emissions changed from 2000 to 2018, we find that the United States and Europe had reduced their emissions, with the U.S. reducing by 10 percent, and Europe reducing by 16 percent, according to data from the Global Carbon Budget 2018.

As meager as that might seem to climate activists, it is enormously better than what some other nations were doing. India, for example, had increased its emissions by 155 percent, and China had trounced India, defeating it with a 208 percent increase.

Why is CO2 a crisis in the U.S. and Europe if two nations — India and China — are producing almost 15 times the carbon emissions that the U.S. and Europe are eliminating? And, China has been building one new coal-fired power plant per week. 

And more to the point, why should we in the U.S. have to purchase items that produce less CO2 and are less efficient, less desirable and more expensive? Or, why are we are unable to buy or use anymore items that we prefer because of their carbon emissions when all of that makes absolutely no difference in the effort to reduce emissions due to the monumental lack of concern of India and China?

However, in light of all of this we should consider whether CO2 is actually a real problem.

The National Geographic Society and National Geographic magazine published an article which said that “Earth’s atmosphere is composed of about 78 percent nitrogen, 21 percent oxygen, 0.9 percent argon, and 0.1 percent other gases. Trace amounts of carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, and neon are some of the other gases that make up the remaining 0.1 percent.” 

So, CO2 and other gases combine for a grand total of just 1/10th of one percent of the atmosphere. But, let’s look deeper.

Yochanan Kushnir is a research professor at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, in the Division of Oceans and Climate Physics of Columbia University. He explains that of those other gases, carbon dioxide is only 0.04 percent — 4/100ths of a percent — of the entire atmospheric mixture. 

That figure is confirmed by other scientists, who also tell us that 95 percent of that 0.04 percent comes from natural sources, not human activity. Still others say that plant life will do better if the CO2 level was doubled.

While the effort to reduce or eliminate CO2 has affected household and other items, it also had a big effect on a large economic element in our region.

A policy of the Barack Obama administration limited power plant emissions and reduced domestic coal production. The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards policy left power plants with the option of purchasing costly upgrades if they were to stay in business. This forced many plants across the country to close up shop, according to John Deskins, director of the Bureau of Business and Economic Research in West Virginia University’s John Chambers College of Business and Economics.

West Virginia Coal Association President Chris Hamilton noted that these regulations forced six West Virginia plants to close, and hundreds across the country due to the financial burdens the policy caused.

He also said that West Virginia lost nearly half of its coal production, dropping from 165 million tons to less than 90 million tons.

Damian Phillips of WVNews wrote last week that coal production improved somewhat after Donald Trump became President. And Hamilton noted that During Trump’s first year in office, coal production rose in West Virginia alone.

“The state’s coal production stayed about the same in Trump’s second year,” Hamilton said, “but by the time the pandemic was in full swing, production around the country shut down, and it took more than a year for it to recover.”

Those of us living in southern West Virginia, southwest Virginia and other coal-producing areas have seen first-hand the harmful economic effects of the Obama policy. It is a policy that, according to the data presented earlier, must have been based on political ideals rather than scientific evidence.

And Phillips quoted Hamilton as saying that “Energy producers have warned the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Biden administration that continuing with these policies may upset the national power grid, increasing the likelihood for outages.”

Previous dire warnings about climate catastrophe include that space satellites showed a new ice age coming fast; that there was no end in sight to 30-year cooling trend in northern hemisphere; that within five years the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely free of ice; and French foreign minister Laurent Fabius’ 2014 warning that "we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos." None of these and other predictions of catastrophe actually came to be.

Given the long list of doomsday prognostications that didn’t occur, their breathtaking contrariness to climate reality, and the minuscule amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, we should neither worry about, nor continue to combat CO2, and stop punishing the American people by mandating inferior products and unnecessary costs.

What is the solution to the calamity at our southern border?

February 20, 2024

The catastrophe that is occurring at our southern border is currently the most serious national security threat to the nation. Millions of illegal aliens have come across the border with virtually no interference, have been encountered by Border Patrol agents, given a court date several years in the future for which they may or may not show up, and then are released into the country, often being flown or bused to the location of their choice. 

More than a million “gotaways” have sneaked across the Rio Grande without even coming face to face with the Border Patrol, and who knows who they are, where they are, or what their intent is?

This situation has become so intense and wide-spread that the mayors of sanctuary cities are now complaining about the problems this laxness has caused them, with thousands of illegals needing to be dealt with at the cities’ expense (read “taxpayers’ expense”).

Tens of thousands of Americans have died as a result of the lax control of the border that has allowed tens of thousands or millions of fentanyl pills to be smuggled in. Many others have been victims of crimes by illegals, and who knows how many potential terrorists are among those millions coming in from more than a hundred countries, including China?

Despite the painfully obvious failure of the Biden administration to secure the border and protect Americans, the man directly responsible for securing the border, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, keeps insisting that “The border is secure and the border is not open.”

He also blames the ridiculously huge number of illegals entering the country on insufficient border policies, rather than on the true cause: President Joe Biden’s Executive Orders almost as soon as he was sworn in that cancelled several existing policies that were working and keeping illegal entry at a very low level before Biden took office.

But while the border situation may benefit from some policy updates, the problem is that Mayorkas is not following the laws, and chaos is the result. Is not following laws a high crime or misdemeanor?

Finally, some action was taken. The House of Representatives succeeded in passing an impeachment action against Mayorkas on the second attempt.

Republican members of the House Committee on Homeland Security released this statement on impeachment: “After our nearly year-long investigation and subsequent impeachment proceedings, and having exhausted all other options to hold him accountable, it is unmistakably clear to all of us—and to the American people—that Congress must exercise its constitutional duty and impeach Secretary Mayorkas. The Secretary has consistently willfully and systemically refused to follow the laws passed by Congress, abused his authority, and breached the trust of Congress and the American people on numerous occasions. The result of his failure to fulfill his oath of office has been a border crisis that is unprecedented in American history—a crisis that has cost the lives of thousands of Secretary Mayorkas’ fellow Americans.”

The Committee produced reports of its findings in the five-phase investigation, totaling nearly 400 pages, plus interviews with Border Patrol Sector Chiefs:

* Phase 1: DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’ Dereliction of Duty

* Phase 2: DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas Has Emboldened Cartels, Criminals, and America’s Enemies

* Phase 3: The Devastating Human Costs of the DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’ Open-Borders Policies

* Phase 4: The Historic Dollar Costs of DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’ Open-Borders Policies

* Phase 5: The Massive Waste and Abuse Enabled by DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas

* Transcribed Interview Appendix: First-Hand Accounts of the Crisis From Border Patrol Sector Chiefs.

Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee criticized the Republican impeachment effort, saying it was a “baseless sham.” “MAGA Republicans have wasted their opportunity to make progress on immigration and border security policy,” rather than participating “in a conversation about bipartisan legislation,” they said.

But Republicans know, as Democrats should and likely do, that additional legislation is not needed to fix the border. All that is needed is for Biden to reverse his day-one actions and restore the border control that he cancelled in his childish actions against all things Trump.

And exactly how is the Republican effort against Mayorkas different from the Democrats’ twice impeaching then-President Donald Trump, all the while knowing that the Senate would not convict Trump in an impeachment trial?

They impeached Trump twice to make the point that they disapproved of him as President, so it is perfectly acceptable, by Democrat reasoning, that Republicans impeached Mayorkas for his ignoring laws, even though the Senate will not convict him.

Is Mayorkas deliberately lying about there being a crisis? Or, is he satisfied with what is happening, that he and Biden want millions of illegal aliens coming into the country? They apparently like the chaos in the border states and the sanctuary cities, the drug deaths and other deaths caused by illegals, and the potential for some illegals to be terrorists in waiting.

Otherwise, why would they not openly work to fix the problem? Why would they continue to deny that there is a crisis of monumental proportions at the southern border that threatens the very people they were elected to protect?